JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. The prayer in all the writ petitions is to set aside the impugned order vide which the petitioners have been denied the appointment for the post of LDC on the ground of not mentioning the requisite qualifications in the relevant column of the application form or on the ground that they have not acquired the qualification from a recognised institution. 3. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 14.2.2013 whereby applications were invited for the post of Lower Division Clerks for appointment on direct recruitment. As per the aforementioned advertisement, minimum qualifications prescribed were as under :- "(i) Applicant must pass the Senior Secondary from recognised board or its equivalent examination, And "O" or Higher Level Certificate Course conducted by DOEACC under control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India. Or Computer Operator & Programming Assistant (COPA)/Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS) certificate organised under National/State Council of Vocational Training Scheme. Or Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Applications from a University established by aw in India or from an institution recognised by the Government. Or Diploma in Computer Science & Engineering from a polytechnic institution recognised by the Government. Or Certificate Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) conducted by Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited" 4. The petitioners applied in pursuance to the said advertisement. A provisional select list was issued and the selected candidates were required to appear before the appropriate authority for verification of the documents on 27.5.2013. The result was declared on 30.5.2013. However, vide order dated 15.6.2013 passed by the respondents, only the qualifications mentioned by the petitioners in the application form were ordered to be considered if supported by the certificate during the verification of the documents. None of the petitioners had mentioned the requisite qualification in their application form. 5. While praying for the relief, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was not possible to fill up the qualification possessed by the concerned petitioner as there was no column prescribed for filling up the details of the qualifications in which the petitioners had taken admission but had still not qualified or had not yet received the certificate. 5. While praying for the relief, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it was not possible to fill up the qualification possessed by the concerned petitioner as there was no column prescribed for filling up the details of the qualifications in which the petitioners had taken admission but had still not qualified or had not yet received the certificate. Secondly, the respondents have issued the corrigendum dated 28.3.2013 that in case, all candidates who produced the certificate of the concerned qualification on the date of verification of the documents, their certificate shall be duly considered. Lastly, the appointment on the post of LDC cannot be denied merely on technical ground of non-mentioning the RS-CIT/requisite qualification in the application form. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 7. For proper adjudication, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant applicable provisions in the advertisement. Note (5) of the application form reads as under:- ^^vkosnd }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre fnuakd rd fu/kkZfjr 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd vgZrk;s vftZr dj yh xbZ gksA fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk fuEukuqlkj gS%& vkosnd fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls lhfu;j lsds.Mjh ;k mlds lerqY; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d gS rFkk bysDVªksfuDl foHkkx] Hkkjr ljdkj ds fu;U=.kk/khu MhŒvksŒbZŒ,ŒlhŒlhŒ }kjk vk;ksftr ;k mPprj Lrj izek.ki= ikB~;dzeA ;k O;kolkf;d izf'k{k.k Ldhe dh jk"Vªh;@jkT; ifj"kn ds v/khu vk;ksftr dEI;wVj vkijsVj vkSj izksxzkfeax vflLVsUV lhŒvksŒihŒ,Œ@MkVk fizizs'ku vkSj dEI;wVj lkVos;k MhŒIkhŒlhŒ,lŒ izek.k i=A ;k Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk lhfer fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkbal@dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'kUl esa fMIyksekA ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fdlh ikyhVsfDud laLFkk ls dEI;wVj lkabl vkSj bathfu;fjax esa fMIyksek ;k jktLFkku ukyst fuxe fyfeVsM ds fu;a=.kk/khu o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo'ofo|ky;] dksVk }kjk vk;ksftr lwpuk izks|ksfxdh vkjŒ,lŒlhŒvkbZŒVhŒ esa izek.k i= ikB~;dzeA** 8. A perusal of the above shows that an applicant must have the requisite qualification on the date of submission of the application form. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said condition stood rectified through corrigendum dated 28.3.2013 requiring the applicants to produce the certificate before the date of the verification of documents or before finalization of the selection process, cannot be sustained. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said condition stood rectified through corrigendum dated 28.3.2013 requiring the applicants to produce the certificate before the date of the verification of documents or before finalization of the selection process, cannot be sustained. The relevant corrigendum relied upon heavily by the learned counsel for the petitioners reads as under:- ^^ftu inksa ij dEI;wVj ;ksX;rk fu/kkZfjr gS] mu inksa ij vkosnu izLrqr djus ds le; iwoZ esa fdlh vuqer ikB~;dze esa tks vH;FkhZ izos'k ys pqds gS ;k ftudk mDr ikB~;dze dk ifj.kke vkuk 'ks"k gS] os vH;FkhZ vkau ykbZu vkosnu i= izLrqr dj ldrs gSA ,sls vkosndksa dks nLrkost lR;kiu ds le; vFkok p;u lwph tkjh gksus ls iwoZ dEI;wVj ;ksX;rk lEcU/kh nLrkost izLrqr ugha djus ij vH;fFkZrk jn~n ekuh tk;sxhA** 9. There is no mention that requirement of having the requisite qualification on the last date of the application form has been waived off. In fact, both the conditions are necessary. Both the instructions in the advertisement and corrigendum have to be read together. A candidate must be qualified on the date of issuance of the advertisement and he must possess and produce the same on the date of the verification of the documents. It is only at the time of the verification that the respondent authorities can find out as to whether an applicant was eligible to apply by the cut off date of the application form or not. The cut off date in the present case is the last date of the submission of application form. Under these circumstances, it becomes all the more important to fill up the detail of the qualifications being possessed by an applicant in his application form to enable the respondents to verify the documents and certificates which are mentioned in the application form to co-relate that the petitioner was eligible by the cut off date. 10. There is another way to look at it. Only an applicant who has the requisite certificate will be in a position to fill the requisite qualification in the application form. An applicant who does not have the qualification on the date of the application will obviously not be in a position to fill the same. 10. There is another way to look at it. Only an applicant who has the requisite certificate will be in a position to fill the requisite qualification in the application form. An applicant who does not have the qualification on the date of the application will obviously not be in a position to fill the same. In case, an applicant is considered as eligible only because he has produced the requisite qualification on the date of verification by ignoring the fact that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification on the cut off date, the same will result in discriminating against all such candidates who although had taken admission in the course but did not apply as they did not have the certificate on the cut off date as required and notified in the advertisement. 11. The next argument that there was no column to fill up the requisite qualification is factually incorrect. It is evident from Column 5 and 6 of the application form that Column 5 of the application form is with respect to the Educational Qualification of Secondary and above and Column 6 pertains to the Professional Qualifications in Computer Training. 12. In addition to the above, in writ petition No.3877/2017, the petitioner has shown the requisite qualification having been obtained from CMG University Meghalaya which was de-recognised by the State Government vide order dated vide order No.2101 dated 04.07.2013 and order No.2124 dated 08.07.2013. The similar writ petition No.9627/2013 (Vimla v. State & Ors.) has already been dismissed vide order dated 4.7.2014. 13. In Writ Petition No.1794/2017, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case was different. However, the only difference is that the petitioner had applied simultaneously in three different zila parishads whereas in his case too, the petitioner did not mention the details of the requisite qualifications in the application form. In these circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful that the petitioner is qualified on the date of filling of the application form. 14. It is a well settled proposition of law that a candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification by the cut off date. In these circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful that the petitioner is qualified on the date of filling of the application form. 14. It is a well settled proposition of law that a candidate must possess the requisite educational qualification by the cut off date. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2007)4 SCC 54 , went to the extent of holding that in the absence of any cut off date specified in advertisement or in rules, last date for filing of application shall be considered as the cut off date while referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Shankar K. Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2003)3 SCR 796 wherein the following principles were culled out:- "(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules. (2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications. (3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority." Relying on the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the Court went on to hold in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) as under:- "Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cutoff date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application." 15. A cutoff date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application." 15. The three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors., v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., reported in (1997) ILLJ 1160 SC while dealing with the question held :- "The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 16. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview." 16. As stated above, the instructions in the advertisement and corrigendum, both have to be read together. Column 5 pertains to Educational Qualifications and Column 6 pertains to Professional Qualifications with computer training. The petitioners had not filled one or the other requisite qualification/RS-CIT, as the case may be. Admittedly, they did not have the requisite qualification on the said date i.e. on the last date of the filling of the application form. Therefore, such a certificate, can under no circumstances, be considered at the time of the verification of the documents. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. An applicant should be qualified on the date of submission of the application form and he should also produce such certificate on the date of verification of the documents. Thus, their candidature cannot be considered being ineligible on the cut off date. 17. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.