Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 291 (HP)

Dharam Pal Singh v. Himachal Pradesh University

2021-05-04

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Whether a qualification acquired by a candidate subsequent to the prescribed date can be taken into consideration to adjudge the eligibility or acquisition of higher qualification is the moot question to be decided in the instant petition? 2. The respondent-University issued an Advertisement No.Rectt.-17/2019 dated 30.12.2019 for filling up various teaching and administrative posts through direct recruitment. In terms of the advertisement, the crucial date i.e. the closing date for determining the eligibility of all candidates in respect of essential qualification(s) and experience, if any, etc. was 30.01.2020; as is evident from important Instruction No.2 appended with the advertisement which reads as under:- “2. Date for determining eligibility of all candidates in respect of essential qualification(s) and experience, if any, etc. shall be the prescribed closing date for submission of Online Application i.e. 30-01-2020 (Closing date).” 3. The petitioner is an applicant for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science (BCA/MCA/PGDCA) in ICDEOL, Himachal Pradesh University, for which post the minimum qualification is as per the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter to be called as ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’). 4. As per the decision taken in the meetings of the Executive Council held on 10.06.1981 and 12.06.1981, an advertisement is to be operational upto one year. However, in the instant case, the time limit for the advertisement was extended by another six months upto 30th June, 2021. 5. It is the admitted case of the parties that as on the closing date for determining the eligibility of candidates i.e. 30.01.2020, the petitioner had not been awarded Ph.D. Degree as the same was obtained by him only in the month of December, 2020. 6. 5. It is the admitted case of the parties that as on the closing date for determining the eligibility of candidates i.e. 30.01.2020, the petitioner had not been awarded Ph.D. Degree as the same was obtained by him only in the month of December, 2020. 6. However, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-University to consider the additional higher qualification obtained by him after the closing date as per the advertisement, but the same was rejected vide communication dated 30.01.2021 (Annexure P-5) and aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following relief:- “That the decision taken by the respondent university (Annexure P-5), not to consider the additional higher educational qualification i.e. the Degree of Ph.D. obtained by the petitioner after the issuance of the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science (BCA/MCA/PGDCA) in ICDEOL, Himachal Pradesh University, advertised vide Advertisement No. 17/2019, issued on 30/12/2019; may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent university to take into consideration the additional higher educational qualification i.e. Ph.D. in Computer Science, for the above mentioned post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science (BCA/MCA/PGDCA) in ICDEOL, HPU, Shimla-05; for which the interviews are yet to be conducted and for which the petitioner has already applied and is eligible as per UGC regulations, 2018 at the time of applying for the said post of Assistant Professor Or alternatively the decision taken by the respondent university in the meeting of Executive Council on 21/11/2020 (Annexure P-9) to extend the time limit of the advertisement for other six months after the expiry of the time limit of one year, may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.” 7. The respondent has filed its reply wherein it is stated that due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic, the State Government imposed lockdown and, therefore, the recruitment process on the basis of the advertisement could not be started till mid August, 2020. Resultantly, the selection process on all the advertised posts could not be completed within the prescribed validity period of advertisement. Hence, the matter was placed before the competent body of the University for decision i.e. Executive Council which approved the extension of validity period of the advertisement upto 30.06.2021. 8. Resultantly, the selection process on all the advertised posts could not be completed within the prescribed validity period of advertisement. Hence, the matter was placed before the competent body of the University for decision i.e. Executive Council which approved the extension of validity period of the advertisement upto 30.06.2021. 8. As regards the acquisition of higher qualification of Ph.D., it is averred that since this Degree was acquired by the petitioner after the last date of online application, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration and the representation of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent. 9. We have heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person as also Shri Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Surender Verma, Advocate, for the respondent-University and have also perused the material placed on record. 10. It is more than settled that where the applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing applications, the eligibility of the candidates has to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person, who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered at all. An Advertisement or Notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation and it cannot act contrary to it. 11. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment rendered by three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others vs. Chander Shekhar and another (1997) 4 SCC 18 wherein it was held as under:- “6. The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the 33 respondent So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated Ist September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview.” 12. The entire issue has been considered at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2013 (10) Scale 42 wherein while dealing with a similar case where the appellant had though appeared for the B.Ed. Examination which was pre-requisite qualification for the post, but his result had not been declared. It was in this background that it was observed as under:- “4. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2013 (10) Scale 42 wherein while dealing with a similar case where the appellant had though appeared for the B.Ed. Examination which was pre-requisite qualification for the post, but his result had not been declared. It was in this background that it was observed as under:- “4. The facts are not in dispute. As per the advertisement, applications had to be submitted by 29.10.2007 and the Appellant made a representation that he had obtained the B. Ed degree but could not submit a copy of the marks sheet or Degree certificate. The appointment letter dated 19.6.2009 was temporary/provisional, subject to verification of various aspects including that of educational qualification. The Appellant was permitted to join services on the basis of provisional appointment letter and therefore, the sole question involved herein is whether the Appellant could claim any relief, if for one reason or the other his result had not been declared upto the last date of the submission of the application form. 5. A three Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Kumar and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1593 dealt with a case where regular appointment had not been made. The court held that unless a person holds the post permanently, his services would be governed by the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment letter and the court must in all circumstances enforce the terms specifically stated therein. 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. 7. In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and Anr. v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 , 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 Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. v. Alpana, (1994) 2 SCC 723 , 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 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 upto the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. 8. A three Judge Bench of this Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 429 , held as under: “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 added) 9. In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Anr., 1995 Suppl 4 SCC 706, this Court held: “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.” 10. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 held: “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 he 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 slate 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 slate 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 dale 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. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Surat Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669 ; and District Collector and Chairman. Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 .” 11. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993), the majority view was as under: “The fact is that the Appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the Appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The Appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect. (Emphasis added) However, the opinion of Justice R.M. Sahai had been that these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of applications. 12. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) observing: “The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.” (Emphasis added) The Court further explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) was not correct, rather the dissenting view by Justice R.M. Sahai was correct as the Court held as under: “The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 Respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 Respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.” (Emphasis added) It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi appears to have been made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. Infact the court wanted to make a reference to the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (1993) (supra). 13. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2011 this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held: “The High Court has held (i) that the cutoff 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.” 14. 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.” 14. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari, AIR 2012 SC 3281 held: “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, he 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. (Sec Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal, 1993 Supp1 SCC 714 and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, 2008 7 SCC 153 .) (Emphasis added) 15. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, (2008) 7 SCC 153 ; and State of Orissa v. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 . 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 docs 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.” 13. Similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1919/2018 titled Sanjay Mishra vs. State of H.P. and others along with connected matter, decided on 30.12.2019, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. The question whether candidate must have prescribed educational and other qualifications as on a particular date specified in the Rules or the advertisement is no longer res intergra. It is more than settled that cut off date by reference to which 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 and 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 been received by the competent authority. 19. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alka Ojha vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr., AIR 2011 SCC 3547, wherein it was observed as under:- “14. 19. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alka Ojha vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr., AIR 2011 SCC 3547, wherein it was observed as under:- “14. The question whether the candidate must have the prescribed educational and other qualifications as on the particular date specified in the Rule or the advertisement is no longer res intergra. In Bhupinderpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262 ; ( AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW 1888), this Court referred to the earlier judgments in A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Sarat Chandra (1990) 2 SCC 669 , District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 , M. V. Nair (Dr.) vs. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429 :(1993) AIR SCW 1412), Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad vs. Alpana (1994 AIR SCW 2861) (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar (supra) and approved the following proposition laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court: “….. that cut off date by reference to which 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 and 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.” 14. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma’s case (supra) has thereafter been followed consistently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to two recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. In Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401 , it was observed as under:- “88. 15. In Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020) 7 SCC 401 , it was observed as under:- “88. This court is of the opinion that the decision in Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Patna (2016) 9 SCC 313 , as far as it makes a distinction between consideration, of a candidate’s eligibility, at the stage of selection, and eligibility reckonable at the time of appointment, is incorrect. There is clear authority to the proposition that eligibility of any candidate is to be reckoned, not from the date of his or her selection, but in terms of the rules, or the advertisement for the post. In Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Chander Shekhar & Ors (1997) 4 SCC 18 , a three-judge bench of this court held as follows: ( Ashok Kumar Sharma case 42, SCC pp. 21-22, para 6) “6….The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well- established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement of notification issued/published calling for application constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the person had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority Judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and Ors. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J.(and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview.” This reasoning is similar to other decisions, such as U.P. Public Service Commission v Alpana (1994) 2 SCC 723 and Bhupinderpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors (2000) 5 SCC 262 . Therefore, the observation in Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra) that: (SCC p. 320, para 7) “the right of such a person to participate in the selection process undertaken by the State for appointment to any post in public service (subject to other rational prescriptions regarding the eligibility for participating in the selection process such as age, educational qualification etc.) and be considered is guaranteed under Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” is not correct. With respect, the distinction sought to be made, between “selection” and “appointment” in the context of eligibility, is without foundation. A selection process begins with advertisement, calling for applications from eligible candidates. Eligibility is usually defined with reference to possession of stipulated qualifications, experience, and age, as on the last date (of receipt of applications, or a particular specified date, etc). Anyone fulfilling those eligibility conditions, with reference to such date, would be ineligible. Therefore, the observation that the right to participate in the selection process, without possessing the prescribed eligibility conditions, is guaranteed, is not correct; the right is guaranteed only if the candidate concerned fulfils the requisite eligibility criteria, on the stipulated date. As pointed out by the three judge bench decision, if the contrary is correct, one acquiring the stipulated qualifications subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. As pointed out by the three judge bench decision, if the contrary is correct, one acquiring the stipulated qualifications subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered. Also, one not fulfilling the conditions cannot be allowed to participate, because, as held in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), if it were known, that such ineligible candidates can be considered, those who do not apply, but are better placed than the ineligible candidates who are allowed to participate, would be left out. Moreover, the authority publishing the advertisement/ notification represents to the members of the public that it is bound by such representation.” 16. In Civil Appeal No. 554/2021 titled Suman Devi and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 25.03.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “….Furthermore, it is useful to recollect that the eligibility of a candidate or applicant for a public post or service, is to be adjudged as on the last date of receipt of applications for such post or service, in terms of the relevant advertisement, and the prevailing service rules. This position is recognized by settled authority in Ashok Kumar Sharma v Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 , a three Judge Bench of this Court ruled in this context that: “6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it.” 17. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it.” 17. From the conspectus of laws on the subject, some of which have been noted above, the position appears to be as follows:- (i) That the suitability and eligibility of a candidate have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for the applications itself specifies such a date; (ii) When the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who are possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules; (iii) 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; (iv) Where the applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. As a necessary corollary, a person, who acquires the necessary qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered at all; (v) A person who does not possess the requisite qualification on the appointed date cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules and therefore would 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. The question of law, as framed, is answered accordingly. 18. 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. The question of law, as framed, is answered accordingly. 18. To be fair to the petitioner, he has placed strong reliance on the notification dated 11.01.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Government of India, whereby instructions have been given to all the Ministries and Departments to ensure that the entire recruitment process including and starting from advertisement, conducting written examination or holding of interview may be completed within six months and since this has not been done in the instant case, therefore, the respondent- University is bound to take into consideration the higher qualification of Ph.D. as acquired by the petitioner in the meanwhile. 19. We do not find any merit in this contention for the simple reason that due to outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic the State Government had imposed lockdown and because of which there were travelling and movement restrictions and consequently the recruitment process in terms of the advertisement could not be initiated till mid August, 2020. 20. In addition to the above, the mere fact that the University has extended time limit of the advertisement for the reasons stated above does not mean that the University is bound to take into consideration the higher/additional qualification that the applicants may have acquired after issuance of the original advertisement on 30.12.2019. 21. Noticeably, there is no allegation of any bias or malafides against any Officer of the respondent and, therefore, in absence of such allegation, the Court will not interfere with the action of the respondent, which as observed above, is in consonance with law. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.