Order I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 6228 dated 31.8.2013 issued by the Additional Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as "B.P.S.C.") by which the petitioner was directed to produce his original certificate showing that he has passed the concerned B. Tech. examination on 23.6.2011 otherwise his candidature in the concerned examination would be cancelled. 3. The petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement no. 2/2011 published by the B.P.S.C. in the newspaper "Hindustan" dated 25.5.2011, applied for his appearance in the examination/test for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Road Construction Department as well as for Public Health Engineering Department and the future vacancy, if any, in the Water Resources Department. It is claimed by the petitioner that in the aforesaid advertisement it was notified that the applicants must hold educational qualification of Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering from recognized Indian University or Indian Engineering Colleges. The petitioner being student of Bangalore Institute of Technology under Technological University, Belgaum, Karnataka for the Sessions 2007-2011 has passed upto seventh semester and completed eighth semester course and had applied against the advertisement no. 2/2011 as no cutoff date for obtaining final degree showing passing of engineering examination was specified in the advertisement. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had appeared in the concerned examination of the last semester between 30.5.2011 to 8.6.2011 and was awaiting his final result. It is also contended that the petitioner qualified in the written test held by B.P.S.C. and, thereafter, interview letter was issued to him on 15.7.2013 but subsequently he received the impugned letter dated 31.8.2011 communicating the petitioner that he cannot be considered for his appearance in the interview unless he produces before 30.8.2011 a valid document showing that he had passed the concerned examination for degree/diploma before 23.6.2011. It is urged that, after allowing the petitioner to appear in the written examination, it was unreasonable on part of the B.P.S.C. to oust him at the time of interview specially when the petitioner had already obtained a valid degree before the date of interview. 5. It is urged that, after allowing the petitioner to appear in the written examination, it was unreasonable on part of the B.P.S.C. to oust him at the time of interview specially when the petitioner had already obtained a valid degree before the date of interview. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has submitted that in the absence of any cut-off date having been shown in the advertisement for passing the examination concerned which would be the educational qualification for appearing in the test or examination to be conducted by B.P.S.C., the last date of submission of the forms shown in the advertisement has to be taken• as cut-off date. Since, the petitioner had admittedly passed the concerned examination after the cutoff date, he was not allowed to appear in the interview. 6. On the aforesaid issue learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that if that• was so then the petitioner should not have been allowed to appear in the written examination itself but after scrutiny of the forms he was allowed to appear and he became successful in the aforesaid written test and, at the 'time of interview, such objection was raised and the petitioner was ultimately not allowed to appear in the interview. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another vs. S.D. Halegkar and Others [(1993)3 Supreme Court Cases 591] in this regard. It is submitted that the Apex Court, while dealing with the identical situation, has held that, in spite of placing all cards before the selection committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose the concerned candidate for the post and the second respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be iniquitous to make him suffer for the same now. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon another decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another vs. Chander Shekhar and Another [1993 Supplementary (2) Supreme Court Cases 611] in which the Apex Court has held that, in order to have wider selection, it was in public interest to entertain applications of the candidates who did not possess requisite educational qualification on the date of application but possessed it on the date of interview despite express instruction in the advertisement that such application would not be entertained. The Apex Court has expressed its view that the appointments made in such case need not be disturbed. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon yet another decision of the Apex Court rendered in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others vs. Dr. Sushil V. Patkar and Others (AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1733) to show that if the petitioner was holding such qualification at the time of interview though he did not possess it at the time of submission of the application, should have been allowed to appear in the interview. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another vs. Chander Shekhar and, Another [(1997)4 Supreme Court Cases, 18] in which the Apex Court has considered its earlier, decision rendered in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another vs. Chander Shekhar and Another [1993 Supplementary (2) Supreme Court Cases 611] and disagreed from it and has held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is, a well-established proportion. Learned counsel next places reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others [(2007)4 Supreme Court Cases, 54] laying down that in the absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing up the application form must be considered as cut-off date. In yet another decision rendered by the Apex Court in Diptimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa and Others [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 687] the same view has been reiterated. In yet another decision rendered by the Apex Court in Diptimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa and Others [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 687] the same view has been reiterated. Learned counsel also places reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu and Another [(2008)9 Supreme Court Cases 403] to impress upon this Court that even some flaw is found during the scrutiny made at the time of interview, the authorities are not precluded from examining such flaw or defect. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible, if overlooked in the screening, would not mean that the candidate cannot be held to be ineligible once the defect comes to light even subsequently. It is submitted that in Md. Sartaj and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others [(2006)2 Supreme Court Cases 315] [: 2006(2) PLJR (SC) 167] the Supreme Court has gone to the extent to hold that the question of violation of Natural Justice would not arise in a case where the prerequisite minimum qualification for the appointment was not fulfilled and that resulted in the cancellation of the appointment. 9. From appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties, the following issues emerge for consideration by this Court:- (I) Whether the petitioner who was admittedly not holding the minimum qualification on 23.6.2011 at the time of the last date fixed for submission of application forms as per the advertisement contained in Annexure-1, but having obtained the concerned minimum qualification before the interview could have been allowed to appear on the date of interview or since he was not eligible on the aforesaid cut-off date fixed for submission of application forms, he has rightly been not allowed by the respondent-Commission to appear in the interview concerned? (II) If no cut-off date is, fixed in the advertisement regarding for holding or obtaining the necessary qualification then whether the last date of submission would be deemed cut-off date? 10. Since both the issues are intertwinned, they are being considered together. For better appreciation of the matter, relevant provisions under Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules") for Works Department of the Government of Bihar are quoted as under:- "6. 10. Since both the issues are intertwinned, they are being considered together. For better appreciation of the matter, relevant provisions under Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules") for Works Department of the Government of Bihar are quoted as under:- "6. A candidate shall – (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx (d)(i) hold a degree in Civil Engineering from an Indian University or a diploma in Civil Engineering from an Indian Engineering College, or xx xx xx 7. (a) The Commission shall announce in each year, in such manner as they think fit, the number of vacancies in the service to be filled by direct appointment on the result of the Competitive Examination and shall invite applications from candidates eligible for appointment under Rules 5 and 6. x xx xx 8. (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise for the admission to the examination shall be final." 11. It would be apparent from Rule 7(a) of the Rules that the Commission is required to invite applications from the candidates eligible for appointment under Rules 5 and 6. Rule 6(d) of the Rules clearly lays down that one of the criteria for such candidates would be to hold a degree in Civil Engineering from an Indian University or a Diploma in Civil Engineering from an Indian Engineering College. Thus, it can safely be construed that if the cut-off date is not fixed in the advertisement then the candidate who applies for such post should be already holder of a degree in Civil Engineering from an Indian University or a diploma in Civil Engineering from an Indian Engineering College. 12. The petitioner was admittedly not holding such qualification at that point of time. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) has clearly laid down that in the absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing the application must be considered as cut-off date. 12. The petitioner was admittedly not holding such qualification at that point of time. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) has clearly laid down that in the absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing the application must be considered as cut-off date. In yet another decision the Supreme Court in Diptimayee Parida (supra) has again reiterated such stand and has quoted a passage from previous decision rendered in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) vs. University of Rajasthan and Others [1993 Supplementary (3) Supreme Court Cases 168). For better appreciation the relevant passage from the aforesaid decision is being reproduced as under:- "10. ............... Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad vs. B Sarat Chandra and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi." 13. So far the decision cited in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another vs. Chander Shekhar and Another [1993 Supplementary (2) Supreme Court Cases 611] is concerned, that decision has been considered in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another vs. Chander Shekhar and Another [(1997)4 Supreme Court Cases 18] and the Supreme Court while disagreeing from the aforesaid decision and has held as under:- "6. The review petitions came up for final hearing on 3.3.1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated 1.9.1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated 1.9.1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ.) is unsustainable in law. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A persons who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been rejected on a preferential basis. Their proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 14. In paragraph 12 of the decision rendered in T. Jayakumar (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- "12. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 14. In paragraph 12 of the decision rendered in T. Jayakumar (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- "12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light." 15. In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Apex Court had negatived the claim of the petitioner that he having obtained the requisite qualification on the date of interview, he should have been allowed to appear in the same. 16. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Another (supra) would also be of no help to the petitioner as in that case the concerned candidate, although did not have the requisite educational qualification to hold the post and despite such defect having been disclosed by him, was selected by selection committee and the Oil rector of Education acquiesced in the appointment. Thereafter, the respondent continued on the post for 9 years till filing of the petition challenging his appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, his appointment need not be disturbed at that stage after remaining in service for such a long period. However, in the case in hand, the defect of qualification had been detected prior to the date of interview and, thus, the B.P.S.C. had directed him to produce the original certificate which, obviously, the petitioner could not do. Thus, he has not been allowed to appear in the interview. 17. However, in the case in hand, the defect of qualification had been detected prior to the date of interview and, thus, the B.P.S.C. had directed him to produce the original certificate which, obviously, the petitioner could not do. Thus, he has not been allowed to appear in the interview. 17. Thus, on consideration of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly no cut-off date for holding requisite qualification by the candidates having been reflected in the advertisement, the last date of submission of application forms would have to be taken as the cut-off date for holding such qualification and the petitioner, admittedly not being qualified on the aforesaid date, would have no right to appear in the examination as well as in the interview. Accordingly, both the aforesaid issues are answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. 18. As a result, this writ application is dismissed.