JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner herein has approached this Court for assailing the action of the respondent Bank of Baroda in not providing appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class IV employee despite being selected in the questioned selection process. The respondents herein issued an advertisement (Annex.6) for two posts of Sweeper cum Peon; one being of General Category at Galiyakot Branch and the other being of Scheduled Tribe Category at the Gandhwa Branch of the Bank. It was stipulated in the advertisement that the applicant should have acquired the 10th standard qualification but should not have cleared 10+2 or equivalent examination. The petitioner being a Scheduled Tribe candidate of Bheel Caste submitted an application for recruitment on 31.10.2013 mentioning therein that he had cleared 10th standard examination and had appeared in the 12th standard examination. It is claimed by the petitioner that the result of his 12th standard examination was declared on 16.12.2013 and thus, before that date, he was only secondary qualified. The respondents subjected the petitioner to interview and finding him suitable for the post, issued an appointment order dated 13.1.2014 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner underwent requisite formalities of medical test, character verification etc. and thereafter, approached the Branch Manager, Gandhwa to join duty. But he was not permitted to join on the post with the oral information that he had obtained the degree of 12th standard and thus, was not qualified for the post. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing him to join duty on the post of Sweeper cum Peon, despite being regularly selected, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 2. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein, the fact regarding the petitioner having applied for the post of Sweeper cum Peon in the Scheduled Tribe category in the Gandhwa Branch of the Bank is not disputed. It is mentioned in the reply that the eligibility criterion of the candidates was to be considered as on the date of the advertisement i.e. 2.9.2013. It was clearly provided in the advertisement itself that the said date, which is treated to be a cut off date, the applicant should have cleared 10th standard examination but should not have passed 12th standard or equivalent examination. This qualification/eligibility criterion was fixed as per the government guidelines. It was clearly provided in the advertisement itself that the said date, which is treated to be a cut off date, the applicant should have cleared 10th standard examination but should not have passed 12th standard or equivalent examination. This qualification/eligibility criterion was fixed as per the government guidelines. The petitioner appeared for interview on 31.10.2013 and on that date, he informed that he had appeared in the 12th standard examination in the month of October 2013 and his result is still awaited. Thus, the petitioner was treated as not having cleared the 12th standard examination. However, when the petitioner came to join duty pursuant to the appointment order dated 13.1.2014, it was revealed that he had cleared the 12th examination on 16.12.2013 and thus, the petitioner was denied permission to join duty and was served an appointment cancellation order dated 6.2.2014 which has been placed on record with the reply as Annex.R/1. It is asserted in the reply that in the appointment letter dated 13.1.2014, the petitioner was clearly notified that in case he was found ineligible at any stage, his appointment could be cancelled. The respondents have defended their action in not allowing the petitioner to join as being overqualified for the post by virtue of clearing the 12th standard examination by the date of joining. The respondents have filed an additional affidavit of the Officer In-charge to the effect that while filling up the application form, the petitioner concealed the fact of his having appeared in the 12th standard examination and thus, by making this misstatement in the form, the petitioner becomes disentitled for appointment. 3. Shri Harshvardhan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not overqualified on the date of submitting the application form. He urged that the respondents have themselves specified that the cut off date for considering the eligibility criterion in the questioned recruitment process was the date of issuance of the advertisement i.e. 2.9.2013 on that day admittedly the petitioner was not holding the qualification of 12th standard. The recruitment notification itself specifies that the candidate concerned should be within the prescribed eligibility qualification on the date of the advertisement. Thus, date for considering the eligibility criterion could not be shifted to the date of issuance of the appointment order. The recruitment notification itself specifies that the candidate concerned should be within the prescribed eligibility qualification on the date of the advertisement. Thus, date for considering the eligibility criterion could not be shifted to the date of issuance of the appointment order. He further submitted that there was no requirement in the application form to mention regarding the petitioner having appeared in the 12th standard examination. On this basis, Shri Harshvardhan Singh vehemently urged that the action of the respondents in denying joining permission to the petitioner and canceling his appointment vide order (Annex.R/1) dated 6.2.2014 is arbitrary, perverse and bad in the eye of law and should be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, Shri Vipul Dharnia appearing on behalf of the respondents appearing on behalf of Shri Ravi Bhansali Sr. Advocate vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala Solvent Extraactions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr. reported in (2006)13 SCC 619 and urged that as the petitioner was over-qualified on the date of issuance of the appointment order, he was rightly denied joining permission and the respondents were perfectly justified in canceling his appointment. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The condition stipulated in the recruitment notification whereby a cap was fixed on the qualification of the aspirants cannot be questioned in view of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd.’s case referred to supra. Furthermore, the petitioner has not even challenged the said condition while filing the instant writ petition. Thus, all that is to be seen for deciding the controversy is as to whether the eligibility of the aspirant regarding educational qualification should be assessed as on the date of issuance of the recruitment advertisement or in context to the date of issuance of the appointment order. The advertisement (Annex.6) which was issued by per the respondents on 2.9.2013, clearly stipulated that the eligibility criterion of the aspirant as on the date of the issuance of the advertisement should be "minimum 10th standard but should not have passed 10+2 or equivalent examination". The advertisement (Annex.6) which was issued by per the respondents on 2.9.2013, clearly stipulated that the eligibility criterion of the aspirant as on the date of the issuance of the advertisement should be "minimum 10th standard but should not have passed 10+2 or equivalent examination". The respondents have themselves admitted in the reply that the eligibility criterion of educational qualification was to be examined as on the date of advertisement. The respondents at para no.6 of the reply have mentioned as below: "To determine the eligibility of the candidates, the advertisement date i.e., 02.09.2013 was considered as the cutoff date. However, the bare perusal of advertisement will reveal that looking to the nature of the post, it was prescribed very specially that the person should be 10th class passed but should not have passed 12th or equivalent class. 7. Thus, as per the respondents' own case, the eligibility criterion was to be assessed on the anvil of the cut off date i.e. 2.9.2013. On that day, admittedly, the petitioner was not 10+2 qualified. The petitioner appeared in the examination of 10+2 standard in October 2013 and result of the examination was declared on 16.12.2013. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the petitioner said to be over-qualified on the date of issuance of the recruitment advertisement. Consequently, he was within the limits of permissible educational qualifications as prescribed by the respondents while issuing the questioned recruitment advertisement. The petitioner was interviewed and was thereafter selected in the process. Appointment order was issued in his favour. The respondents thereafter cancelled the petitioner's appointment by order (Annex.R/1) noting that he had cleared 12th standard examination, which fact came to light on 17.1.2014 while verifying the documents. In view of the facts noted above, it is the firm opinion of this Court that the order (Annex.R/1) whereby the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of he being over-qualified is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and perverse and cannot be sustained. Educational qualification prevailing on the date of advertisement was to be considered while assessing the eligibility of a candidate and as such, the subsequent gaining of the 12th standard certificate by the petitioner cannot be treated to his detriment so as to deprive him from the post on which he was selected in the questioned recruitment process. 8. Educational qualification prevailing on the date of advertisement was to be considered while assessing the eligibility of a candidate and as such, the subsequent gaining of the 12th standard certificate by the petitioner cannot be treated to his detriment so as to deprive him from the post on which he was selected in the questioned recruitment process. 8. As a consequence of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (Annex.R/1) dated 6.2.2014 is hereby quashed and set aside and resultantly, the order of appointment (Annex.8) dated 13.1.2014 is hereby restored. The petitioner shall be forthwith and not later than within a period of one month from today taken on duty. He shall be entitled to notional benefits from 17.1.2014 till the date he joins duty. Actual service benefits shall be conferred to the petitioner from the date of joining. No order as to costs.