JUDGMENT : 1. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department, U.P. Lucknow; Director General of Police, U.P. and three other State police functionaries have preferred this special appeal in challenge to order dated 05.01.2011 rendered by learned Single Judge while dealing with Writ Petition No.4651 (SS) of 2008 titled 'Balak Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. Vide the impugned order, the writ petition has been allowed. Order dated 29.05.2008 challenged by virtue of the writ petition has been quashed. Appellants/writ respondents have been directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/State Shri V.P. Nag and learned counsel for respondent Pt. S. Chandra and Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocates. We have gone through the contents of the appeal and writ petition. We have carefully gone through the contents of the impugned order. 3. The facts not in dispute are that an advertisement was issued on 02.06.2003 by the appellants vide which a number of posts in various categories were advertised. The issue involves the post of Constable (Technical)/Store Keeper. The age eligibility given as per the advertisement is 20 to 30 years for a candidate, as on 01.01.2003. So far as applicants from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are concerned, a benefit of five years has been given. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Technical)/Store Keeper. It is further not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and therefore, claimed benefit of five years of age. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/ writ petitioner furnished High School Certificate indicating his date of birth as 14.02.1967 so as to claim appointment. 5. It appears that the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner was not entertained, and was rejected, the petitioner being over-age. Under the circumstances, Inspector General (Technical), Police, U.P. passed order dated 25.10.2005. 6. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged order dated 25.10.2005 by way of filing Writ Petition No.8300 (SS) of 2005. The said petition was decided on 17.03.2008. Consequent to decision rendered in Writ Petition No.8300 (SS) of 2005, the respondent/writ petitioner represented vide representation dated 08.04.2008. Under the circumstances, Inspector General (Technical), Police, U.P. passed order dated 25.10.2005. 6. The respondent/writ petitioner challenged order dated 25.10.2005 by way of filing Writ Petition No.8300 (SS) of 2005. The said petition was decided on 17.03.2008. Consequent to decision rendered in Writ Petition No.8300 (SS) of 2005, the respondent/writ petitioner represented vide representation dated 08.04.2008. The appellants/writ respondents vide order dated 29.05.2008 rejected the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner which order came to be challenged by virtue of Writ Petition No.4651 (SS) of 2008 (supra), and is under consideration in these proceedings. Vide impugned order dated 05.01.2011, the writ petition has been allowed. Order dated 29.05.2008 passed by Inspector General (Technical Services), U.P. Police has been quashed. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes apparent that this Court is required to refer in extenso to the contents of order dated 29.05.2008. 8. Order dated 29.05.2008 is a detailed order and refers to various facts and circumstances, including documents. The facts/sequence of events emanating from the order are not disputed by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The facts when collectively considered indicate that after advertisement was published on 02.06.2003 and the respondent/writ petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Technical)/Store Keeper, the writ petitioner claimed his date of birth on the basis of High School Certificate to be 14.02.1967. 10. Vide the impugned order it has been considered that the respondent/writ petitioner was over-age by 11 months and 17 days if date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner is considered on the basis of High School Certificate furnished by him. The respondent/writ petitioner, however claimed that the date of birth had been wrongly recorded. In fact, date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner was 14.02.1968. 11. It is the admitted case that the respondent/writ petitioner filed an application for correction in High School Certificate in regard to date of birth on 13.08.2003 before Secretary, Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow. Likewise, respondent/writ petitioner made an application on 14.08.2003 before Education Minister, U.P. for correction in his date of birth in High School Certificate. It appears that the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner was rejected by the authorities concerned being barred by time. In such circumstances, the respondent/writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3389 (MS) of 2003 titled 'Balak Ram Vs. Likewise, respondent/writ petitioner made an application on 14.08.2003 before Education Minister, U.P. for correction in his date of birth in High School Certificate. It appears that the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner was rejected by the authorities concerned being barred by time. In such circumstances, the respondent/writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3389 (MS) of 2003 titled 'Balak Ram Vs. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. & Another' to seek quashing of order dated 01.09.2003 whereby his representation for correction of date of birth had been rejected. The writ Court while dealing with Writ Petition No.3389 (MS) of 2003 (supra) vide order dated 02.12.2004 gave liberty to the respondent/writ petitioner to approach the authorities and make a fresh representation for correction of date of birth. It appears that consequent to this Court passing order dated 02.12.2004, date of birth of the petitioner was corrected on 09.02.2005 and an amended certificate to that effect was issued by the Board. As per the amended High School Certificate, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 14.02.1968 which would make the respondent/writ petitioner eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Constable (Technical)/Store Keeper. 12. In order dated 29.05.2008 (supra), the respondents/authorities have considered that the circumstances clearly indicate that the respondent/writ petitioner, so as to get the job, got his date of birth changed, hence his claim for consideration for the post in question has been rejected. 13. We have gathered the above mentioned sequence of events from contents of order dated 29.05.2008 and documents placed on record with the writ petition. The events and dates have been admitted by learned counsel for the appellants, and the respondent. 14. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the relevant details above mentioned, and also mentioned in the impugned order, impugned by way of the writ petition under consideration, have not been considered by learned Single Judge, thereby causing manifest injustice. It has been pleaded that it would be in violation of law, if the respondent/writ petitioner is considered eligible in terms of age for the reason that the advertisement was issued on 02.06.2003. The last date for receiving application for the job was 15.06.2003. For all legal and factual purposes, the respondent/writ petitioner filed application for change in date of birth in High School Certificate on 13.08.2003 (supra) and 14.08.2003 (supra). The last date for receiving application for the job was 15.06.2003. For all legal and factual purposes, the respondent/writ petitioner filed application for change in date of birth in High School Certificate on 13.08.2003 (supra) and 14.08.2003 (supra). It has been pleaded and asserted that the document indicating 14.02.1968 as date of birth in High School Certificate emerged for the first time on 09.02.2005. In such circumstances, date of birth as reflected in document dated 09.02.2005 cannot be considered for the purposes of selection because the age criteria was to be considered as on 01.01.2003. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2013 SCC OnlineSC 674; Dipitimayee Parida Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., 2008 10 SCC 687 and Mohd. Sartaj and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2006 2 SCC 315 to assert his case. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has vehemently argued that once the date of birth was corrected, even though on 09.02.2005, it would relate back to the date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner. In such circumstances, benefit of corrected date of birth is required to be given to the respondent/writ petitioner. 17. We have considered the rival contentions. 18. Learned Single Judge in regard to the controversy has held in the following terms:- "......... I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the aim of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds; firstly, the petitioner has not enclosed the correct date of birth certificate along with the application though he has mentioned the correct date of birth in the column of date of birth and secondly, the petitioner's experience certificate, which has been enclosed with the application form, was not genuine. It is also not in dispute that nine other candidate, who had applied for different posts, were taken into service against the same vacancy, in which the petitioner applied for the post of Store Keeper. So far as the first objection is concerned, the U.P. Board has corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.2.1968 and accordingly, a fresh certificate to the same effect has been issued to the petitioner. So far as the first objection is concerned, the U.P. Board has corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 14.2.1968 and accordingly, a fresh certificate to the same effect has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has mentioned his date of birth in the application form as 14.2.1968 but the dispute is only with regards to non-enclosure of correct date of birth certificate and marksheet along with the application form. In my opinion, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner as he had made sincere efforts for correcting the year mentioned in the High School Certificate. No doubt it took a long time but the fact remains that the competent authority i.e Board has corrected the date of birth and as per correct date of birth, the petitioner is not overage. The Inspector General Technical Services erred in not taking into consideration the fresh and corrected certificate issued by the Board while passing the impugned order dated 29.5.2008." (Emphasised by us) 19. From the portion of the impugned order, above extracted, wherein the issue has been considered, it becomes evident that the relevant facts and circumstances emerging from order dated 29.05.2008, which had been challenged before the writ Court, have not been considered. Perusal of the impugned order does not disclose that it was brought to the notice of the writ court that the advertisement was issued on 02.06.2003. The impugned order does not consider that the last date of submitting application was 15.06.2003. It was not pointed out by either of the parties to the lis that the age eligibility criteria was to be considered as on 01.01.2003. The impugned order does not consider that till the last date of submitting application, the document/High School Certificate furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner reflected his date of birth as 14.02.1967 which clearly rendered him ineligible to consideration for the job, he being 11 months and 17 days over-age. Emphasised portion of the impugned order indicates that the writ Court was not furnished with the correct and complete facts. The application for correction of date of birth in the high school certificate was given after the last date of submitting applications by candidate on 13.08.2003 and 14.08.2003, as mentioned above. This issue and related conduct of the writ petitioner was of utmost importance to be considered. The application for correction of date of birth in the high school certificate was given after the last date of submitting applications by candidate on 13.08.2003 and 14.08.2003, as mentioned above. This issue and related conduct of the writ petitioner was of utmost importance to be considered. The order passed by the writ Court further does not consider that in the order impugned before it, the fact that for the first time the date of birth was corrected by way of amendment in the High School Certificate on 09.02.2005 i.e. much subsequent to conclusion of process of selection." 20. The judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and relied on by learned counsel for the appellants are in the following terms :- In Rakesh Kumar Sharma's case (supra), the following has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Paras - 6, 16 and 17 :- "6. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 17. 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. There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance. The appeal is devoid of any merit and does not present special features warranting any interference by this court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." (Emphasised by us) In Dipitimayee Parida's case (supra), the following has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para - 16 :- "16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp3 SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] stating: (SCC p. 175, para 10) "10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz. even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications." (Emphasised by us)" In Mohd. Sartaj's case (supra), the following relevant portion has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para - 21 :- ".............It is settled law that that qualification should have been seen which the candidate possessed on the date of recruitment and not at a later stage unless rules to that regard permit it. The minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 8 should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment." (Emphasised by us)" 21. In Dipitimayee Parida's case (supra), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in unequivocal terms that in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. In the case in hand, however we find that in the advertisement itself it was made clear that the age of a candidate should be 20 to 30 years as on 01.01.2003. In the case in hand, however we find that in the advertisement itself it was made clear that the age of a candidate should be 20 to 30 years as on 01.01.2003. In the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, benefit of five years was given. Under the circumstances, the respondent/writ petitioner was to be up to 35 years of age on 01.01.2003 to be eligible. The respondent/writ petitioner furnished High School Certificate indicating his date of birth as 14.02.1967. As per the said document, the respondent/writ petitioner was over age by 11 months and 17 days and therefore, did not satisfy the age criteria. Hence, on the basis of the documents furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner, he was not eligible to be considered for the post. The exercise of correction in date of birth was undertaken vide applications dated 13.08.2003 and 14.08.2003 i.e. much after the scheduled date 01.01.2003. In such circumstances, no illegality can be traced in order dated 29.05.2008 passed by the appellant authorities. 22. In Rakesh Kumar Sharma's case and Mohd. Sartaj's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is 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 application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy, provided he fulfills the requisite qualification. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. It has further been held that if persons who acquire qualification later are considered eligible, it would be violative of 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. 23. In the case in hand, the date of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner was corrected in the High School Certificate on 09.02.2005 i.e. after 2 years of the date on which the age was to be considered. The age criteria was to be considered as on 01.01.2003. In such circumstances, it would be highly improper and inequitable to allow the prayer of the respondent/writ petitioner, and consider him eligible in terms of age. 24. The age criteria was to be considered as on 01.01.2003. In such circumstances, it would be highly improper and inequitable to allow the prayer of the respondent/writ petitioner, and consider him eligible in terms of age. 24. We have also taken into account the fact that although the age as on 01.01.2003 was to be considered and last date of submitting application was 15.06.2003, however the respondent/writ petitioner, for the first time, filed application for correction of date of birth on 13.08.2003 and 14.08.2003. These are the facts that have been taken into account while passing order dated 29.05.2008 challenged before the writ Court. The said facts, however have not been considered by learned Single Judge. 25. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner is concerned that the date of birth would relate back to the date when the writ petitioner was born, we are unable to accept the contention. Selection process is provided by virtue of written advertisement, rules, regulations and guidelines. Certain cut off dates are provided within which period every candidate is required to furnish the documents in support of his or her claim to being eligible. It is evident that the document furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner in regard to his date of birth reflects him to be over-age by 11 months and 17 days. In such circumstances, the analogy pleaded on behalf of the respondent cannot be accepted by this Court. 26. In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-consideration of facts above noted have caused manifest injustice and has rendered the order illegal. The facts not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge go to the root of the matter and would essentially effect result of the lis. 27. For all the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed. 28. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner contends that the respondent/writ petitioner has been working since 04.02.2012. His service be protected. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants authorities has pointed out that the respondent/writ petitioner filed a contempt petition and therefore, the appellants were constrained on issuing a letter of appointment which, however makes it evident that his appointment shall be subject to decision in this special appeal. 30. His service be protected. 29. Learned counsel for the appellants authorities has pointed out that the respondent/writ petitioner filed a contempt petition and therefore, the appellants were constrained on issuing a letter of appointment which, however makes it evident that his appointment shall be subject to decision in this special appeal. 30. Considering the fact that letter of appointment has been issued contingent to decision in this appeal, we find no reason to extend any benefit to the respondent/writ petitioner. The respondent/writ petitioner accepted the condition in the appointment letter, hence cannot now reprobate to say that the said condition be waived. We are also supported in this regard by judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Kumar Sharma's case (supra) wherein it has been held that "Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible". In such circumstances, we make it clear that the service of the respondent/writ petitioner does not deserve any protection.