JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. The petitioner, who was the applicant in O.A.No.530/2017, has filed this original petition challenging Ext.P1 order by which the Tribunal dismissed his application. The petitioner had submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P3 notification published by the Public Service Commission (PSC), inviting applications to the post of Assistant Surgeon/Casualty Medical Officer in the Health Services Department. As per Ext.P3 Notification, the qualifications prescribed for the notified post are as follows:- (1) Degree in Modern Medicine (MBBS) or equivalent qualification. (2) Valid Registration with Travancore Cochin Medical Council. 2. The notification stipulate the last date for submission of applications as 28.01.2015 Wednesday up to 12 midnight. Even though the petitioner responded to the notification, as on the last date for submission of the application, he had only a provisional registration with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council. The petitioner obtained valid permanent registration with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council only on 18.6.2015. Therefore, the PSC, after scrutiny of the certificates accompanying the petitioner's application, rejected his application on the ground that he did not have the requisite qualification. 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had provisional registration at the time of submitting his application, which should be treated as valid registration with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises an alternative contention that, having obtained a permanent registration subsequently on 18.6.2015, the PSC ought not have rejected his application, since he was qualified by the time the process of appointment was completed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the PSC and the Medical council of India and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. In order to answer the first contention that provisional registration with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council should have been treated as valid registration for the purpose of considering the petitioner's application, the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') ought to be looked into. As per Section 2(k) of the Act, State Medical Register has been defined as follows:- “State Medical Register” means a register maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicine” Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:- 15. As per Section 2(k) of the Act, State Medical Register has been defined as follows:- “State Medical Register” means a register maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicine” Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:- 15. Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled— (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register. (2) Save as provided in section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register,-- (a) shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified practitioner; (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian-Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine. (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The other relevant provision is Section 25 of the Act, which reads as follows:- "25.Provisional Registration- (1) A citizen of India possessing a medical qualification granted by a medical institution outside India included in Part II of the Third Schedule, who is required to undergo practical training as prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 13, shall, on production of proper evidence that he has been selected for such practical training in an approved institution, be entitled to be registered provisionally in a State Medical Register and shall be entitled to practise medicine in the approved institution for the purposes of such training and for no other purpose. (2) A person who has passed the qualifying examination of any University or medical institution in India for the grant of a recognised medical qualification shall be entitled to be registered provisionally in a State Medical Register for the purpose of enabling him to be engaged in employment in a resident medical capacity in any approved institution, or in the Medical Service of the Armed Forces of the Union, and for no other purpose, on production of proper evidence that he has been selected for such employment." 6. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that a provisional registration in the State Medical Register would enable the person who has registered provisionally, to be engaged in employment in a resident medical capacity and for no other purpose. A person thus registered provisionally and who has completed practical training or has been engaged for the prescribed period in employment shall be entitled to registration in the State Medical Register. Only on such registration that person would be deemed to have been enrolled and be entitled to exercise the functions specified under Section 15(2) of the Act, including the right to practise medicine. Therefore, we have no doubt that the provisional registration in the register maintained by the Travancore Cochin Medical Council is not the valid registration mandated by the PSC in Ext.P3 notification. Such being the position, we have no doubt that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification on the last date prescribed for receipt of applications. We are fortified in our view by a decision of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.127/2013, wherein after referring to section 25 of the Act, the Division Bench observed as follows:- ".........In that view of the matter, when the candidates with Provisional Certificate cannot be allowed to practise except the work they could do in terms of Section 25(2) of the Act, we are unable to understand how such Certificate would entitle them to apply to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Department of Health Services. In view of the above reasoning, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for us to consider in this original petition warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above reasoning, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for us to consider in this original petition warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed." With regard to the second contention that the subsequent acquisition of qualification by the petitioner ought to be reckoned for the purpose of considering his application, we have no hesitation to reject that contention, since that question is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another (2011) 9 SCC 438 had considered a similar issue and in paragraph 15 of the judgment, had held as follows:- “15. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res integra. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P.Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, M.V.Nair v. Union of India, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: (Bhupinderpal Singh case, SCC p.268, para 13) “13......(i) that 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 and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority.” Again in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2013) 11 SCC 58 , the Apex Court considered the issue with respect to the relevant date for acquiring the prescribed educational qualification and held as follows:- “21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he applied representing that he possessed the same. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court. 22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.” Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that a candidate should possess the requisite qualification on the last date fixed for submission/receipt of applications and that any later acquisition of qualification cannot be taken into consideration. Both points urged by the petitioner are answered in the negative and consequently, the original petition is dismissed.