JUDGMENT : Prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to appear in Jharkhand Finance Service (Limited) Competitive Examination, which is scheduled to be held on 18th March, 2017, pursuant to Advertisement No. 10/2010, read with Press Communique, dated 07.02.2017 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Officer. It has been further prayed to confirm the services of the petitioner as he was appointed vide Office Order dated 06.02.1994 to the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed vide Office Order contained in Memo No. 1547 dated 06.12.1994 on the post of Assistant Teacher. On the date of appointment, the petitioner was Post-Graduate with B.Ed. The petitioner joined the services on 09.12.1994 and since then, he has been continuing on the post of Assistant Teacher in the district of Bokaro and has served in one or other schools in the District of Bokaro. The petitioner is presently posted and working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Punarvas Harijan, Chas-1, Bokaro. It is the case of the petitioner that the service book of the petitioner was opened on 16.12.1994 and granted all usual increments time to time and after completion of 12 years of service, the petitioner was also granted promotion in Senior Scale Grade-2. The petitioner was having unblemished service career. Though the services of the petitioner was deemed to be confirmed but no formal order of confirmation was ever issued by the Competent Authority. The petitioner had completed almost 15 ears of services as an Assistant Teacher, which is Class-III post. 3. An advertisement being Advertisement No. 10/2010 was floated by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, published in daily Hindustan Times, Ranchi edition, Ranchi on 09.10.2010 for appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Officer through Limited Departmental Examination. As per this Advertisement, a candidate having Graduate or equivalent degree from a recognized University is entitled to participate, provided he is working for more than five years in Government Service on Class-III post. The petitioner having all the requisite qualification in pursuant to said advertisement, applied for the said post. The application of the petitioner was forwarded through proper channel to J.P.S.C and the same was received in the office of Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 25.11.2010. The petitioner having all the requisite qualification in pursuant to said advertisement, applied for the said post. The application of the petitioner was forwarded through proper channel to J.P.S.C and the same was received in the office of Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 25.11.2010. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Jharkhand Public Service Commission published a Press Communique, which was placed on the website of JPSC and as many as candidatures of 908 candidates were rejected, but the name of the petitioner does not find place in the said list of rejected candidates. It was assumed that the case of petitioner has been accepted for participating in the exams. Despite publication of the advertisement in the year, 2010, no examination was held for nearly 7 years, but recently a tentative calendar-2017 for examinations/interviews was uploaded on the website of JPSC. As per which the examination for Commercial Tax Officer (Limited ) Competitive Examination is scheduled to be held on 18.03.2017. The petitioner was hopeful for participating in the said examinations but recently, a Press Communique was issued by JPSC, in daily Prabhat Khabar on 7th February, 2017, whereby the candidates have been asked to submit the certified copy of the entries made in the service book, relating to confirmation of his/her services on or before 20.02.2017. It is further stipulated that the entries related to confirmation must have been made prior to cut-off date i.e. 01.04.2005. As there was no formal order of confirmation regarding the services of the petitioner, he wrote a representation to the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro to do the needful in the matter of confirmation of service of the petitioner at the earliest. 4. As no formal order of confirmation was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro regarding the confirmation of services on the cut-off date, the petitioner in absence of any confirmation order was deprived for appearing in the examination pursuant to Advertisement No. 10/10. But recently, the services of the petitioner has been duly confirmed by the respondents vide Memo No. 2373 dated 08.08.2017, whereby the services of the petitioner has been confirmed w.e.f. 09.12.1997. As per the respondents, the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, his candidature was not considered. But recently, the services of the petitioner has been duly confirmed by the respondents vide Memo No. 2373 dated 08.08.2017, whereby the services of the petitioner has been confirmed w.e.f. 09.12.1997. As per the respondents, the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, his candidature was not considered. 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 his grievances. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urges that the petitioner is fully entitled for appearing in the examination pursuant to Advertisement No. 10/2010 as he fulfills all the eligibility criteria and requisite qualification for the same. Learned counsel further argues that services of the petitioner was not confirmed due to the fault of the respondents and petitioner cannot be made to suffer because of the fault of the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that even his services has been confirmed with retrospective date in the year, 2017 w.e.f. 09.12.1997 and as such, very comfortably, it can be said that on the cut-off date, his services were duly confirmed and he was fully eligible for appearing in the exams pursuant to advertisement No. 10/2010. Though the date of filling up of the form has elapsed but the examination is yet to be commenced i.e. 29th April, 2018 and as such, a direction may be given upon the respondents to allow the petitioner for appearing in the exams. 6. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on para 4 & 5 of reported Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Md. Muzaffar Alam Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 169 and in Case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. in para 21, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 . Learned counsel further relied on a Judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court in case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 513 . Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is fully entitled for appearing in the aforesaid examination. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Learned counsel further relied on a Judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court in case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 513 . Learned counsel lastly submits that the petitioner is fully entitled for appearing in the aforesaid examination. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and draws the attention of the Court towards several paragraphs of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 21.11.2017 filed by respondents No. 5 & 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues that candidate must have fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria upto the last date of submission of the application form and a candidate acquiring the eligibility criteria indicated in the advertisement after the last date of the submission of the application form is not eligible for consideration for appointment. It is further argued that as per the requirement to submit relevant letters/service excerpts regarding confirmation of services as well as completion of five years service with confirmation of services up to the cut-off date in terms of Annexure-E, the Commission will have no option except to reject the candidature of such candidate in terms of the advertisement. Learned counsel further argues that it is evident from the order of District Establishment Committee, Bokaro that the services of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 09.12.1997 vide order dated 08.08.2017 i.e. after the last date of submission of the application form as mentioned in the advertisement and as such, the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the examination in view of the fact that the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the advertisement up to the last date of submission of application form. 8. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the respondents 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 relied upon a judgment of this Court in case of Bimal Bihari Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 1094 of 2017 and other analogous cases]. 9. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 . Learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of this Court in case of Bimal Bihari Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 1094 of 2017 and other analogous cases]. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that law is very well settled regarding the acceptance of form or allowing the candidate to appear in the exams after the cut-off date. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria/ requisite qualification on the cut-off date. May be the services of the petitioner was not confirmed due to the laches on the part of the respondents but admittedly, as on the cut-off date, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of confirmation, which was a part of the advertisement/press Communique. The services of the petitioner was confirmed in the year, 2017 w.e.f. 09.12.1997 vide order dated 08.08.2017. The reliance of the petitioner in case of Md. Muzaffar Alam Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) is no help to him, in Md. Muzzaffar Allam (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that similarly situated have already been given the benefit of due consideration, excluding the appellant would be discriminatory and unreasonable. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner had appeared in the examinations and faced the interview but the results were not declared and as such, in the aforesaid premises, exclusion of the appellant from consideration cannot be sustained. In the instant case, the facts are completely different. 10. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Director, Punjab Instructions, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, in para 2, which reads 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) 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 has held in para 14, as under:- “14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 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) 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has been held :- 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. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 which reads as under :- ‘Recruitment to public services should be made strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and recruitment rules. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post.’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ritesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677 , para 26 has held that :- “26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right merely errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right merely errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the Court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitably jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner.” 13. As the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification/eligibility criteria as on or before the cut-off date, no interference is warranted in the instant writ application. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, legal propositions, rules and guidelines, there is no illegality or infirmity in not entertaining the candidature of the petitioner by the respondents. The instant writ petition is devoid of any merit. 14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.