JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved by non-inclusion of her name in the final merit list prepared by the Appointment Committee for her appointment as an Assistant in High Court,/Judicial Academy or as a Clerk in Civil Court/Family Court pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/Accts./2016, as according to her, she had secured more marks than the last selected candidate. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent to issue appointment letter to her. An advertisement bearing No. 01/Accts./2016 was floated by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi for appointment to the post of Assistant/ Clerk in High Court, Judicial Academy, Assistant/Clerk of the Civil Court. In the said advertisement, the eligibility criteria was graduate from a recognized University, having knowledge of working on computer and typing knowledge. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the same. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was appearing in final year of Graduation exam in the year, 2016 from Gossner College, Ranchi for the session 2013-16, so the petitioner preferred a joint representation before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for allowing the appearing candidates to appear in the recruitment process by relaxing the condition of the advertisement. Meanwhile, the petitioner appeared in the Graduation examination and declared successful on 13.06.2016 with distinction and secured 88.13 % marks. Thereafter, an admit card bearing Roll No. 910691 for the written examination was issued in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared in the written test and cleared the said exam. After qualifying the written test, she was called for appearing in skill test and interview, which was held on 01.12.2016 and 02.12.2016 respectively and during the verification, she submitted the xerox copy of the graduation mark-sheet. Finally, result was published on 14.02.2017, but the name of the petitioner was not in the final merit list. The petitioner was quite shock to know that her name was not in the final merit list prepared by the Appointment Committee. Finally, result was published on 14.02.2017, but the name of the petitioner was not in the final merit list. The petitioner was quite shock to know that her name was not in the final merit list prepared by the Appointment Committee. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner sought information from the respondent authority under RTI Act, 2005, in reply thereof, she was informed that the cut off marks for final selection in High Court -for BC -II category was 86 marks and for Civil Court/Family Court -for BC-II category was 84 and she had obtained 86 marks, but the Hon'ble Appointment Committee had rejected your candidature as “you were not a graduate at the time of filling up the application form”. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the respondent on 18.04.2017, but no heed was paid on the representation of the petitioner. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent has illegally, arbitrary and without considering the marks, obtained by the petitioner in the recruitment tests, rejected the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner was not at fault, as the petitioner was appearing in the final year Graduation examination in the year, 2016 and at the time of written examination, conducted by respondent, she was a graduate. Learned counsel further argues that fixing eligibility criteria as on last date of submission of application form by the Appointment Committee is not at all considerable. The petitioner along with other candidates have made a joint representation to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, wherein she prayed to allow the appearing Graduates to appear in the recruitment process. It is further stated that prior to the written examination, no information was given to her regarding decision of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the representation of the petitioner. Moreover, admit card was issued to her for appearing in the written test. Mr. Sinha further argues that the petitioner has succeeded in the written examination as well as in skill test and she has obtained 86 marks in overall, but the petitioner is debarred to taste the fruit of her success. Moreover, admit card was issued to her for appearing in the written test. Mr. Sinha further argues that the petitioner has succeeded in the written examination as well as in skill test and she has obtained 86 marks in overall, but the petitioner is debarred to taste the fruit of her success. To buttress his argument, learned counsel places reliance on para 23 & 24 of reported Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 313 . Learned counsel lastly submits that 08 to 10 seats are still vacant, as some of the candidates have not joined the post, a lenient view may be taken and a direction may be given to the respondent for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria /conditions laid down in the advertisement for appointment and acquiring the eligibility criteria after the cut-of date, cannot be a ground for consideration of her case and as such, no consideration may be given to the petitioner for appointment to the said post. Learned counsel further argues that in the Admit Card itself it was mentioned that 'your candidature shall be cancelled at any stage of recruitment process, if irregularities of any kind if found' and candidature for written examination is provisional and subject to verification of proof of payment of application/processing fee and your fulfilling the prescribed age, educational qualification and other conditions as specified in the Advertisement. At the time of verification, the Verification Team have found that the permanent Address in application form does not tally with residential certificate and BC-II Certificate produced by the petitioner. Moreover, she was an appearing candidate, rightly the respondent has not considered the case of the petitioner. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on a reported Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 . Moreover, she was an appearing candidate, rightly the respondent has not considered the case of the petitioner. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on a reported Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 . Learned counsel further argues that as such no joint representation, as claimed by the petitioner is received in the office of High Court, rather a representation signed by the petitioner only was received. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant case. From perusal of the records, it transpires that at the time of verification of testimonials and documents, the irregularity/discrepancy was found by the Verification Team that the petitioner was not a graduate but an appearing Graduate Candidate at the time of submission of her application form under Advertisement No. 01/Accts./2016. Thereafter, vide Minutes dated 24.01.2017 of Hon'ble Appointment/Promotion/Selection/ACP and Absorption Committee of respondent, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. There was a specific information at clause 11 under the heading 'Instruction' in the Admit Card that “Your candidature for the written examination is provisional and subject to verification of proof of payment of application /processing fee and your fulfilling the prescribed age, educational qualification and other conditions as specified in our advertisement.” It was also clearly mentioned at clause 12 under the heading “Instruction” of the Admit Card that “Your candidature shall be cancelled at any stage of recruitment process if irregularities of any kind if found”. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in 2013 (11) SCC 58 and has observed, as under:- “Candidate acquires qualification only on the date of declaration of result -impugned judgment finding that since appellant did not possess requisite eligibility on prescribed date, and hence, was ineligible for appointment calls for no interference.” 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 fulfils the requisite qualification. 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 fulfils the requisite qualification. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Alpana, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 723 , as under:- “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.” Similarly in case of M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 429 has held, in para 9, as under:- “9. .. It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date.” (emphasis supplied) In case of Harpal Kuar Chahal Vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, in para 2, as under:- “2. .. It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules.” (emphasis supplied) In case of Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, in para 13, as under:- “13. Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules.” (emphasis supplied) In case of Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, in para 13, as under:- “13. ..The High Court has held (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. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.” (emphasis supplied) In case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, in para 14, as under:- “14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through Court. (emphasis supplied) Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhnad & Anr. in W.P. (S) No.4355 of 2009. Admittedly, the petitioner had not cleared her B.A./B.Sc. Degree examination on or before the cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2016. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner was not a graduate on or before the cut-off date, which was requisite qualification for appearing in the said examination. Thus comfortably it can be said/derived that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the said examination. Admittedly, the petitioner had not cleared her B.A./B.Sc. Degree examination on or before the cut-off date i.e. 31.03.2016. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner was not a graduate on or before the cut-off date, which was requisite qualification for appearing in the said examination. Thus comfortably it can be said/derived that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the said examination. The issue to be decided in this writ petition is that as to whether this Court can relax the eligibility or change the cut-off date for appearing in the examination or whether even if a candidate is appearing candidate in graduation exam, can be considered at the time of appointment if the results are declared on or before the final appointment. From perusal of the advertisement, it is crystal clear that in column of eligibility criteria at serial No.1 it is clearly mentioned that one should be ‘Graduate from recognized University having knowledge of working on computers with sound knowledge of Typing in computer’. Therefore, I find no reason to change the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement bearing as Advertisement No. 01/Acct./2016. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III & Class IV) Rules, 1998 in which Rule 9 talks of appointment to the post of Clerk Grade-III and Typist Grade-III, the minimum qualification shall be B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com or equivalent degree of recognized University and as such, the requisite eligibility criteria was at the time of appointment and not at the time of submission of application form and the petitioner fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria at the time of appointment is not at all acceptable to this Court. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria at the time of appointment and her case ought to have been considered is not acceptable to this Court as:- There could be a 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 petitioner 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. Granting any benefit to the petitioner 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. Illegal appointment cannot be promoted by this Court. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. There is no illegality or infirmity committed by the respondent. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.