JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. 1. The judgment and order dated 11.8.2009 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 14 of 2009 is the subject matter of challenge in both the Writ Appeals. Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition is the appellant in W.A. No. 56 of 2009 and Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter refers to as "MPSC") respondent No. 2 in the writ petition is the appellant in W.A. No. 58 of 2009. In pursuance of a requisition made by the Government of Manipur, the MPSC issued three Notifications inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in different disciplines in Government Colleges. The first advertisement is Advertisement No. 9 dated 8.10.2006 under which applications were invited in respect of 17 disciplines and the last date for submission of application was fixed to 30.11.2006. The second advertisement was Advertisement No. 9A dated 27.12.2006 inviting applications in respect of 6 disciplines including Environmental Science and the last date for submission of applications was fixed to 14.3.2007. The third advertisement was the Advertisement No. 9B dated 30.12.2006 in respect of 3(three) disciplines and the last date for submission of applications was fixed to 19.3.2007 and the last advertisement was issued in partial modification of the Advertisement No. 9 and 19.3.2007 was fixed as the closing date for issue and receipt of application forms and also for determination of age. 2. On reading of all the three advertisements, it appears that the disciplines notified in Advertisement No. 9B had already been included in Advertisement No. 9 whereas disciplines notified under Advertisement No. 9A were new disciplines which did not form part of Advertisement No. 9. There were some correspondences with regard to reservation for which the Advertisement No. 9B was issued in partial modification of the Advertisement No. 9 with regard to reservation and number of vacancies. However, it is found that essential qualification prescribed in all the three advertisements are the same. The essential qualification making a candidate eligible for submitting an application as indicated in the advertisement is quoted below: 3. However, it is found that essential qualification prescribed in all the three advertisements are the same. The essential qualification making a candidate eligible for submitting an application as indicated in the advertisement is quoted below: 3. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS: (a) Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 points scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Master degree level in the relevant subject from a recognized Indian University or an equivalent degree a recognized Foreign University. (b) Passed eligibility test for Lecturer (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC), Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) or similar test accredited by the University Grants Commission (UGC). (c) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Master’s level for the SC/ST category. (d) A relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of the marks at the Ph.D. degree holders who have passed their Master’s degree prior to 19th September, 1991. (e) NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer for those with post graduate degree. However, the candidates having Ph. D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG and UG level teaching. The candidates having M. Phil. Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only. The posts advertised are for UG level teaching. 4. AGE 35 years and below (upper age limited is relaxable for Government servants appointed under the Government of Manipur to the extent of the period of continuous service put in the post/service and by 5 years for SC/ST candidates and 3 years for OBC candidates and a Government servant who belongs to SC/ST/OBC will get the facility admissible to be a Government servant in addition to the relaxation admissible to SC/ST/OBC candidates. Further, the upper age limited mentioned above has been relaxed by another 5 years for all categorizes as one time measure by the State Government vide order No. 3/11/2004-DR/DP(B) dated 15.07.2005. 3. Since this case relates to Environmental Science, the Corrigendum issued on 8.4.2008 has no relevance and accordingly we have not taken note of the same. 4. The writ petitioner, Thangjam Bipin Singh, who is one of the respondents in both the writ appeals had obtained his M.Sc. 3. Since this case relates to Environmental Science, the Corrigendum issued on 8.4.2008 has no relevance and accordingly we have not taken note of the same. 4. The writ petitioner, Thangjam Bipin Singh, who is one of the respondents in both the writ appeals had obtained his M.Sc. degree from A.P. Singh University, Rawa, Madhya Pradesh in 2004 securing 57% marks in environmental biology and he was awarded M.Phil in environmental science on 5.9.2005. He also belongs to SC community and had submitted application for appointment as lecturer in Environmental Science. His case in the writ application is that after expiry of the last date for submission of application, a Notification was issued on 16.5.2008 notifying all the eligible candidates/applicants that the Interview for selection/appointment to the post of lecturers in different disciplines would commence from 30.5.2008 and accordingly they were asked to collect their Call Letters from the office of the MPSC w.e.f. 20.5.2008. The writ petitioner, accordingly, collected his Call Letter and faced the interview. From the notification dated 15.12.2008, he came to know that Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi, respondent No. 3 in the writ petition and appellant in W.A. No. 56 of 2009 had been recommended by the Commission for appointment against the only post reserved for SC in Environmental Science. He also came to know from some source that Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi did not have the requisite qualification on the cut-off date and accordingly submitted an application on 7.1.2009 before the MPSC for furnishing list of SC candidates who had submitted application forms for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Environmental Science along with all required information such as date of submission of application forms and educational qualification. 5. The MPSC did not supply the information sought for as a result of which he approached the State Chief Information Commissioner on 10.2.2009 who was pleased to direct the Joint Secretary of MPSC to submit his comments. Subsequently, an order was passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner on 27.2.2009 fixing the matter to 5.2.2009 for filing objection. The Commissioner, thereafter, informed the State Chief Information Commissioner that there were two SC candidates who appeared in the interview held on 6.6.2008 for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science. The petitioner and Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi were the only two candidates. The Commissioner, thereafter, informed the State Chief Information Commissioner that there were two SC candidates who appeared in the interview held on 6.6.2008 for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science. The petitioner and Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi were the only two candidates. On examination of the documents furnished by MPSC, the petitioner entertained a doubt with regard to Ph.D. degree obtained by Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi prior to cut-off date and accordingly filed writ application on the allegation that Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi had not obtained Ph.D. degree as on 14.3.2007 which was the cut-off date and the last date for submission of application. Since the advertisement did not prescribe any cut-off date, it was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that in absence of a cut-off date, the last date for submission of application shall be deemed to be the cut-off date. 6. In contra, MPSC has filed affidavit in-opposition in the writ petition and took the stand that in order to have broad based selection, Commission took a decision on 29.5.2008 to allow all and every candidate who had acquired requisite qualifications as on 29.5.2008 to appear and participate in the selection test considering the fact that the process of selection and appointment of lecturer had not been undertaken for considerable length of time. The stand taken by Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi was that by 14.3.2007 which was the last date for submission of application, the Committee had already recommended conferment of Ph.D. in her favour, but the Registrar of the University could not issue the Certificate before the said date. But for all practical purposes, she had already been declared eligible for Ph.D. degree before 14.3.2007. 7. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors : (2007) 4 SCC 54 and came to the conclusion that in absence of a cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date of filing application must be considered as the cut-off date. It was, further, held that possession of requisite educational qualifications is mandatory and if a candidate does not hold any requisite qualification on the cut-off date, such candidate is not eligible for the post in question. It was, further, held that possession of requisite educational qualifications is mandatory and if a candidate does not hold any requisite qualification on the cut-off date, such candidate is not eligible for the post in question. If a candidate without requisite qualifications on the cut-off date is allowed to participate successfully in the selection test followed by appointment to the post in question, such appointment is illegal and shall be treated as NON EST in the eye of law. Reliance was also placed in another decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar : (1997) 4 SCC 18 . The learned single Judge in the impugned judgment also came to the conclusion that as on 14.3.2007 Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi was not in possession of Ph.D. degree and accordingly was not qualified to submit her application. Holding thus, the learned Single Judge further directed that acceptance of the application form of Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi is illegal and not permissible and that she should not have been allowed to participate in the selection process. The learned Single, accordingly, set aside the recommendation made by the MPSC for appointment of Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi and further directed that the writ petitioner being the only other qualified SC candidate for appointment against the reserved quota, may be considered for appointment to the post provided he has secured the cut-off mark fixed for SC candidate. The above judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged by Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi and the MPSC more or less on similar ground. 8. Mr. M. Rary, learned counsel for Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi challenges the impugned judgment basically on the following grounds:- (a) Even if the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) is made applicable to the present case, Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi had already been recommended by the Committee for conferment of Ph.D. degree, and only a formal degree was to be signed by the Registrar of the University which he did after 14.3.2007. Therefore, for all practical purposes Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi had already been recommended by the Committee for conferment of Ph.D. degree, and only a formal degree was to be signed by the Registrar of the University which he did after 14.3.2007. Therefore, for all practical purposes Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi had been declared to be conferred with Ph.D. degree before 14.3.2007 as such she was qualified to submit the application; (b) the writ petitioner had neither pleaded in the writ application that he had secured more marks in the cut-off mark in the selection test nor had he prayed for appointment as lecturer in Environmental Science. Therefore, in absence of pleading and prayer the learned Single Judge could not have directed the Commission to consider case of the writ petitioner for appointment as lecturer against the reserved quota in Environmental Science. 9. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the MPSC, referring to Art. 320 of the Constitution of India, submitted that the Commission may not have the power to relax the educational qualifications prescribed in the rules, but has discretion in the matter of deciding as to which candidate is eligible for appointment. It was further contended by him that for a considerable length of time steps had not been taken to fill up the posts of lecturers in different disciplines in Government Colleges and in consideration thereof the Commission had taken the decision to allow those applicants to participate in the selection test who did not have the requisite qualifications on the cut-off date but acquired the educational qualifications after the cut-off date and before the date for interview. According to MPSC, Km. O. Jayalakshmi had already been declared eligible for conferment of Ph.D. degree before the cut-off date and had the degree before the Interview and therefore she was not only allowed to participate in the selection test but also was found more suitable than the writ petitioner for such appointment. 10. In reply Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that admittedly Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi did not possess Ph.D. degree on 14.3.2007 and degree was issued in her favour much after the said cut-off date. 10. In reply Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that admittedly Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi did not possess Ph.D. degree on 14.3.2007 and degree was issued in her favour much after the said cut-off date. Merely because a certificate was issued by the Professor, Chairman and Guide to the effect that she was found eligible to be conferred with Ph.D. degree from 12.2.2007, it cannot be held that she was actually holding the Ph.D. degree as on 14.3.2007. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned, it was contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel that there were pleadings in the writ application to the effect that the writ petitioner was qualified to hold the post of lecturer in Environmental Science and even if there was no prayer in the writ petition, Court could mould the relief even if it is not sought for and pass order which is deemed fit, just and proper. According to Mr. Paonam, learned Sr. counsel the impugned order directing consideration of the case of the writ petitioner is a conditional one and no positive direction had been issued by the learned Single Judge to appoint the writ petitioner as lecturer in Environmental Science. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in directing consideration of the case of the petitioner even in absence of prayer to that effect. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, we are of the view that the following issues require to be addressed:- (i) whether Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi can be deemed to be a Ph.D. degree holder on 14.3.2007 which was the last date for submission of application; (ii) whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing MPSC to consider case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of lecturer in Environmental Science in absence of any prayer in the writ petition. 12. So far as the first issue is concerned, we find that as per the Advertisement No. 9A dated 27.7.2006 the last date for submission of application was 14.3.2007. Neither in the said Advertisement nor in other two Advertisements such as Advertisement No. 9 and Advertisement No. 9B any cut-off date has been fixed. In this connection the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar (supra). Neither in the said Advertisement nor in other two Advertisements such as Advertisement No. 9 and Advertisement No. 9B any cut-off date has been fixed. In this connection the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar (supra). In the said reported case, Banaras Hindu University issued an Advertisement for filling up of a vacant post of lecturer. The appellant therein submitted his application on 30.5.95 and till that date he had not completed his M.D. which was an essential qualification for the said post. He passed the examination only on 30.10.95. However, he was allowed to appear before the Selection Committee despite the fact that he did not possess the requisite qualifications till the date of filing of application. He was selected and offered appointment. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging his selection and said writ petition having been dismissed, matter went to the Apex Court. It was contended before the Apex Court that in absence of any cut-off date in the Advertisement and also in absence of any rule, it was not necessary to have the requisite educational qualification on the date of submission of application and if the candidate had obtained the educational qualifications before the Selection, such selection cannot be challenged. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, held that in absence of any cut-off date specified in the Advertisement or in the Rules, last date for filing application must be considered as the cut-off date. 13. No other decision has been cited by any of the learned counsel taking a contrary view. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi made an attempt to distinguish the said judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge on facts. In order to substantiate his submission the learned counsel for Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore vs. Srikumar Agencies etc. etc. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 942 submitted that blindly relying on decisions without reference to facts is not proper and judgments are not to be construed like statute. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for Km. etc. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 942 submitted that blindly relying on decisions without reference to facts is not proper and judgments are not to be construed like statute. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi that in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) the appellant therein had not completed his MD on the last date of submission of application whereas in the present case Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi had not only completed her Ph.D. but also had already been declared to be eligible for conferment of Ph.D. before the cut-off date, i.e. 14.3.2007. Under the relevant University rules the Registrar was to issue Certificate within a week from such declaration and merely because the Registrar of the said University failed to issue the Certificate, it cannot be said that she was not a Ph.D. degree holder as on 14.3.2007. 14. In order to examine the above submission, we looked into certain annexures annexed to the affidavit in-opposition filed by Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi to the writ petition. One such certificate has been issued by the Professor, Coordinator & Chairman, Adjudication Committee for Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science, Mysore dated 13.2.2007. The said Certificate is quoted below: UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE No.MG/ES/RPL/2006-2007 Manasagangotri MYSORE-570008 Dr. S.L. Belagali M.Sc., Ph.D. (England) Professor & Co-Ordinator Ph.D. Degree Adjudication Committee Report This is to inform that, Miss Oinam Jayalakshmi Devi, a research of this department, had submitted the thesis for Ph.D. in Environmental Science. All the three reports are positive and the Viva-Voce examination was also successfully done by the candidate. She is eligible to get the Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science of Mysore University, Mysore-6. Sd/- (Dr. S.L. Belagali) Professor, Co-ordinator & Chairman, Adjudication Committee for Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science 15. The above Certificate shows that she was eligible to get Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science of Mysore University and such declaration was made by the Professor on 13.2.2007. The Regulation governing conference of degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 2004 issued by the University of Mysore is also relevant for consideration. The above Certificate shows that she was eligible to get Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science of Mysore University and such declaration was made by the Professor on 13.2.2007. The Regulation governing conference of degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 2004 issued by the University of Mysore is also relevant for consideration. Clause 7.16 of the said Regulation prescribes that after receipt of reports from the Chairperson Board of Examiners, the Registrar (Evaluation) shall intimate the Chairperson of the Doctoral Committee of the concerned student under intimation to the Guide to conduct and open Viva Voce examination in presence of the Members of Doctoral Committee, Members of the concerned faculty, research scholars and students by giving wide publicity. The proceedings of this meeting shall be communicated to the Registrar (Evaluation) within three days and the Registrar (Evaluation) has to notify the same within a week. 16. There is no dispute, in the present case, that in terms of the said provision the Viva Voce test for conferment of Ph.D. degree was conducted on 12.2.2007 and therefore by 14.3.2007 the Registrar, in terms of the said guidelines, should have issued the Certificate. Unfortunately in the present case for whatsoever reason, no such Certificate had been issued in favour of Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi. Therefore, as on 14.3.2007 Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi did not possess the Certificate in support of her holding the Ph.D. degree and a declaration to the effect that she had been found eligible for conferment of Ph.D. degree is not the same as conferment of Ph.D. degree. One can claim conferment of Ph.D. degree only when Certificate is issued in support of the same. We are, therefore, of the view that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment that as on 14.3.2007 Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi did not possess Ph.D. degree does not suffer from any illegality or factual infirmity. 17. The learned counsel for the MPSC as well as for Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in the case of Yuithingla Vashum Dr. & Ors Vs. Manipur Public Service Commission & Ors : 2000(1) GLT 588. In the above reported case, the recruitment was for the post of Junior Medical Officer and a candidate was required to complete internship by the date of receipt of application. & Ors Vs. Manipur Public Service Commission & Ors : 2000(1) GLT 588. In the above reported case, the recruitment was for the post of Junior Medical Officer and a candidate was required to complete internship by the date of receipt of application. Petitioner in the said case had not completed the internship on the date of receipt of application, but completed the same 7 days thereafter but before the written test was conducted. The learned Single Judge, considering the circumstances, held that a human approach is necessary and permitted the petitioner therein to appear in the written test. In the said reported case, the law in this regard was neither discussed nor decided. The Court used its discretion on humanitarian ground. We are, therefore, of the view that the above judgment is of no help to Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi on the face of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). Since Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi had not joined the post pursuant to her selection, the other judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties relating to illegal and or irregular appointment and consequence thereof, has no relevance and accordingly we have not referred to those judgments. 18. Another contention was raised on behalf of the MPSC to the effect that the writ petitioner having participated in the selection cannot turn back and challenge the selection process. The modality adopted by the MPSC for selection to the post of lecturer is not the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is that Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi was not qualified to submit her application as on 14.3.2007, i.e. the last date for submission of application. We are, therefore, of the view that the above contention raised on behalf of the MPSC and the decisions cited in support of such submission have no relevance for the purpose of this case. 19. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the MPSC, further, submitted that since recruitment to the post of lecturers in different disciplines in Government Colleges had not been undertaken for a considerable length of time, a decision was taken by the Commission to allow as many applications as possible giving wider choice to the Commission to select appropriate candidates. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the MPSC, further, submitted that since recruitment to the post of lecturers in different disciplines in Government Colleges had not been undertaken for a considerable length of time, a decision was taken by the Commission to allow as many applications as possible giving wider choice to the Commission to select appropriate candidates. Therefore, even though there was no mention of any cut-off date in the advertisement, the Commission decided on 29.5.2008 to allow all candidates who had acquired requisite qualification as on 29.5.2008 to appear in the selection test. Though the reason assigned by the MPSC for permitting the candidates who did not have requisite qualification on the cut-off date but had acquired requisite qualification before the Interview does not appear to be tainted with MALA FIDE, such procedure is not permissible under law. If the last date for submission of applications is to be taken as the cut-off date, in absence of any specified cut-off date prescribed in the Advertisement, no departure can be made from what has been provided in the Advertisement and it is not permissible on the part of the MPSC to extend the cut-off date to 29.5.2008 in order to accommodate more number of candidates. There is nothing to record to show that MPSC at any point of time had issued any Corrigendum extending the cut-off date from 14.3.2007 to 29.5.2008. Had any such Corrigendum been issued, some other aspiring candidates who did not have requisite qualification as on 14.3.2008 but acquired the qualification before 29.5.2008 could have also submitted their applications. We find, therefore, no substance in the above submission made on behalf of the MPSC. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant, Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi, had also contended that in case of some other Universities the date of recommendation made by the Committee for conferment of Ph.D. degree is treated to be the date on which Ph.D. degree is issued. One example of Jawaharlal University, New Delhi has been placed before the Court. The learned Sr. counsel appearing for the MPSC had also been directed to produce any similar practice adopted by any other Universities and in compliance thereof a document has been filed on behalf of the MPSC which relates to P.G. degree and not Ph.D. degree. Admittedly, the appellant, Km. The learned Sr. counsel appearing for the MPSC had also been directed to produce any similar practice adopted by any other Universities and in compliance thereof a document has been filed on behalf of the MPSC which relates to P.G. degree and not Ph.D. degree. Admittedly, the appellant, Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi, has not been able to obtain any Certificate from the University under which she had acquired Ph.D. to show that the date of recommendation for conferment of Ph.D. degree would be the date of issuance of the degree. On the other hand, rules provide that after recommendation of the Committee, the Registrar is required to issue the certificate/degree. In absence of any such document, we cannot also hold that the University from which Km. Jayalakshmi Devi completed her Ph.D. also follows such practice. 21. Coming to the second ground, we find that there is no prayer in the writ application to appoint the writ petitioner in the post of lecturer in Environmental Science reserved for SC candidate. We also looked into the pleadings in the writ petition and there is no specific pleading anywhere to the effect that the writ petitioner had succeeded in the selection conducted by the MPSC. In absence of specific pleadings to the effect and in absence of a prayer to that effect, we are of the opinion that there was no necessity on the part of the learned Single Judge to direct the MPSC to consider case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the said post even though conditional. Though it appears there were only 2(two) SC candidates who faced the Interview for selection to be appointed to the said post, in absence of any material whatsoever before the Court and in absence of any pleading or prayer, the learned Single Judge should have left it open to the MPSC to take a decision. We are, therefore, of the view that the last part of the judgment directing the MPSC to consider case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Environmental Science as a SC candidate if he has secured more than the qualifying mark is liable to be set aside and the matter should be left to the MPSC to take a decision. 22. We, accordingly, allow both the writ appeals in part. While agreeing with the learned Single Judge that as on 14.3.2007 Km. 22. We, accordingly, allow both the writ appeals in part. While agreeing with the learned Single Judge that as on 14.3.2007 Km. O. Jayalakshmi Devi was not qualified to submit her application, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge directing the MPSC to consider case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the said post of lecturer in Environmental Science as SC candidate and leave the matter open to the MPSC to take a decision. N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 23. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by my esteemed Chief Justice (Acting). However, I would like to add a few lines on what had engaged my mind while considering this appeal. 24. The main thrust of the argument of the appellant is that even though the appellant had successfully accomplished the essential requirements for obtaining Ph.D. degree by way of submitting the thesis which was found to be positive and was successful in the interview for award of Ph.D. and having so certified by none other than the Chairman of the Adjudication Committee for Ph.D. in Environmental Science on 13.2.2007, before the last date of submission of form on 14.3.2007, the appellant could not have been declared ineligible by the Ld. Single Judge as not possessing the Ph.D. degree, an essential qualification before the cut off date, and more so, in view of the provision of Regulation 7.16 of the "Regulations Governing Award of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), 2004" of the University of Mysore. 25. The certificate/report dated 13.2.2007 given by the Chairman of the Adjudication Committee for Ph.D. in Environmental Science on 13.2.2007 stated that the appellant "had submitted the thesis for Ph.D. in Environmental Science. All the three reports are positive and the Viva-voce examination was also successfully done by the candidate. She is eligible to get the Ph.D. degree in Environmental Science of Mysore University, Mysore-6". Regulation 7.16 mentioned above provides that, 7.16 After the receipt of the above mentioned reports from the Chairperson, the Board of Examiners, the Registrar (Evaluation) shall request the Chairperson of the Doctoral committee of the concerned student under intimation to the Guide, to conduct an open Viva Voce examination in the presence of the members of the Doctoral committee, members of the concerned Faculty, research scholars and students by giving wide publicity. The proceedings of this meeting shall be communicated to the Registrar (Evaluation) within three days and the Registrar (Evaluation) has to notify the same within a week. 26. As per the appellant, the required reports as contemplated under Regulation 7.16 were duly submitted and subsequently, the Viva Voce was conducted in which the appellant was successful. Thereafter, the Chairperson of the Adjudication Committee for Ph.D. in Environmental Science on 13.2.2007 submitted the report to the Registrar (Evaluation) and as such as per Regulation 7.16, the Registrar (Evaluation) was under an obligation to notify the same within a week, i.e., by 20.2.2007 in which event the appellant could have been said to have obtained the Ph.D. degree by 20.02.2007 and thus would have been eligible. 27. The appellant contended that merely because the Mysore University authorities had delayed in notifying the result, it could not make any difference, as the appellant had possessed the necessary requirements for grant of Ph.D. degree, on successful completion of the Viva Voce. The proper and correct interpretation of the said Regulation according to the Appellant would be that on submission of the thesis and successful completion of the Viva Voce, the candidate would be deemed to have possessed the Ph.D. degree after one week of submission of the proceeding of the meeting to the Registrar (Evaluation) as mentioned in the said Regulation. The notification by the Registrar (Evaluation) was a mere formality and the Ph.D. degree was a fait accompli as according to the appellant, once the necessary requirements of submitting the thesis and the interview had been successfully undertaken by the appellant and report submitted, there was nothing to be done expect for notifying the result within seven days of the interview, which was merely a procedural formality. 28. According to the appellant, such a procedure is adopted by the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi by which the date of award of Ph.D. degree is the date on which the Dean in his capacity as the Chairperson of the Committee for Advance Studies and Research/Board of Studies recommends the award of degree to the student concerned as it is treated as the date of declaration of result for the purpose of award of degree after approval of the Vice Chancellor, and not the date of notifying the result. 29. 29. The appellant has submitted that this is the most fair and just procedure relating to award of Ph.D. degree, unlike other educational qualifications which may provide for a fixed time schedule for holding of examinations and declaration of the results thereof. It has been submitted that in research related degrees, a lot depends on the scrutiny of the written thesis by the concerned experts as well as holding of interview because of which it may not be feasible to adhere to any fixed academic schedule. In all cases relating to award of Ph.D. degree, the completion process depends from candidate to candidate or department to department, depending on the submission of written thesis and availability of experts to examine the same and to conduct the interview. Therefore, there is no uniformity in the academic time schedule for declaration of such results even in one University. It has been stated that some of the Universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University have adopted a system by which on successful completion of submission of written thesis and interview and on recommendation being made, one is deemed to have possessed the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise, if award of degree is dependent on the formal notification by the concerned authorities, for which the authorities may take their own time for various reasons not related to the candidate, the possibility of undue delay in the formal declaration may occur resulting in serious prejudice to the candidate concerned as in the present case. According to the appellant, even though Mysore University was under obligation to notify result of the Ph.D. degree in respect of the appellant within one week of the submission of the report to the Registrar (Evaluation) as provided under Regulation 7.16, the same was delayed beyond one week resulting in disqualification of the appellant. According to the appellant, the appellant could not be made to suffer because of the lapse on the part of the Mysore University and if the appellant had passed out from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, there would have been no difficulty as the date of recommendation would be deemed to be the date of award of Ph.D. degree. Thus, adoption of different yardsticks depending on the University would create unequal opportunities to different candidates which has to be avoided in conformity with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 30. Thus, adoption of different yardsticks depending on the University would create unequal opportunities to different candidates which has to be avoided in conformity with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 30. While considering this aspect of the argument of the appellant, it is to be noted that the Manipur Public Service Commission which is an expert body specifically created by the Constitution to deal with recruitments to public offices, however, did not consider this aspect from this perspective. As evident from the pleadings and record, it seems the MPSC allowed the appellant to take part in the recruitment process because of a decision to allow all and every candidates who had acquired the requisite qualification on the extended time period of 29.5.2008. Such action of the MPSC to extend the date of eligibility without publicly notifying is contrary to law and is impermissible. There is nothing on record to show that the MPSC had taken a conscious decision to hold that the appellant had obtained the Ph.D. degree within the last date of submission of application form. It could have been perhaps a different situation if the MPSC as an expert body had taken a decision to that effect, in which event, the issue could have been whether such a decision of an expert body would be amenable to judicial review. 31. It may be noted that even though the appellant had taken great pains to drive home the point that the appellant should have been deemed to have obtained Ph.D. degree on being informed by the Committee to the Registrar (Evaluation) on 13.02.2007 of successful completion of the requisite academic requirements as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University, the appellant has not produced any document from the authorities of the Mysore University to support such a contention. There is no mention in the notification issued by the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University of Mysore declaring the result of Ph.D. degree in respect of the appellant that it will be effective from the date the report was submitted to the Registrar (Evaluation) after she had successfully undertaken the interview after submitting her written thesis as in the case of the Jawaharlal Nehru University. Even though the Chairman, Adjudication Committee for Ph.D. in Environmental Science had reported on 13.02.2007 stating that the appellant on submission of Ph.D. thesis as well as on successful undertaking of viva-vice, she is eligible to get the Ph.D. degree, it was in the nature of recommendation which was yet to be accepted by the competent authority before declaring the result. Only after declaration of the result that the appellant could be considered to have possessed the Ph.D. degree, though it may be from an earlier date as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The report/recommendation of the Adjudication Committee till it is accepted by the competent authority cannot be considered as certificate of holding a Ph.D. degree. Though in normal course, the report ought have been notified within 7(seven) days as required under the Regulations, unless specifically provided under the rules, it cannot be said that it will be deemed to have been notified or accepted by the competent authority on the expiry of seven days of the submission of the report. The Mysore University authority could have clarified to that effect, which however, was not done by it. As such, in absence of any clarification by the competent authority of the Mysore University that the date of submission of report or on expiry of seven days of submission of the report, it will be deemed that the Ph.D. degree has been awarded, as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University, cannot be accepted. However, having said that, the contention of the appellant deserves some consideration. The MPSC as a State recruiting and recommending body Constitutionally assigned to do so has to deal with and consider applications from candidates having obtained academic qualification from different Universities and as evident, different Universities may have different practices, more particularly, relating to award of degrees based on research. While some candidates could claim eligibility from the date of recommendation or submission of report as the case may be for award of the Ph.D. degree as in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru University, in case of others like the appellant, it would be from the deferred date of actual notification thus denying certain benefits of early award of Ph.D. degree after having successfully completed all the requisite academic exercises. While considering such cases, it will be desirable for the MPSC to examine the feasibility of formulating and adopting a uniform and reasonable criteria based on prevalent practices in the academic institutions so as to obviate such controversies in future and extend similar benefits to all. Such a policy decision by the by the MPSC would be in conformity with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India giving equal opportunities to a class of people similarly placed.