JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. All the petitioners before this Court are Lecturers in Government Intermediate Colleges and as of now have been teaching for almost five years as Lecturers. The petitioners, in all the above writ petitions, have challenged the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’), by which their selection to the post of Lecturers have been cancelled/withdrawn. 2. The result of all the petitioners was declared by the Commission on 29.03.2011 and subsequently, on the recommendations of the Commission, they were appointed by the State Government and since then they have been teaching in their respective schools. 3. For the sake of convenience, however, the facts of WPSS No. 624 of 2013 are being taken into consideration for disposal of these matters. All the same principally the issue is common. 4. The very brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the post of a teacher, in response to an advertisement dated 30.05.2009, which was published by the Commission, for various subjects in different Government Intermediate Colleges. The last date of submission of application form of the prospective candidates was 30.06.2009. All the petitioners, who are before this Court had applied for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) for Districts, such as, Dehradun, Pauri Garhwal and Chamoli, respectively in all these writ petitions. 5. Admittedly, one of the important eligibility requirements for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) is that not only a candidate must be post-graduate in Hindi but must also have Sanskrit, as one of the main subject in graduation, along with Hindi. All the petitioners before this Court are post-graduate in Hindi from a recognised University, but in their graduation though Hindi was one of the subjects but Sanskrit was not one of the main subjects taken by them. Hence, they did not meet the eligibility requirement and therefore, in order to meet the eligibility requirement, all these petitioners once again appeared for examination in a single subject in Sanskrit for graduation, for which they appeared in the year 2009, the result of which was ultimately declared by the University on 05.07.2009 and in some cases on 04.07.2009. 6. In all these cases, the result was declared by H.N.B. Garhwal University (in short ‘University’) less than a week after the cut-off date. 6. In all these cases, the result was declared by H.N.B. Garhwal University (in short ‘University’) less than a week after the cut-off date. It is again an admitted fact that the law permits the University to take candidates in a single subject for graduation, so that they can meet the eligibility requirement, as the one which has arisen in the present case. 7. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that they had mentioned in their application forms that they have all the eligibility for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). According to the petitioners, the result itself was declared on 29.03.2011, and the documents were scrutinised after that date. After the scrutiny was done, the case of each of the petitioners was formally recommended by the Commission to the State Government and thereafter, the State Government formally issued an appointment letter to the petitioner on 01.09.2011, and thereafter the petitioner duly joined at Government Intermediate College, Hatal, Tehsil Tuini, Chakrata, Dehradun. 8. It appears that thereafter, an “anomaly” was discovered by the State Government that the petitioner was not having the qualification of Sanskrit in graduation, as one of the main subjects, prior to the cut-off date i.e., on 30.06.2009 and hence, she was given a show cause notice by the Commission on 16.11.2011 to explain as to how the petitioner declared herself eligible prior to the last cut-off date, as she was not till then a graduate in Sanskrit, which was a mandatory requirement. The petitioner gave her reply that although she was qualified in Sanskrit as well, prior to 30.06.2009 but the result was declared on 06.07.2009 and she further contends that she had not made any misrepresentation before the authority. To this show cause notice, neither the State Government nor the Commission passed any order. Thereafter, another show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 20.03.2013, which reiterates the same facts as contained in the earlier show cause notice dated 16.11.2011 and thereafter the impugned order dated 16.05.2013 was passed. 9. Meanwhile, a bunch of writ petitions was filed before this Court where the leading case was WPSS No. 1235 of 2010 (Basanti Rautela Vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another). 9. Meanwhile, a bunch of writ petitions was filed before this Court where the leading case was WPSS No. 1235 of 2010 (Basanti Rautela Vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another). In the said writ petitions, the candidates, who like the present petitioners were also applicants for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and were not having Sanskrit as one of the main subjects in graduation and where again their result was declared after the last cut-off date, were before the Court. The only difference between the petitioners in WPSS No. 1235 of 2010 and the case at hand is that those petitioners were the ones who were not given the appointment letters so far and they had filed the writ petitions before this Court for that purpose. What they had actually challenged was the action of the Commission by which their names were deleted from the list of eligible candidates, and their candidature was subsequently cancelled prior to their being appointed by the authorities. 10. During the course of the arguments in the writ petitions, an objection was raised by the counsel for the petitioners that names of some of the candidates have been shown in the final list (the indication was towards the petitioners and other similar candidates), who were also not having requisite qualification on or before 30.06.2009 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, to which the learned counsel for the Commission replied that such candidates have already been given show cause notice, when this fault was detected and steps have already been taken for cancellation of their appointments, which is reflected from the order dated 23.12.2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WPSS No. 1235 of 2010, the relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- “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. Mr. 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. 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.” 11. The Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2010 and other matters were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.12.2013 on grounds that such petitioners were not having the requisite qualifications before the cut-off date i.e., 30.06.2009. 12. Learned counsel for the Commission - Mr. B.D. Kandpal would rely upon the said judgment and submit that the present matter stands covered by the decision of this Court (referred above) and nothing further needs to be done in the matter. 13. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners on the other hand is that they were actually qualified and their case is on a different footing. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the letter dated 22.02.2013 of the H.N.B. Garhwal University, which has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1/Commission, wherein the Commission had enquired from the University as to from which date the petitioners can be considered eligible. 14. Considering the fact though the petitioner had appeared in the examination for Sanskrit in April, 2009 but the result was declared in July, 2009, the reply given by the Registrar of the University is that there is a practice in the University where on the request of a candidate, a single examination is held and this practice is an established one. The results of such candidates are not declared along with usual result of graduation by the University. The results of such candidates are not declared along with usual result of graduation by the University. It further says that as per the Rules, the result of each examination of each student is declared within the calendar year and the calendar year starts from 1st July to 30th June. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue that in all these cases, calendar year admittedly would be from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 and though the result has technically declared on 05.07.2009, it would be deemed to have been declared prior to the closing of the session i.e., 30.06.2009. It must be stated here that as per the Commission the last date for having the requisite qualification was 30.06.2009. The petitioners therefore lay emphasis on the deeming aspect of the matter. 16. Learned counsel for the University has also filed its counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that though technically the date of declaration is when it is actually declared, i.e. on 05.07.2009 but it would be for the Commission to consider it deemed prior to 30.06.2009 as that being the discretion of the Commission. 17. Learned counsel for the Commission, however, has repeatedly stated that under no condition the petitioners can be deemed to have qualified before 30.06.2009, as evidently the result was declared on 05.07.2009 and since the result itself was not declared, no presumption could be made in favour of the petitioners that they had acquired the qualifications prior to the cut-off date. 18. Not only this, this Court in WPSS No. 912 of 2016 (Khemraj Semwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others), which was for the selection of Assistant Teachers in Government Higher Secondary Schools has held that TET is an essential qualification for appointment as a primary school teacher, and in some of the cases though the candidates had appeared prior to the cut-off date, but the result itself was declared after the cut-off date and they had the same plea as of the present petitioners, but this Court has held that they were not eligible as their result was not declared prior to the cut-off date. 19. 19. Based on the said ruling, including the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Basanti Rautela as well as the decision given by this Court where this Court has previously held that a candidate must fulfil all the eligibilities prior to the cut-off date, the respondents would urge this Court to dismiss the petitions. 20. All the same, the present case stands on a different footing from the above cases, as the case of each of the petitioners is not that where she was challenging her non-selection to the posts to which she was a candidate. In the present cases, petitioners were not only selected but duly appointed and at the time the impugned order was passed were teaching as Lecturers (Hindi) for almost two years. They would further submit that their selection has yet not been cancelled. As of now, each of the petitioners have been teaching for the last five years and as per the petitioners their postings are in remote areas or in the hill districts of the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, there is a special equity in their favour as well. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. The first factor would yet be as to the qualifications of the petitioners whether it is prior to the cut-off or not! The one interpretation of the letter of the University could easily be that though the result was declared few days after the cut-off date, but since the result pertains to an examination which precedes 30.06.2009 of that year, it would deemed to have been declared prior to 30.06.2009. Moreover, the distinct factor in the present cases is that petitioners have now been teaching for the last five years in their respective schools. In the case of Sina Rai furthermore a show cause notice was given to her earlier on 16.11.2011, to which she has filed her reply immediately but nothing seems to have been done on that and for all practical purposes that matter was cleared. The matter was raked up by the respondents after the decision in Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2010. 21. The writ petitions hence are allowed. The petitioners are declared to have been qualified before the cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2009. The impugned order dated 16.05.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.