Judgment : 1. The petitioners are aspirants to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher. The 3rd respondent has issued notification inviting applications for selection to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior) as per Gazette notification(Extra ordinary) dated 30.4.2010. The last date fixed for on-line submission of application is 2.6.2010. The petitioners have already applied for appearing in the State Eligibility Test which is an essential qualification for the post of Higher Secondary School Teachers and the said test is scheduled to be held on 6.6.2010. In the said circumstances that the petitioners approached this court with the following prayers: - (i). declare that the 1st respondent's omission to hold SET after 28.9.2008 till 6.6.2010 is arbitrary and unjustified and the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to apply for PSC recruitment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher(Senior) pursuant to Gazette Notification(Extra Ordinary) dated 30.4.2010. (ii). declare that the 1st respondent's omission to hold SET in time has violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioners under article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case; (iii). issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to declare the SET Results at the earliest at any rate within 15 days from the date of Examination; (iv). issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent extend the last date fixed for the online submission of application by at least one month from 2.6.2010; (v). issue in the alternative to prayer(iv), a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to accept the application of the petitioners provisionally on condition of production of proof of passing SET immediately after publishing SET results. 2. Rule 5 of the Special Rules for Kerala Higher Secondary Education State Service prescribe the qualifications for appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher in various subjects and Rule 5(iii) is relevant for the purpose of the case. It reads thus: iii. Must have passed the State Eligibility Test for post of Higher Secondary School Teacher conducted by Government of Kerala or by the agency authorised by the State Government. 3. Evidently, the petitioners do not possess the SET qualification and thus they are ineligible to apply for the aforesaid post. It reads thus: iii. Must have passed the State Eligibility Test for post of Higher Secondary School Teacher conducted by Government of Kerala or by the agency authorised by the State Government. 3. Evidently, the petitioners do not possess the SET qualification and thus they are ineligible to apply for the aforesaid post. In essence, the prayer of the petitioners is to postpone the last date for the on-line submission of the application in such a manner to enable them to acquire the SET qualification and thus earn eligibility to apply for the post of HSST(Senior). They attribute latches on the part of the first respondent in not conducting the State Eligibility Test even after prescribing the same as one of the essential qualifications for the post of HSST. 4. Admittedly, pass in State Eligibility Test is one of the essential qualification for the appointment to the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher and the petitioners lack the said qualification. The last date for online submission of application pursuant to the notification dated 30.4.2010 is 2.6.2010 and it is definite that the petitioners cannot acquire the said qualification on or before 2.6.2010. The question is whether the last date for receipt of online submission of the application be postponed at the request of the petitioners merely because the Government had not conducted SET during the period between 29.9.2008 and 2.6.2010 and that they are appearing in the SET on 6.6.2010. Whether those reasons are enough to invite interference with the fixation of last date for receipt of applications in a notification issued by Kerala Public Service Commission. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners they are sufficient to grant the main reliefs sought for by the petitioners. To buttress his contention the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar (AIR 1989 SC 1133). The Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the delay in conducting the departmental examinations and its consequences in the light of the facts of the said case. The relevant rule thereunder stipulated a period for passing the departmental examination essential for promotion viz., in three chances which must be availed of within a period of four years. The Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the delay in conducting the departmental examinations and its consequences in the light of the facts of the said case. The relevant rule thereunder stipulated a period for passing the departmental examination essential for promotion viz., in three chances which must be availed of within a period of four years. The said period of 4 years would not be extended for any reasons irrespective of the fact whether a candidate had availed himself of 3 chances or not during the period. An amendment was subsequently brought to one of the relevant rules thereunder and a proviso was added with a view to enable promotion of persons who had completed 9 years of service and had not exhausted all the permissible chances. A further proviso was added thereunder to the effect that such a promotee shall pass the examination at the earliest opportunity whenever the examination is held. Yet another proviso was added to the relevant rule in question to the effect that promotions to the concerned post of Superintendents should, in view of the aforesaid amendment, be given only after ensuring that there are no persons who have passed the superintendent's Examination earlier for being promoted to the posts of Superintendents. In the said relevant rules there was prescription for holding the examination once in an year. In the said case considering the failure on the part of the Government to hold examination for several years it was held that person who had not exhausted all his chances, could not be denied of his seniority and that it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to penalise such person for default of Government to hold examination every year. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and the facts obtained in this case would undoubtedly reveal that the said decision is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this case, the method of appointment is direct recruitment. When persons with prescribed qualifications are available there is no justification at all for the claims and contention of the petitioners. In fact, there is no challenge in the writ petition regarding the validity of the notification and the petitioners have no case that the Public Service Commission have prescribed a qualification which is not there in the special rules as per the aforesaid notification. In fact, there is no challenge in the writ petition regarding the validity of the notification and the petitioners have no case that the Public Service Commission have prescribed a qualification which is not there in the special rules as per the aforesaid notification. In the absence of any such allegations, I am of the view that a notification issued by the PSC for a selection cannot be interfered with this court and even the attribution of omission on the part of the first respondent to hold SET after 28.9.2008 till 6.6.2010, cannot make it subject to judicial review. Prescription of the last date for submission of application also is no doubt, a matter for the recruiting agency to decide and the date fixed by PSC cannot be directed to be extended till the result of SET scheduled to be held on 6.6.2010, is published. Any such interference would definitely affect finalisation of a selection process. In a selection process initiated by the PSC no candidate who lacks the prescribed qualification as on the last date of receipt of the application can be permitted to participate and therefore, the alternate prayer made by the petitioners is also untenable. For all these reasons I am of the view that the last date for submission of application in respect of the selection in question fixed as 2.6.2010 by the PSC cannot be interfered with merely because it would disable the petitioner from acquiring the SET qualification and to take part in the said selection process. In the circumstances I found no merit in the contentions of the petitioners and accordingly, it is dismissed.