Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal survives only for appellant -4. 2. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission issued Notification No. PSC/EXM-09/46 dated 30-12-2008 (1st Notification) whereunder applications from eligible candidates were invited and the eligible candidates were asked to apply in the prescribed form. The eligible candidates were required to appear in J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2009 (1st Examination). The posts notified in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 in three services, were to be filled up through direct recruitment process. The conditions of eligibility inter alia include the age limit as provided in SRO 387 dated 01-12-2008 read with SRO 397 dated 15-12-2009. The appellant at the time of filling of application form in respect of 1st Examination was admittedly neither a graduate the prescribed eligibility qualification nor had even appeared in the graduation examination before the cut off date fixed for filling of application form. The appellant filled his application form and was permitted to participate in the 1st Examination. At a subsequent point of time, candidature of appellant was rejected by the J&K Public Service Commission holding that he was not eligible on the last date of filing of application for taking 1st Examination. The appellant feeling aggrieved of action of J&K Public Service Commission, challenged the same and filed Writ Petition before the Court. 3. The Writ Petition having been dismissed, the appellant has challenged the judgment of the Writ Court in this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant after having been permitted to appear in 1st Examination and having cleared main examination also, thereafter can not be denied consideration for being selected and appointed, when in the meanwhile he had obtained the eligibility qualification of graduation. Learned counsel also submitted that the proviso attached to sub-rule ( iii) of Rule 5 of J&K Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 would required to be declared as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel in alternate submitted that in order to save rule from falling foul of Article 14 of Constitution of India, proviso be read down as that would secure legal interest of the appellant. Learned counsel in support of his case, referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Kerela and Ors v. Unni and others reported as (2007) SCC 365. Learned counsel in support of his case, referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of Kerela and Ors v. Unni and others reported as (2007) SCC 365. He has also referred to Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and another reported as (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1 and submitted that his appeal be allowed. 5. Mr. D.C. Raina, learned senior counsel for respondents submitted that the appeal is not maintainable, as the appellant was not eligible on the cut off date fixed for filing of application form, being neither graduate nor having appeared in such examination before the cut off date. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant -- writ petitioner , the relief sought for in writ petition are taken note of: "................ a) Certiorari : declaring proviso attached to Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 5 of Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 as Ultravires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for quashing the same; b) Mandamus: commanding and directing the respondents to conduct special interview of the petitioner for Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Services Examination, 2009, pursuant to the successful clearance of Main Examination by the petitioner as notified by Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission vide Notification No. PSC/EXM-10/68 dated 30th of September, 2010; c) Mandamus: declaring the petitioner as fully eligible for competing in the preliminary examination, main examination and for appearing in the interview for Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Services Examination, 2009." 7. Rule (iii) of Rule 5 of Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, which prescribes conditions of eligibility is taken note of. i) ........ ii) ............. iii) that he holds, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the recruitment rules of various services and posts mentioned in Rule (1), a Bachelor's degree of a recognized University in India or of foreign University declared by Government in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent, to the degree of a recognized Indian University: Provided that candidates who have appeared in any examination for such Degree from any such University the passing which would render them eligible to appear in the examination but the results of their examination has not been declared, shall be allowed to appear in the preliminary examination. All such candidates who are declared qualified by the Commission for taking the Combined Competitive (Main Examination) will be required to produce proof of passing the requisite examination with their application for the main examination failing which such candidates shall not be admitted to the Main Examination. ................" 8. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant on the cut off date was not holding a bachelor's degree and had also not taken examination for obtaining such degree before the cut off date. Sub rule(iii) of Rule 5 prescribes that a candidate must be holding a bachelor's degree of a recognized University in India or of foreign University declared by Government in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent to the degree of a recognized Indian University. 9. Writ petitioner-appellant was not eligible on the cut off date for filling application to seek consideration for being selected and appointed on the post notified in terms of aforementioned Advertisement Notice being not graduate on that crucial date. The petitioner would become eligible for filling application form on the strength of proviso attached with sub rule (iii) of Rule 5 if he had taken examination for securing bachelor's degree before the cut off date for filling the application form. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant had not taken any such examination. The writ petitioner- appellant sought declaration that sub rule (iii) of Rule 5 of aforementioned Rules be declared to be Ultravires to Article 14 of Constitution of India. Assuming for arguments sake that the relief would be allowed in favour of the writ petitioner- appellant and that proviso is declared unconstitutional, what would be his fate thereafter , is required to be seen. The writ petitioner -- appellant in absence of proviso aforesaid would be ineligible in terms of sub rule (iii) of Rule 5 being not graduate on the cut off date of filling of application form. The writ petitioner -- appellant having not taken any examination to secure a bachelor's degree before the cut off date, was having no locus to challenge the rule. The writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the very first day in limine. The contention of learned counsel for appellant are inconsequential because the rule and proviso attached to it, disentitled him to seek any consideration from the Court being ineligible candidate. The writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the very first day in limine. The contention of learned counsel for appellant are inconsequential because the rule and proviso attached to it, disentitled him to seek any consideration from the Court being ineligible candidate. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission's case (supra) is of no help to the appellant -- writ petitioner as he was ineligible on the cut off date of filling of application form. Paragraph- 29 of the aforementioned judgment on which reliance has been placed related to subject papers for holding preliminary examination, which is not the case set up in the writ petition. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we find this appeal without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith connected CMA.