ORDER Initially, the writ petition was filed seeking quashing of result for admission in Ph.D in Tribal and Customary Law for the Academic Session 201516 declared on 17.09.2015. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6169 of 2015 for amending the writ petition by incorporating the following prayers: a. “Addition of paragraph- 1 (f) seeking following reliefs: “Setting aside/quashing of the merit list for non junior research fellowship applicants in CUCET-2015 examinations for admission in PH.D in Tribal and Customary Law under Central University of Jharkhand (Annexure-A at page10 to the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents) on the ground that the said merit list has not been prepared in accordance with and by strict adherence to the methodology prescribed vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. b. Addition of paragraph-1(g) seeking following reliefs: “Setting aside/quashing of merit list for junior research fellowship applicants in CUCET-2015 examinations for admission in Ph.D. in Tribal and Customary Law under Central University of Jharkhand (Annexure-A at page-11 to the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents) on the ground that the said merit list has been prepared by illegally extending the benefit of Junior Research fellowship (hereinafter referred as JRF) to the private respondent nos. 5 & 6 in the light of admitted position that the respondent no. 5 has not entered any details in her application form for seeking the benefit, and both the private respondents have appeared in the written entrance test thereby waiving their rights under the principles of estoppels by election “and further on the ground that the said merit list has not been prepared in accordance with the methodology prescribed vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. c. Addition of paragraph 1(h) seeking following reliefs: “Issuance of consequential writ of mandamus upon the official respondents to remedy and rectify the illegality in preparation of merit list for admission in Ph. D. in Tribal and Customary Law under Central University of Jharkhand for 2015-16 session, in accordance with the prescribed methodology vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition.” 2. The petitioner claims herself Masters in Law of the Academic Session 2009-11 from Ranchi College under the Ranchi University. The petitioner also a National Eligibility Test (NET) qualified candidate appeared in CUCET-2015 for enrollment in Ph.D in Tribal and Customary Law. The last date for submission of application was 05.05.2015 and the examination for CUCET-2015 was conducted on 06/07.06.2015. The petitioner claims herself Masters in Law of the Academic Session 2009-11 from Ranchi College under the Ranchi University. The petitioner also a National Eligibility Test (NET) qualified candidate appeared in CUCET-2015 for enrollment in Ph.D in Tribal and Customary Law. The last date for submission of application was 05.05.2015 and the examination for CUCET-2015 was conducted on 06/07.06.2015. The result for CUCET-2015 was published on 15.06.2015, in which the petitioner scored the highest marks. The respondent nos. 5 & 6 also appeared in CUCET-2015 and their ranks were at serial nos. 11 & 4 respectively however, the petitioner was not granted admission and, rather, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 were granted admission. 3. Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos. 5 & 6 did not disclose in their applications that they applied as JRF qualified candidate however, the final merit list discloses that they have been granted admission considering them as JRF qualified candidates. Referring to the application form of the respondent no. 5 for CUCET-2015, it is submitted that the result of respondent no. 5 for JRF examination was declared only on 15.06.2015 and thus, the respondent no. 5 was not qualified for being considered as a JRF qualified candidate. Enumerating various instances of irregularities committed in calculation of marks, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the respondent-University is completely irrational and the petitioner has been denied admission on erroneous grounds. 4. Objecting to the prayer made in the writ petition, Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the guidelines contained in Ph.D Admission Notice mandates that the JRF qualified candidates have to be considered separately and he/she has to be awarded 50% marks for having qualified UGC/CSIR(JRF) Examination. It is further submitted that mere fact that the respondent nos. 5 & 6 appeared in CUCET-2015 would not disentitle them from being considered as JRF qualified candidates. The learned counsel referring to the merit list for Ph.D Admission, 2015 submits that a fair and transparent procedure was adopted by the respondent-University and the candidates, that is, respondent nos. 5 & 6 who scored maximum marks, have been granted admission for Ph.D in Tribal and Customary Law. 5. Inspite of notice upon respondent nos. 5, she has chosen not to appear in the present proceeding. Respondent no. 5 & 6 who scored maximum marks, have been granted admission for Ph.D in Tribal and Customary Law. 5. Inspite of notice upon respondent nos. 5, she has chosen not to appear in the present proceeding. Respondent no. 6 has appeared through his counsel. 6. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 submits that the respondent no. 6 is a JRF qualified candidate which would appear from the application submitted by him in as much as, he has duly disclosed marks obtained by him in JRF Examination. It is submitted that every mistake of a candidate can not be a ground to disqualify his candidature. 7. I have carefully considered the rivals submissions of the learned counsel for parties and perused the documents on record. 8. It is well-settled that a candidate must fulfill the eligibility criteria as on the date of submission of the application or atleast on the last date for submission of the application for appointment/selection, subject to relaxation granted by the employer. From the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I find that the respondent No. 5 did not possess JRF qualification either when she submitted her application for CUCET-2015 or on 05.05.2015 that is, the last date for submission of the application. The learned counsel for the respondent-University has submitted that a JRF qualified candidate is required to be treated separately and therefore, the result declared on 14.08.2015 clearly mentions that UGC/CSIR(JRF) qualified candidates would be directly called for interview. However, I find that no separate date has been disclosed by the respondents for submission of application by UGC/CSIR (JRF) candidates. If such candidates were not required to submit their application on or before 05.05.2015, the University should have notified such date separately. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that a JRF candidate was also required to submit his/her application for admission in Ph.D course on or before 05.05.2015. The application submitted by the respondent no. 5 does not disclose that she claimed herself a JRF qualified candidate. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-University, it is apparent that the respondent no. 5 was declared qualified in UGC/CSIR (JRF) Examination only on 15.06.2015. Thus, the respondent no. 5 was not an eligible JRF qualified applicant. Accordingly, her candidature as a JRF qualified applicant could not have been considered by the respondent-University. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-University, it is apparent that the respondent no. 5 was declared qualified in UGC/CSIR (JRF) Examination only on 15.06.2015. Thus, the respondent no. 5 was not an eligible JRF qualified applicant. Accordingly, her candidature as a JRF qualified applicant could not have been considered by the respondent-University. The result published on 14.08.2015 discloses that the result of the respondent no.5 was published as non-JRF candidate however, she has been granted admission as a JRF qualified candidate. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 6 is a JRF qualified candidate and therefore, he has rightly been awarded 50 % marks for having qualified UGC/CSIR (JRF) Examination. It is stated at Bar that the Academic Session has already commenced on 29.09.2015 and the respondent no. 5 has also taken admission. Considering the above fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision granting admission to her in Ph.D in Tribal and Customary Law. Insofar as, the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that she scored highest marks in CUCET-2015. The proceeding of Dean's Committee, a copy of which has been filed along with the counter-affidavit (Annexure-A series) discloses that one seat under the S.T. category has remained vacant because no other suitable candidate has been found. A reserved category seat for admission in the educational institutions cannot be carried forward and therefore, in view of the performance of the petitioner in CUCET-2015, the respondent-University is directed to admit the petitioner in Ph.D course in Tribal and Customary Law on the vacant seat. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No. 6169 of 2015 stands allowed. Petition disposed of.