Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order, dated 15.12.2009 issued by the third respondent. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was informed that on the basis of an undertaking given by him on 22.7.2009, he was allowed to attend the Physical Efficiency Test on condition that he would provide the proof for having qualified the Degree as on the crucial date of the examination, i.e., 04.07.2008. Since the proof was not produced, his examination was treated as cancelled as he did not possess educational qualification as on the crucial date as per the notice of the examination and that his interview call letter was also directed to be cancelled. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 2. When the matter came up on 23.12.2009, this court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and also to keep one post vacant. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 20.1.2010, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. On an application being filed in M.P.No.1 of 2010, it was restored to file. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 27.2.2011. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.C.Sangamithirai, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 4. It is the stand of the respondents that the posts of Sub Inspectors was advertised to be selected by the Staff Selection Commission for the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner had appeared for the written examination on 09.11.2008. He was declared qualified for the next stage, i.e., Physical Endurance Test/Medical examination. He was also qualified in the Physical Endurance Test on 22.7.2009 and also declared fit by the medical board on 23.7.2009. At the time of PET Examination while scrutinizing the certificate of qualified candidates, it was found that the petitioner had submitted a provisional certificate, dated 09.08.2008 issued by the University of Madras for his BCA, for which examination was held in April, 2008. As per the provision of the recruitment notification, a candidate must possess prescribed qualification, i.e., degree on the date of closing of application on 4.7.2008. Therefore, an undertaking was to be obtained that he should produce the degree certificate before the crucial date. Since the petitioner was qualified in the medical examination, he was called for interview /personality test. As per the provision of the recruitment notification, a candidate must possess prescribed qualification, i.e., degree on the date of closing of application on 4.7.2008. Therefore, an undertaking was to be obtained that he should produce the degree certificate before the crucial date. Since the petitioner was qualified in the medical examination, he was called for interview /personality test. But he did not submit any proof of declaration of his results before the crucial date. Hence his candidature was cancelled by the impugned memorandum dated 15.12.2009. Subsequently, a letter, dated 22.12.2009 was received from the Controller of Examinations, University of Madras on 23.12.2009 informing that the petitioner was qualified in the BCA Examinations in April, 2008. Based upon the letter, the petitioner was provisionally admitted for the interview and personality test on 23.12.2009. 5. The counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the letter, dated 22.12.2009 issued by the University stating that the petitioner was qualified in April, 2008 examinations and that his degree certificate will be issued after conducting Convocation. It is seen from the notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission that the educational qualification was indicated as on 4.7.2008 as graduation in any stream from the recognized University. As per Note 1, candidates who are not Graduates are not eligible and need not apply for the post. As per Note 2, if the claim of educational qualification is proved to be wrong, then the selection will be cancelled. 6. The only question in the writ petition is whether the petitioner as on 4.7.2008 is a graduate? 7. In the present case, admittedly, in April, 2008 he had written the examination. As per the University's communication, he had passed the degree and the certificate was delayed because of Convocation. It is also seen from the records produced that the petitioner was otherwise selected and recommended for appointment. This Court is satisfied that as on 4.7.2008, the petitioner had passed the April, 2008 BCA Examinations. Therefore, there is no impediment for the grant of appointment in his favour. 8. Hence, the writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to publish the results of the petitioner and if he is otherwise qualified to issue an appointment order. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. 8. Hence, the writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to publish the results of the petitioner and if he is otherwise qualified to issue an appointment order. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.