JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). All these writ petitions involve identical question of law, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of with common judgment. 2. To decide and understand the controversy involved in these petitions, facts of Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2010 (S/S), Basanti Rautela v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another, are being taken and summarized as under: 3. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, respondent no. 1, invited applications for the post of Lecturers in different colleges vide advertisement dated 30.5.2009. As per advertisement, requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was Post Graduation in Hindi, Graduation with Sanskrit Subject or certificate of Shastri issued by Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi with L.T. Diploma or B.Ed. Meaning thereby, the requisite qualification was Post Graduate and Sanskrit should be one of the subjects in Graduation plus either L.T. Diploma or B.Ed. degree. 4. As per condition no. 11 of the advertisement, candidate must possess requisite qualification on or before the date of submission of application form and must indicate that on the date of submission of application form, all the requisite qualifications possessed by the candidate. Last date of submission of application for was 30.6.2009. Petitioner submitted her application form for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) within time stipulated in the advertisement. Petitioner was postgraduate in Hindi, however, she earlier did her graduation without Sanskrit subject, therefore, she was undergoing once again graduation course in Sanskrit subject and examinations of B.A. (Sanskrit) were held in the month of July, 2009 and result thereof was declared on 10.9.2009. Petitioner was permitted to appear in the written test and result thereof was declared on 20.7.2010. Thereafter, petitioner was interviewed, however, despite the fact that she was shown selected, she was not appointed saying that she was not having requisite qualification of graduation with Sanskrit subject on or before the last date of submission of application form dated 30.6.2009. 5. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Rule 8 of Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturers Grade) Service Rules, 2008, a candidate for recruitment to the post must possess the qualification specified against each post in Appendix A. It means, on the date of recruitment candidate must possess qualification and not before it. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Rule 8 of Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturers Grade) Service Rules, 2008, a candidate for recruitment to the post must possess the qualification specified against each post in Appendix A. It means, on the date of recruitment candidate must possess qualification and not before it. Further contends that since the petitioner had acquired graduation degree in Sanskrit subject on or before the written examination, therefore, petitioner must be considered qualified for appointment and her candidature was wrongly rejected. 6. The next argument of Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since as per Rule 8, candidate must possess requisite qualification on the date of recruitment, therefore, condition no. 11 of the advertisement inviting application should be read along with Rule 8 to understand and say that those who have acquired requisite qualification on or before the date of recruitment were eligible. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submits that none of the petitioners challenged the advertisement inviting applications and participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement and now thereafter, it would not be open to the petitioner to say that condition No. 11 should be read along with Rule 8 and should be understood to mean that the qualification must be possessed on the date of recruitment. 8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra and others reported in 1993 (1) SLR 565 had occasioned to deal the definition of “recruitment” and “appointment”. Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 28 has held as under : “28. At this stage, we will proceed to decide as to the meaning and effect of the words “recruitment” and “appointment”. The term “recruitment” connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the word “appointment” means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.” 9. Having read para 28 of the judgment, this Court has no hesitation to hold that process of recruitment starts with enlistment, acceptance, selection and approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the word “appointment” means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.” 9. Having read para 28 of the judgment, this Court has no hesitation to hold that process of recruitment starts with enlistment, acceptance, selection and approval for appointment. In the further opinion of this Court, recruitment process starts with the submission of application form, therefore, the condition No. 11 of the advertisement, even if read with Rule 8, could be understood to mean that on the date process of recruitment starts i.e. the last date of submission of application form, candidate must possess requisite qualification. 10. In another case, Hon’ble Apex Court had occasioned to deal with the same question in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and another v. Alpana reported in (1994) 2 SCC 723 , wherein also it has been held that as per condition stipulated in the advertisement, a candidate must possess requisite qualification on or before the date of submission of application form. 11. Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Ranjana Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and another (Writ Petition No. 297 of 2007 (S/B) decided on 29.8.2011 also held that on the last date of submission of application form, candidate must possess requisite qualification. 12. Moreover, since none of the petitioners challenged condition No. 11 of the advertisement at initial stage and have submitted their respective application form after understanding the terms and conditions of the advertisement, therefore, petitioners in view of principle of estoppel at the subsequent stage should not be permitted to challenge condition No. 11. 13. Consequently, it is held that none of the petitioners was having requisite qualification on or before the last date of submission of application form i.e. 30.6.2009. 14. Mr. M.C. Pant, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat and Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that petitioners of Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2011 (S/S) & Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2011 (S/S), Writ Petition No. 599 of 2011 (S/S) and Writ Petition No. 1046 of 2011 (S/S), had appeared in the examination held by the University prior to the issuance of the advertisement, however, for no fault of them, result was declared after expiry of last date of submission of application form. The Commission sought clarification from the University and the University has submitted that for the examination held prior to the publication of the advertisement and declaration of result thereafter would relate back to the date of examination, therefore, they were having requisite qualification on or before the last date of submission of application form. 15. Argument so advanced cannot be accepted for the simple reason that on the last date of submission of application form i.e. 30.6.2009, none of them were having requisite degree in their hand. 16. At this stage, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel contends that Madhurani Nautiyal, Shina Rai, Sanjeev Kumar and Guman Lal Bairwan as shown in final select list at Serial Nos. 98, 119,124 & 145 respectively were also not having requisite qualification on or before 30.6.2009 i.e. the last date of submission of application form and acquired the requisite qualification at the subsequent stage and they have been selected and given appointment. 17. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for Public Service Commission submits that appointment of Shina Rai has already been revoked/cancelled the moment it came to the knowledge of the authorities that she was not having requisite qualification on or before 30.6.2009. He further contends that now cases of other candidates as mentioned by Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel shall also be examined and if it is found that their selection and appointment is per se illegal, appropriate steps shall be taken by the appropriate authorities for the cancellation/revocation of appointment/termination of their services. 18. Since question of legality of appointment of these persons as pointed out by Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel is not involved in these petitions, therefore, this Court need not interfere in the question of legality of their appointment and this matter ends here in view of the statement made by Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission. 19. Therefore, rejection of candidature of the petitioners cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 20. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 21. CLMA Nos. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission. 19. Therefore, rejection of candidature of the petitioners cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. 20. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. 21. CLMA Nos. 5494 of 2011, 10940 of 2010, 8353 of 2011, 8766 of 2011, 8767 of 2011, 10084 of 2011, 10481 of 2011, 10492 of 2011, 13984 of 2011, 2849 of 2011, 6168 of 2011, 7530 of 2012 also stand disposed of accordingly. 22. Let a copy of the judgment be placed in all the connected petitions.