JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Utsav Mishra, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 15.9.2016, the petitioners applied against the post of Lab Technician. They were issued admit cards to appear in the written examination on 20.11.2016. The petitioners were found successful in written examination, thereafter, along with record, they were called for interview and they were not permitted to appear in the interview. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very out-set, submitted that on 20.03.2017, he submitted the application which is within the time stipulated under the advertisement, thus denial not to permit to appear in the interview is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature. He further submitted that the petitioners fulfilled all requisite qualifications and criteria for selection on the post of Lab Technician. In spite of that, he was not permitted to appear before the interview Board. 4. In rebuttal, Sri Ustav Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.2, invited attention of this Court on the advertisement and pointed out that there was stipulation in the advertisement that last date for submission of application-form is 5.10.2016. He further invited attention of this Court on the certificates enclosed at page nos.18 and 24 of the writ petition and pointed out that it was issued on 2.12.2016 much after the cut off date. The petitioners were issued diploma in Lab Technician on 2.12.2016 i.e. two months after cut off date, thus they were not eligible for consideration in the selection of Lab Technician. 5. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (SMT) v. University of Rajasthan and others reported in, (1993) Supp3 SCC 168 and submitted that law is settled that the candidate who applies in pursuance to an advertisement should be qualified on the last date of submission of application-form. The petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by making statement that prior to the last date of submission of application-form, he submitted it on 20.03.2017. Thus their claims are not acceptable in view of the above law report. 6. The petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by making statement that prior to the last date of submission of application-form, he submitted it on 20.03.2017. Thus their claims are not acceptable in view of the above law report. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Public Services Commission v. Alpna reported in, (1994) 2 SCC 723 has also considered the same issue in the matter of selection on the post of judicial officers and held that the eligibility criteria and qualification shall be seen on the last date of submission of application-form. 7. He further placed reliance on another Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in, (2013) 11 SCC 58 . 8. After having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material of the writ petition and law-reports cited by learned counsel for the respondent-Selection Commission. 9. On perusal of the advertisement, it is well established that the last date for submission of application-form was 15.10.2016. Knowing this fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court by making statement that the petitioners submitted their applications along with the certificates on 20.03.2017 which was within the time stipulated by the respondents. 10. On perusal of the certificates annexed at pages 18 and 24 of the writ petition, it is crystal clear that the same were issued to the petitioners on 2.12.2016 i.e. two months after the last cut off date. The fact which has been appearing on perusal of the writ petition, also demonstrates that on the last date of submission of application-form, the petitioner was not eligible and qualified to apply for the selection on the post of Lab Technician. He obtained diploma certificate in Lab Technician on 2.12.2016. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (SMT) (supra) has held in paragraph 11 as under: "However, for the reasons which follow, we are not inclined to set aside the selections in spite of the said illegality. The selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since February 1985. We are now in January 1993. Almost eight years have elapsed. The selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since February 1985. We are now in January 1993. Almost eight years have elapsed. There is also no record before us to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, 'it would result in injustice to those who have been selected. We, however, feel it necessary to emphasise and bring to the notice of the University that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates which have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its end must stop forthwith. it is for this purpose that we lay down the following guidelines for the future selection process: A. The University must note that the qualifications it advertises for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by its ordinance/Statutes. B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question, or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/notification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better then those who apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration. C. When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifically stated in the advertisement/notification both that the qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal. C. When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications, unless it is specifically stated in the advertisement/notification both that the qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed, the relaxation will be illegal. D. The University/Selection Committee must mention in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations, if any, in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made. E. The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time, and if the selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally disposed of. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not available." 12. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 12, 13, 14,15 and 21 as under: "12. In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. v. Alpana, this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commissiondf. 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 upto the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. 13. A three Judge Bench of this Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India & Ors. held 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." 14. In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr., this Court held: "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 Rules." 15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, held: "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. 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 HC-NIC Page 15 of 21 Created On Fri Mar 18 02:10:04 IST 2016 C/SCA/3623/2016 ORDER 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. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra and District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi. 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. On perusal of the law reports cited by learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, it is well established that the submissions advanced on his behalf that the petitioners were not qualified on the last date of submission of application-form is accepted. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition, being misconceived writ petition, is dismissed.