ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to challenge the Order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application Number 8940 of 2016. 2. The respondent No. 1 issued a notification dated 22.07.2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection to the post of General Duty Medical Officers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services. The procedure prescribed under the notification provided that the selection shall be based on the marks secured in the prescribed qualification and the Rules relating to reservation. In so far as those candidates who had served as Doctors on permanent or contractual basis, they would be entitled to grace marks of 2 for the every completed year of such service, subject to a maximum marks of 6. 3. It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 who had secured 61.11% and 60.79% applied for the said post. The petitioner was entitled to a grace marks of 2 as he had worked between 04.04.2013 and 03.04.2014 on compulsory Rural Service. He had also worked on contractual basis between 13.08.2014 till 19.08.2015. The respondent No. 3 was also entitled to grace marks of 2 as he had prior service between 26.09.2013 to 06.08.2015. Both of them availed the reservation under category-3B - Rural. It is stated that based on the marks secured by the eligible applicants in their MBBS Degree, they were shortlisted. In so far as category - 3B - Rural is concerned, the cut off marks was fixed at 62.22%. 4. The petitioner claimed that respondent No. 1 failed to publish a list of eligible candidates along with their marks. Thus, by two representations dated 14.09.2015 and 03.10.2015, he sought information about the details of the candidates who were selected, the marks secured by them and the manner of awarding grace marks. These representations were rejected by endorsements dated 09.10.2015 and 03.11.2015 as selection process was not finalized. The petitioner claimed that the respondent No. 2 published an additional list on 07.09.2016 where the respondent No. 3 was selected against the category-3B - Rural. The petitioner protested it by a representation which was rejected by an endorsement dated 19.02.2016 wherein, it was claimed that the threshold percentage for category-3B - Rural was fixed at 62.22% and that applicants in the ratio 1:3 were invited for verification of documents. The petitioner protested it by a representation which was rejected by an endorsement dated 19.02.2016 wherein, it was claimed that the threshold percentage for category-3B - Rural was fixed at 62.22% and that applicants in the ratio 1:3 were invited for verification of documents. It was stated that since the petitioner failed to qualify the cut off marks of 62.22% he was not called for the verification of the documents. The petitioner therefore filed another representation dated 14.09.2016 calling upon the respondent No. 1 to include his name in the additional list and permit him to participate in the counseling scheduled on 20.09.2016. However, as his request was not considered, he filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the additional select list dated 07.09.2016 where the respondent No. 3 was selected against the category-3B - Rural. 5. The respondent No. 1 contested the Application. It claimed that both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had applied against category-3B - Rural. It claimed that while the petitioner had secured 61.11% the respondent No. 3 had secured 62.79%. It claimed that since a large number of applicants had applied, the candidates were called for verification of documents in the ratio 1:2. It claimed that the last candidate called for verification of documents in the respective categories had secured the following marks: Category Marks 3B (Others) 63.21% 3B (Rural) 62.22% 3B (KMS) 63.10% 6. Therefore, respondent No. 1 contended that the petitioner who had secured 61.11% marks was not eligible. It further claimed that the petitioner failed to submit his objections to the provisional select list but after finalization of the list, he submitted a representation claiming that he was better qualified than the respondent No. 3 and that he should be considered. It claimed that the petitioner herein had completed his compulsory rural service between 04.04.2013 and 03.04.2014 and later worked on contractual service from 13.08.2014 and thus, was not eligible for the grace marks as he had not completed one year of service as on the last date of submission of the application i.e. 09.08.2015. 7. By way of an additional reply, the respondent No. 1 claimed that it had no mechanism to ascertain the service weightage as on the date of inviting candidates for verification of documents. 7. By way of an additional reply, the respondent No. 1 claimed that it had no mechanism to ascertain the service weightage as on the date of inviting candidates for verification of documents. Therefore, it had given the service weightage after verification of the documents and then published the provisional select list. It also contended that the last date for filing applications was extended from 09.08.2015 till 24.08.2015 and that the service weightage was granted to all the candidates as on the last date fixed under the notification dated 22.07.2015. 8. The respondent No. 3 did not contest the Application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short the ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal rejected the Application on the following grounds: (i) That the petitioner had secured 61.11% in MBBS Degree and did not have two years of rural service as on the last date for filing application (09.08.2015) and that the petitioner’s service was short by 5 days. (ii) The percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner was less than the cut off marks prescribed for the category-3B - Rural. (iii) That respondent No. 3 belonged to Hyderabad Karnataka Region and that the petitioner who was not a “local candidate” had no right to question the selection of the respondent No. 3. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The respondent No. 3 did not contest the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 had secured 60.79% marks in his MBBS Degree and therefore the petitioner was better qualified than the respondent No. 3. He contended that the respondent No. 1 had played fraud on the Court by claiming that the respondent No. 3 had secured 62.79% marks and that the respondent No. 1 had factored 2 marks towards the service weightage of the respondent No. 3. He contended that if the service weightage was granted to the petitioner, his marks would be 63.11% and therefore, he was eligible to be selected. He also contended that the service weightage has to be counted till the last date prescribed for filing the application (24.08.2015) and the petitioner would be entitled to grace marks of 4 as he had served from 04.04.2013 to 03.04.2014 and 13.08.2014 to 19.08.2015. 11. He also contended that the service weightage has to be counted till the last date prescribed for filing the application (24.08.2015) and the petitioner would be entitled to grace marks of 4 as he had served from 04.04.2013 to 03.04.2014 and 13.08.2014 to 19.08.2015. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 claimed that the respondent No. 3 had claimed the benefit of a local candidate and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to question the selection of the respondent No. 3. 12. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the records placed before it by the parties. 13. The online applications filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 discloses that the petitioner had secured 61.11% while respondent No. 3 had secured 60.79% in their MBBS Degree. The petitioner had sought service weightage of 2 years (04.04.2013 to 19.08.2015), while the respondent No. 3 claimed service weightage of one year 11 months (26.09.2013 to 06.08.2015). The petitioner claimed the benefit of reservation under category-3B - Rural, while the respondent No. 3 was also selected against the said category and not as a Hyderabad Karnataka candidate, though he claimed the benefit. It is not in dispute that though the respondent No. 1 had fixed the last date for receipt of the application as 09.08.2015, the same was extended till 24.08.2015. Thus, the scrutiny of the application for judging the requisite qualification should be as on the last date for making the application. This is so since an applicant can neither alter an application already filed to change the service weightage nor can he file a second application providing the changed service weightage that he would have gained by the last date fixed for filing application. It is now well settled that the qualification as on the last date prescribed for filing the application shall alone be considered and not the qualification gained by the time the applicant is interviewed Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 . Hence, as on the last date prescribed for filing the application, the petitioner herein had secured 4 grace marks and his final tally was 65.11% while the respondent No. 3 had secured 62.79% and was therefore not better qualified than the petitioner to be selected. Hence, as on the last date prescribed for filing the application, the petitioner herein had secured 4 grace marks and his final tally was 65.11% while the respondent No. 3 had secured 62.79% and was therefore not better qualified than the petitioner to be selected. The respondent No. 1 has played with the career prospect of not only the petitioner but also the respondent No. 3. It has taken upon itself the uphill task of justifying its stand by twisting the facts such as the respondent No. 3 had secured 62.79% marks in MBBS Degree and that he had claimed the benefit of local candidate etc. The Tribunal was swayed by these distorted claims which rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the selection of the respondent No. 3 was improper and deserves to be set at naught. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 8940 of 2016 is set aside and the Order of respondent No. 2 dated 07.09.2016 selecting the respondent No. 3 to the post of General Duty Medical Officer in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as General Duty Medical Officer in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Karnataka, with effect from the date of appointment of other candidates pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 22.07.2015 Issued by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits including fixation of pay and seniority in accordance with the Rules prescribed. However the petitioner is not entitled for backwages. In view of the fact that the respondent No. 3 has officiated for more than five years, the respondent No. 2 shall consider his continuation if there are any clear vacancies, in which event, the petitioner shall be placed above the respondent No. 3 while fixing inter-se seniority.