ORAL ORDER Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, counsel representing Bihar Public Service Commission and the counsel appearing for the State. 2. The advertisement, contained in Annexure – 1 and some of the clauses of the advertisement, which is creating impediment in the way of consideration of the claim of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Professors under various streams, is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Application. 3. There is no dispute on the basic fact that Annexure- 1 came to be issued by Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission” for short) on the basis of requisition made by the State Government to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors. The number of posts available and the qualification etc. are laid down in the advertisement itself, contained in Annexure – 1. All the three petitioners have responded to the advertisement, but the respondent-authorities are not willing to accept their claim or even give them an opportunity for consideration for such appointment, which has been termed to be arbitrary on behalf of the petitioners. A frontal attack has been made with regard to the cut-off date, which has been fixed, by which three years experience as a Senior Resident or Tutors was required to be obtained. 4. According to Sr. Counsel, the object behind the recruitment is to get talented / well exposed Doctors for the State of Bihar and all the three Doctors are working and have gained experience in some of the best known hospitals in the country. They, however, are not being permitted to participate in the selection on the ground that they do not have three years’ experience as a Senior Resident or Tutor by the cut-off date, which is said to be 31.07.2011. 5. In the Writ Application itself in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8, the status of the three petitioners when they would complete three years of period have been indicated. It is supposed to be 29.08.2011 in relation to the petitioner no. 1, 05.09.2011 for petitioner no. 2 and 13.08.2008 so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned. To that extent it cannot be argued that they have or will complete three years tenure prior to 31.07.2011. It is supposed to be 29.08.2011 in relation to the petitioner no. 1, 05.09.2011 for petitioner no. 2 and 13.08.2008 so far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned. To that extent it cannot be argued that they have or will complete three years tenure prior to 31.07.2011. However, since the three years term is not very far from the cut-off date fixed, i.e., 31.07.2011, a liberal view ought to have been taken by the respondents in accommodating these petitioners. 6. There is serious resistance on behalf of the counsel representing the Commission as well as the State on the submission made in support of the Writ Application. According to them, the terms and conditions of the advertisement have to be strictly read and applied to ensure consistency of consideration of all eligible candidates in matter of public employment. There cannot be a shifting mile-post with regard to the cut-off date and fixing of cut-off date has been done on the requisition of the State after due deliberation depending on the vacancies relating to the year and overall position in the State. If the petitioners are permitted to come in within the zone of consideration even when they have not completed three years of experience before 31.07.2011 there could be many candidates who could also be completing their three years tenure in and around the cut-off date and they could be genuine candidates, who did not apply on the ground that advertisement was very clear and categorical as to when three years experience would be complete for such appointments. 7. Submission of respondents that there cannot be any tinkling with the cut-off date and the eligibility of applying candidates must be in place by the cut-off date is no longer res-Integra as it has been settled by many a decisions including the decision of the Apex Court, one of which have been relied upon by the counsel for the Commission, which is the case of Ashok Kumar Sonakar Versus Union of India and Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 , reliance is on paragraph 11 and 15 as well as 20 of the said decision. 8. 8. Since at the said decision supports the contention of the counsel representing the Commission then no leverage can be granted in matter of shifting of the cut-off date or bring into the ambit people who do not have the eligibility on or before the cut-off date as that will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, if not Article 16. 9. In view of the same and admitted position that all the petitioners would be completing three years period after cut-off date, petitioners have no case for a direction upon the respondents. They will await the next advertisement as and when it is issued. 10. Writ Application is dismissed.