JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are represented by the learned standing counsel for the Department of Higher Education, Mr. K. Gogoi. The authorities of the Chandra Kamal Barua (CKB) College, Teok (respondent Nos.3 & 4) are represented by the learned counsel Mr. N. Baruah. However despite service of notice, the litigant Bikash Nath (respondent No.5), whose appointment is challenged, has failed to enter his appearance. 2. A sanctioned post of Lecturer in History in the CKB College, Teok was advertised on 4.3.2010 (Annexure-II), stipulating 15 days for filing application. The eligibility criteria for the applicants was specified as the latest UGC norms, such as the National Eligibility Test (NET)/State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) qualification. Since applications were to be filed in 15 days, the last date for receipt of application was 19.3.2010 but on that date, the respondent No.5 did not possess the eligibility qualification. However since the respondent No.5 had obtained the Ph.D. degree on 30.7.2010, he was considered and empanelled in the 1st position, whereas the petitioner who satisfied the eligibility criteria with his NET qualification, was placed in the 2nd position, by the Selection Board. Therefore the selection of candidate Bikash Nath (respondent No.5), is challenged on the ground that he got his Ph.D. degree, after the last date of application. 3. The qualification for appointment of Lecturer is prescribed under Clause 3.3.0 and 3.3.1 (page-20), of the UGC Regulation, 2009 (Annexure-IV), which stipulates that besides having good academic record, the candidate must have NET/SLET qualification. But under Clause 3.3.1, those who have been awarded the Ph.D. degree, are exempted from the NET/SLET eligibility condition. Similarly under the guidelines issued by the Govt. of Assam on 20.2.2003 (Annexure-VI), in Clause 1.B.(a) (page-23), the NET/SLET qualification is described as an eligibility criteria. However the Ph.D. degree holders are not exempted, under the Govt. circular of 20.2.2003 (Annexure-VI). 4. The petitioner had secured the NET qualification, under the reference No.1182/(NET-DEC., 2003), against the Roll No.N040120, well before the last date i.e. 19.3.2010, and with his good results in the qualifying examinations, the candidate satisfied the eligibility requirement. However the Ph.D. degree holders are not exempted, under the Govt. circular of 20.2.2003 (Annexure-VI). 4. The petitioner had secured the NET qualification, under the reference No.1182/(NET-DEC., 2003), against the Roll No.N040120, well before the last date i.e. 19.3.2010, and with his good results in the qualifying examinations, the candidate satisfied the eligibility requirement. However, the respondent No.5 had secured his Ph.D. degree only on 30.7.2010, and therefore, in the absence of NET qualification, the respondent was ineligible, as on the last date of the application i.e. 19.3.2010, under the UGC Regulation, 2009 (Annexure-IV) and also the Government norms, circulated on 20.2.2003. 5. Nevertheless, the Selection Board did not reject the candidature of Bikash Nath, the respondent No.5, as an ineligible candidate and instead took into account, the subsequently obtained Ph.D. degree and recommended for appointment, to the vacancy advertised on 4.3.2010. 6. Mr. S. Gogoi, the learned counsel submits that when the last date for receipt of application was stipulated as 15 days i.e. 19.3.2010, in the advertisement issued on 4.3.2010, the candidate must satisfy the eligibility criteria, as on the last date of application and any qualification secured thereafter, would not obliterate the ineligibility of the candidature. 7. However the Principal of the college in his affidavit filed on 19.10.2012, projects that the interview for selection was held on 21.8.2010 and by that date, the respondent No.5 was awarded his Ph.D. degree by the Gauhati University’s Executive Council resolution dated 30.7.2010 and accordingly Mr. N. Baruah, the learned counsel submits that the 1st recommended candidate Bikash Nath, had satisfied the eligibility criteria, when the interview was conducted. 8. The Director of Higher Education (DHE), in the additional affidavit filed on 29.10.2013, averred that for the greater interest of the institution, the DHE had accorded conditional approval for appointment of Bikash Nath, under the order dated 3.12.2010 but this was made subject to the outcome of the present case. 9. It is apparent that by the time the interview was held on 21.8.2010, the 5th respondent on 30.7.2010 was awarded his Ph.D. degree by the Gauhati University. Therefore, the question to be answered is whether this will make the recommended candidate eligible for appointment, for the post advertised on 4.3.2010. 10. When certain eligibility criteria is specified for appointment, only those eligible, are expected to apply and ineligible applicants should not be entertained. Therefore, the question to be answered is whether this will make the recommended candidate eligible for appointment, for the post advertised on 4.3.2010. 10. When certain eligibility criteria is specified for appointment, only those eligible, are expected to apply and ineligible applicants should not be entertained. It is well settled under the ratio of Dr. M.V. Nair vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 429 and Dipitimayee Parida vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 687 , that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving application, unless of-course, the advertisement itself specifies a particular date, for satisfying the eligibility criteria. 11. In the present case, the last date of receiving application for the advertised post was stipulated as 15 days from the date of advertisement (4.3.2010) and thus the last date for receipt of application can be taken as 19.3.2010. However, by this date, the respondent No.5 was not awarded his Ph.D. degree and at the same time, he was not a NET/SLET qualified candidate. In such circumstances, it was not correct for the Selection Board to treat the respondent No.5 as an eligible candidate, on the basis of the Ph.D. degree secured by him on 30.7.2010. The date of selection is invariably uncertain and therefore, the eligibility criteria should not be construed with reference to the date of selection but must be with reference to a certain and specific date. In the absence of stipulation of any particular date, the only certain date for judging the eligibility qualification should be the last date, for applying for the vacancy. 12. What naturally follows from the above discussion and conclusion is that the candidature of Bikash Nath, without the NET/SLET or Ph.D. qualification on the last date of application i.e. 19.3.2010, was invalid. Therefore, the college authorities or the Selection Board could not have recommended him for the post of Lecturer in History, in the CKB College. 13. It may be recorded here that notice of this proceeding was duly served on the respondent No.5 but he has failed to appear before the Court to support his selection, in pursuant to the advertisement, dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure-II). 14. 13. It may be recorded here that notice of this proceeding was duly served on the respondent No.5 but he has failed to appear before the Court to support his selection, in pursuant to the advertisement, dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure-II). 14. In such circumstances, the selection and appointment of Bikash Nath on the strength of the conditional approval granted by the DHE on 3.12.2010, is declared to be unmerited and the same is accordingly quashed. When the selection of the 1st empanelled candidate is quashed, the authorities should consequently consider the appointment of the other recommended candidate placed in the 2nd position, for the post of Lecturer in History, in the CKB College, Teok. Thus, offer of appointment may be made to the writ petitioner, within six (6) weeks but if the writ petitioner fails to accept the appointment offer within two (2) weeks of the offer of appointment, the authorities are at liberty to fill the vacancy through a de novo process. It is ordered accordingly. 15. With the above order, the case stands allowed, in the manner indicated above. No cost.