ORDER : Rajnish Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri M.Usman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Kunal Shah, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Combined Assistant Accountant and Auditor General against the Advertisement No.12-Examination 2016. The last date for submission of application form was 04.08.2016. The petitioner being fully eligible has applied for the post. Therefore the petitioner was issued a letter dated 20.11.2018 calling him for interview but he has not been allowed to appear in the interview, on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the O Level certificate on 30.08.2018. He further submitted that in Clause 6 of the letter dated 20.11.2018, it has been mentioned that in case the result has been declared recently and the certificate/degree has not been issued by the concerned examination body, provisional certificate would essentially be required at the time of interview. Therefore the petitioner had produced the provisional certificate dated 30.08.2018 but the same has not been considered in view of the notification dated 27.08.2018 by which the cut off date has been fixed as 04.08.2016. Therefore the submission is that on a subsequent date after issuance of the advertisement the cut off date cannot be fixed which is of a earlier period. He further submitted that no cut off date was fixed in the advertisement (supra) against which the petitioner had applied and it is only after about two years the cut of date has been fixed regarding the last date for submission of forms. He further submitted that if any date was fixed in the advertisement he is out of Court. 3. In view of above, he submitted that as provided in paragraph 6 of the Clause 6 of the letter dated 20.11.2018, he is entitled to be interviewed being eligible candidate. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that cut off date was fixed in the advertisement because it was specifically mentioned that the candidates who possess the essential qualification on the last date of the submission of the form can submit online application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that cut off date was fixed in the advertisement because it was specifically mentioned that the candidates who possess the essential qualification on the last date of the submission of the form can submit online application. He further submitted that even if the particular date would not have been fixed, the last date of submission of application form would be cut off date for acquiring the essential qualification as per law. He further submitted that by notification dated 27.08.2018, the cut off date provided in the advertisement has only been reiterated for issuance of the certificate. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of District Collector and Chairman Vizianagram S.W.R.S. Society versus M. Tripura Sundara Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 he submitted that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement in regard to the selection is not a matter between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned therefore, fixing of any subsequent date would be a fraud on the candidates who are eligible and could have applied at the relevant point of time. Therefore in any case it is to be interpreted as the last date for the submission of the application form for acquiring the qualification. 5. I have considered the submission of parties and perused the records. 6. Note 1 to Clause 7 of the advertisement specifically provides that the candidates intending to apply for the post who are within the age prescribed and who have acquired the essential qualification, which has been described in Schedule 3 of the advertisement can submit online application. It has further been mentioned in Clause 8 of the Advertisement that the essential qualification should have been acquired by the candidates by the last date of submission of the application forms. 7. In view of above, the last date for acquiring the essential qualification was already provided in the advertisement which was the last date of submission of application form i.e. 04.08.2016 and the notification dated 27.08.2018 is only a reiteration of that date in view of the information given by the NIELIT in regard to 'O' level certificate. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cut off date was fixed in the advertisement is totally mis-conceived. 8. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cut off date was fixed in the advertisement is totally mis-conceived. 8. The Clause 6 of the letter dated 20.11.2018 i.e, interview letter provides that the commission does not recognise the marks sheet in place of original certificates or degree therefore if the examination body has not issued regular certificate or degree then the provisional certificate would essentiallybe shown in place of original certificate. It has nothing to do with the cut off date for acquiring the essential qualification which was the last date of submission of form i.e. 04.08.2016. Therefore also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the recently published results mentioned in the clause, that the petitioner is eligible is misconceived and baseless. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Rakesh Kumar Sharma versus State (NCT of DELHI) and others that the eligibility conditions should be examined on the last date for receipt of applications by the commission. The relevant paragraph 11 and 12 are reproduced as under:- "11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfills the requisite qualification. 12. IN U.P. Public Service Commission versus Alpana, this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible." 10. Relevant paragraph 6 of District Collector and Chairman Vizianagram S.W.R.S.Society versus M. Tripura Sundara Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 is reproduced as under:- "6. Relevant paragraph 6 of District Collector and Chairman Vizianagram S.W.R.S.Society versus M. Tripura Sundara Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 is reproduced as under:- "6. It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact." In view of above, the writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, having no merit. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.