JUDGMENT S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The present writ appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1310 of 2017. 2. The factual background of the case is as under: Appellant came out with an advertisement dated 01.07.2016 inviting applications for filling up 34 permanent posts of Dental Surgeon under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. The said advertisement contained that educational qualifications for the post would be as under: '(a) Essential:- A recognized Dental qualification included in Part-I & Part-III of the Schedule of the Dentist Act, 1948, as appended to this schedule. (b) Preferable: (i) Recognized post-graduate degree as appended to this schedule. (ii) Working knowledge of Bengali.' 3. It was also stipulated in the said advertisement that the applicants must be in possession of the prescribed minimum qualification(s) for the post on the closing date for submission of applications as mentioned in the said advertisement and the closing date for submission of application was mentioned as 30.07.2016. The advertisement also contained that decision of the Tripura Public Service Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate at any stage of selection process shall be final. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent No. 1 (the original writ petitioner) who passed the fourth professional examination of Bachelor of Dental Surgery from Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, Assam in June, 2015 submitted her application for the said post of Dental Surgeon on 22.07.2016. Thereafter, on the basis of a written communication dated 07.12.2016 received from the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura, the appellant published a notification dated 09.12.2016 clarifying that registration certificate after completion of BDS/MDS would be essential for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. Under the said notification, the candidates who applied for the post were informed that those who did not submit registration certificate along with their application form would be provisionally allowed to sit in the written screening test. But they would have to submit registration certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 30.07.2016 during the interview process failing which his/her candidature would be summarily rejected. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said notification dated 09.12.2016 which is as under: 'NOTIFICATION No. F.11(26-17)-Rectt./TPSC/2013 Agartala Dated, 9th December, 2016 Ref:- Commission's Advt. No. 06/2016 dated, 27.06.2016. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said notification dated 09.12.2016 which is as under: 'NOTIFICATION No. F.11(26-17)-Rectt./TPSC/2013 Agartala Dated, 9th December, 2016 Ref:- Commission's Advt. No. 06/2016 dated, 27.06.2016. The recruitment rule for the post of Dental Surgeon, Ex Cadre under Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura contains no specific guide line for submission of registration Certificate with application form. The Health & Family Welfare Dept. vide its letter No. F.3(479)-HFW/2016 dated 07.12.2016 informed that Registration Certificate after completion of BDS/MDS is essential for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. It is for information of all concerned that the candidates who did not submit Registration Certificate along with the application form will be provisionally allowed to sit in the written screening test. The candidates will have to submit Registration Certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 30.07.2016 during the interview process failing which his/her candidature will be summarily rejected. Other terms and condition shall remain unchanged. For Further details please visit-wwe.tpsc.gov.in. Sd/- (S. Riyan) Secretary, TPSC' 5. Thereafter, a list of 67 candidates was published by the appellant declaring that they were provisionally eligible to sit in the written screening test to fill up the vacant posts of Dental Surgeon (ex-cadre) under the Health and Family Welfare Department and their final eligibility would be fixed at the time of interview on submission and verification of their registration certificate. Name of respondent No. 1 (the original writ petitioner) appeared in Sl. No. 17 in the said list as a provisionally declared eligible candidate to sit in the written screening test. The written screening test was held on 22.01.2017. Thereafter, the appellant published a notification on 17.03.2017 declaring the results of the written screening test for recruitment to the post of Dental Surgeon. The roll numbers of the candidates who were provisionally selected for appearing for interview/personality test were published under the said notification and respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) came to be selected for appearing in interview/personality test. The interview/personality test was held on 30.03.2017. Respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) appeared for interview/personality test. The roll numbers of the candidates who were provisionally selected for appearing for interview/personality test were published under the said notification and respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) came to be selected for appearing in interview/personality test. The interview/personality test was held on 30.03.2017. Respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) appeared for interview/personality test. By a notification dated 13.04.2017, the appellant recommended to the State Government the names of 23 successful candidates for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon (ex-cadre), Group-A Gazetted under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura in the given order of merit and the name of respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) appeared in Sl. No. 15 of the said merit list. The candidates so recommended by the appellant for appointment including the petitioner were then asked by the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Tripura by a memorandum dated 20.04.2017 to report to the Branch Officer (Dental) at the Directorate of Health Services, P.N. Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala with the following documents in original for verification on 24.04.2017: (i) Age proof certificate (Madhyamik Admit Card or equivalent certificate) (ii) Mark Sheet of BDS/MDS (iii) Internship Completion Certificate (iv) Valid Dental Registration Certificate (v) Citizenship Certificate/PRTC. 6. Pursuant to the said memorandum, respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) appeared before the Branch Officer, Directorate of Health Services on 24.04.2017 along with her documents for verification. Since then respondent received no communication from the State respondents. Then, the respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) made a communication to the appellant by her letter dated 03.07.2017 seeking to know the latest status in regard to the recommendation of her name for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. In reply, the appellant, by letter dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) supplied a copy of notification dated 23.06.2017 issued by the appellant whereby her recommendation for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon was cancelled on the ground that she did not possess required qualification to be eligible on the last date of receipt of application i.e. 30.07.2016. For better appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the said notification dated 23.06.2017 is reproduced hereunder: 'NOTIFICATION No. F.11(26-17)-Rectt./TPSC/2013 Dated, Agartala, the 23rd June, 2017 Reference:- Advertisement No. 06/2016 (Item No. 01), dated 27.06.2016 Notification dated 07.11.2016, Notification dated 09.12.2016, Notification dated 17.03.2017 and Notification dated 13.04.2017. Whereas, Dr. For better appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the said notification dated 23.06.2017 is reproduced hereunder: 'NOTIFICATION No. F.11(26-17)-Rectt./TPSC/2013 Dated, Agartala, the 23rd June, 2017 Reference:- Advertisement No. 06/2016 (Item No. 01), dated 27.06.2016 Notification dated 07.11.2016, Notification dated 09.12.2016, Notification dated 17.03.2017 and Notification dated 13.04.2017. Whereas, Dr. Malabika Shil D/O- Ranjit Kumar Shil, Sripalli, Badharghat, PO-Madhuban, Dukli, PS-A.D. Nagar, Dist.-West Tripura, Pin -700003, Roll No. 00163(UR) was recommended by the Commission for the Post of Dental Surgeon, Ex-cadre under Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Tripura; And Whereas, on further scrutiny it is found that Dr. Malabika Shil D/O-Ranjit Kumar Shil, Sripalli, Badharghat, PO- Madhuban, Dukli, PS-A.D. Nagar, Dist.-West Tripura, Pin- 799003, Roll No. 00163(UR) does not possess required qualification to be eligible on the last date of receipt of application(i.e. 30.07.2016). As per section 46 & 48 of Dental Act 1948 and revised BDS course regulations, 2007, registration under Dental Council is compulsory for being eligible for the post of Dental Surgeon. Now, therefore, the Commission is pleased to treat the recommendation in respect of Dr. Malabika Shil as cancelled. Sd/- (S. Riyan) Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission' 7. Aggrieved respondent No. 1 (the original writ petitioner) then filed the writ petition claiming the following reliefs: '(i) In the premises aforesaid it is prayed before Your Lordship that Your Lordship may be pleased to consider the above facts and issue RULE NISI calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari should not be issued directing the respondents to produce all records. (ii) As to why a writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing, cancelling and/or setting aside the Notification dated-09/12/2016 (Annexure-11) and Notification dated-23.06.2017 communicated by letter dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure-12 & 14) issued by respondent No. 2. (iii) As to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to act upon the recommendation made by the respondent No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner for her appointment to the permanent posts of Dental Surgeon, Ex-Cadre, Group-A, under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura as she has successfully qualified in the test for recruitment and in order of merit and she became entitled to be so appointed and on her appointment her seniority may be fixed above those who were below her in the merit list. (iv) In the mean time Your Lordship may be pleased to direct respondent No. 3 & 4 not to appoint and fill up the existing vacancies in the post of Dental Surgeon till disposal for the writ petition. (v) Any other writ or direction as may be issued so as to grant complete and adequate relief to the petitioner.' 8. It was contended by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) that cancellation of her recommendation was contrary to section 46 and 48 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the revised BDS Course Regulation, 2007. She contended that her documents were scrutinized at every stage of the selection process and she was not even prevented from appearing in the interview/personality test. Her name was recommended by the appellant for appointment as a Dental Surgeon on the basis of her performance in the written screening test and in oral interview/personality test. Thereafter, her recommendation was cancelled and she could know about the cancellation of her recommendation only after making a communication to the appellant. Petitioner contended that had it been informed to her at an early stage of the selection process that she would not be considered eligible for appointment, she would have pursued her MDS course. Petitioner contended that she was seriously prejudiced by the conduct of the appellant. 9. In the writ petition, the appellants were impleaded as respondents No. 1 and 2 and the State of Tripura and the Secretary to the Department of Health and Family Welfare were impleaded as respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively. 10. Respondents No. 1 and 2 (present appellant) in their counter affidavit filed the Deputy Secretary, Tripura Public Service Commission contended that the writ petitioner was called for appearing in the interview/personality test on the basis of her performance in the written screening test and her name was recommended to the nodal department for appointment on the basis of her total performance in the written screening test as well as in the oral interview. Thereafter, when it was brought to the notice of the appellants (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition) by the nodal department that the petitioner completed her paid compulsory rotating internship and obtained her registration certificate after the closing date of receipt of applications i.e. after 30.07.2016 for the post, the appellants (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition) cancelled the recommendation in respect of the writ petitioner in terms of provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 since she did not possess required eligibility on the closing date of application. 11. The State respondents filed separate affidavit contending that since on scrutiny of her documents it was found that the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) did not have the required eligibility on the closing date of application even to apply for the post of Dental Surgeon, the recommendation of her name for appointment to the said post was cancelled by the appellant. 12. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner argued before the learned Single Judge that the registration certificate was only essential for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon and it was not essential for the selection of the petitioner for the post. Counsel contended that the advertisement issued on 01.07.2016 did not require the registration certificate as eligibility criteria for her selection to the post of Dental Surgeon. Therefore, the writ petitioner applied for the post and on scrutiny of her documents she was also declared eligible for appearing in the written screening test. Counsel contended that only by notification dated 09.12.2016 it was clarified by the appellant that the candidates would have to submit registration certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 30.07.2016. Her registration certificate was issued on 03.10.2016 which was also submitted by her during interview/personality test held on 30.03.2017. Counsel contended that the recruitment rule for the post of Dental Surgeon did not contain any specific guideline for submission of registration certificate along with the application form. It was argued by the petitioners' counsel before the learned Single Judge that even after recommendation of her name to the State respondents for appointment, the appellant arbitrarily cancelled such recommendation without any valid reason. 13. It was argued by the petitioners' counsel before the learned Single Judge that even after recommendation of her name to the State respondents for appointment, the appellant arbitrarily cancelled such recommendation without any valid reason. 13. Counsel appearing for the present appellant (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition) argued that recommendation of the name of the writ petitioner was cancelled mainly because she was not having required registration certificate on the closing date of filing applications which was an essential condition for selection and appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon in terms of the advertisement dated 01.07.2016 and subsequent notification dated 09.12.2016. 14. Counsel appearing for the State respondent argued on the same line before the learned Single Judge and contended that recommendation of the name of the writ petitioner was cancelled because she did not possess required qualification on the closing date of application in terms of the advertisement. 15. On appreciation of the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge formulated the following points to decide the matter: '(i) Whether the petitioner had acquired the requisite educational qualification as on the date of submission of application? (ii) Whether there is distinction between recruitment/selection and appointment? (iii) Whether Sections 46 and 48 of the Dentists Act, 1948 prohibit any candidate who completed BDS/MDS degree successfully to apply for selection or recommendation by a competent statutory authority to get appointed to the post of Dental Surgeon?' 16. Learned Single Judge having discussed the various provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Soham Mayankkumar Vyas v. Union of India reported in (2010) 13 SCC 137 answered the first point formulated by him with regard to petitioner's having requisite qualification on the closing date of application in the following paragraphs of his judgment: '23. A conscious reading of the said provisions under Chapter IV, it has come to light that the purpose of registration is to register the name of the person to enter his name into the register of the State allowing him to practice or to engage in the profession of dentistry. A conscious reading of the said provisions under Chapter IV, it has come to light that the purpose of registration is to register the name of the person to enter his name into the register of the State allowing him to practice or to engage in the profession of dentistry. From the above analysis, it is now clear that the recruitment rule for the post of Dental Surgeon does not prescribe for Registration Certificate as one of the criteria for applying to the post of Dental Surgeon, Ex-cadre and, in my considered view, the framers of the rule consciously did not incorporate the requirement of registration certificate for the purpose of inviting applications to enable a candidate having recognized dental qualification eligible to participate in the selection process which is consistent with Section 10(1) read with Part I of the Schedule of the Act. 24. It is made clear that registration is necessary for the purpose of appointment or to get engaged in the profession of dentistry and not for participation in the selection process. Perhaps, it was the reason the respondents No. 3 and 4, being the appointing authority had informed the TPSC that registration certificate of a candidate is necessary for the purpose of appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. 25. Here, the word 'appointment' carries enough significance, which I will discuss later on. Importantly, needless to say, the recruitment rule is framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. True it is, that the legislators or the framers of the policy are empowered to alter, amend or change any of the conditionalities in the recruitment rule to achieve a particular object in view. But, it becomes apparent from the Notification dated 09.12.2016 that the Health & Family Welfare Department had issued only a letter informing the TPSC that for appointment Registration Certificate after completion of BDS/MDS is essential for the post of Dental Surgeon. It is also consciously observed by this Court that in the said notification that there is no specific guideline for submission of Registration Certificate with application form. What makes it clear to the Court is that in the recruitment rule there is no specific eligibility criteria to submit Registration Certificate at the time of filing of the application to participate in the selection process for the post. 26. What makes it clear to the Court is that in the recruitment rule there is no specific eligibility criteria to submit Registration Certificate at the time of filing of the application to participate in the selection process for the post. 26. It is well settled that a recruitment rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be amended, changed, altered in any manner whatsoever by issuing only a memorandum and mere making a communication. If any recruitment rule requires to be amended, then, it has to be done only by way of exercising the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. No executive instruction can change or amend the recruitment rule. It is further observed by this Court that while issuing the Memo. dated 20.04.2017 the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura had asked the petitioner to submit some documents including internship completion certificate and valid dental certificate. 27. According to me, the said Memo. dated 20.04.2017 further clarifies the intention of the Government that the Registration Certificate is necessary only for the purpose of appointment and not for the purpose of selection of any candidate.' 17. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge made a distinction between selection and appointment in the context of eligibility and having relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature of Patna & Ors. reported in (2016) 9 SCC 313 and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 and Sabita Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993(1) S.L.R. 44 (Vol.87) came to hold that notification dated 23.06.2017 whereby recommendation of the name of the writ petitioner was cancelled by the present appellant on the ground of her not having registration under the Dental Council on the closing date of her application was misconceived and inconsistent with the legislative intent and object of the Dentists Act, 1948 which actually intended to restrict the unqualified persons to enter into the profession of dentistry and not for restricting the qualified candidates to take part in the selection process for selection and appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. Learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner actually obtained the registration certificate on 03.10.2016 before appearing for the written screening test which was held on 22.01.2017 which means that she obtained the registration certificate before the actual selection process begun. Having applied the ratio decided in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra (Supra), learned Single Judge held that recruitment and appointment are two distinct stages of appointment. It was held by the learned Single Judge that recruitment is the process of selection and appointment is the actual act of appointment by posting a person to a particular office. It was decided by the learned Single Judge that since the writ petitioner obtained registration certificate before the process of appointment was started, she met the eligibility criteria for appointment in the post of Dental Surgeon in terms of the legislative object of the Dentists Act, 1948 and on such reasoning the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition viewing as under: '36. Another important aspect to be dealt before conclusion is that the respondents-TPSC had issued the notification asking the participating candidates including the petitioner for selection to the post of Dental Surgeon, Ex-cadre only on 09.12.2016, much later than that of the letter originally notified, which was dated 27.06.2016 for submission of Registration Certificate on or before the closing date of receipt the applications i.e. 30.07.2016. From the Registration Certificate in regard to the petitioner, it is apparent that she obtained the Registration Certificate prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 09.12.2016. In the instant case, the petitioner became successful in the recruitment process and was accordingly recommended being found suitable to get appointed to the post of Dental Surgeon under the respondents No. 3 and 4. Applying the ratio as analyzed above that recruitment and appointment are two distinct stages of appointment recruitment is the process of selection, and appointment is an actual act of appointment by posting a person to a particular office. After completion of initial process of recruitment by the TPSC, the subsequent stage is the process of appointment by the recruiting department i.e. the employer and this process would be completed when a candidate fulfils all the criterias for appointment to a particular office. (emphasis supplied) 37. After completion of initial process of recruitment by the TPSC, the subsequent stage is the process of appointment by the recruiting department i.e. the employer and this process would be completed when a candidate fulfils all the criterias for appointment to a particular office. (emphasis supplied) 37. In the case in hand, I reiterate that the petitioner had obtained the valid Registration Certificate before starting of the process of appointment and she fulfilled all the criterias for appointment in conformity with the object of the Act and consistent with the legislative intention which the Legislature wanted to achieve by way of enacting the said Act. 38. Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal positions, this Court does not find any reason for cancelling the selection and subsequent recommendation of the petitioner for her appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon, Ex-cadre under the respondents No. 3 and 4.' 18. Under the aforesaid observations, the learned Single Judge directed the present appellant (respondents No. 1 and 2 in the writ petition) to recall its notifications dated 09.12.2016 and 23.06.2017 and directed the State respondents to issue appointment letter to the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits on the basis of the recommendations made by the appellant vide notification dated 13.04.2017 and also asked the State respondents to complete the process of appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. 19. Mr. Raju Datta, counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Mishra (Supra) relied upon by the learned Single Judge for arriving at the decision as far as it made a distinction between consideration of a candidate's eligibility at the stage of selection and eligibility reckonable at the time of appointment has been overruled by the Apex Court in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi reported in (2020) 7 SCC 401 . Counsel contends that in Dheeraj Mor (Supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that a person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered at all. Counsel contends that in Dheeraj Mor (Supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that a person who acquires prescribed qualification subsequent to the prescribed date cannot be considered at all. Counsel has contended that in the instant case, the advertisement issued by the appellant being advertisement No. 06/2016 dated 01.07.2016 clearly stipulated that candidate applying for the post of Dental Surgeon should have recognized dental qualification included in Part-I and Part-III schedule of the Dentists Act, 1948 as an essential qualification as on the closing date of submission of application i.e. 30.07.2016. Mr. Raju Datta, counsel for the appellant further contended that by a clarificatory notification issued on 09.12.2016, the appellant with reference to said advertisement No. 06/2016 clarified that registration certificate after completion of BDS/MDS was essential for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon and the candidates were informed that they would be provisionally allowed to sit in the written screening test without the registration certificate. But they would have to submit the registration certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 30.07.2016 during the interview process, otherwise his/her candidature would be summarily rejected. Counsel contended that this clarificatory notification was issued before the written screening test held on 22.01.2017 which was the first step to the selection process and as such the candidates were well aware that registration certificate issued on or before 30.07.2016 was an essential qualification for selection and appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon and therefore the candidate as well as appellant were bound by such condition. But, admittedly, the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) obtained the registration certificate under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 only on 03.10.2016 i.e. much later than the closing date of application. Moreover, she completed paid compulsory rotating internship on 03.09.2016 which is also after the closing date of receipt of application. Counsel, therefore, contends that the writ petitioner did not possess the essential eligibility criteria for selection and appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon and as such the appellant rightly rejected her recommendation. Counsel, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 20. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) has contended that on scrutiny of documents submitted by the petitioner she was found eligible to sit in the written screening test. Counsel, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 20. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 (original writ petitioner) has contended that on scrutiny of documents submitted by the petitioner she was found eligible to sit in the written screening test. After she qualified in the said test, she was also allowed to appear in the oral interview/personality test. She also succeeded in the personality test and on scrutiny of all documents submitted by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) she was recommended for appointment by the appellant public service commission. Thereafter, the appellant arbitrarily and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, cancelled her appointment on the ground that she did not possess the registration certificate on or before the closing date of receipt of applications for the post as a result of which writ petitioner suffered from irreparable loss. Counsel has contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is founded on law and sound reasoning which calls for no interference in appeal. Counsel, therefore, urges for dismissing the appeal. 21. The State counsel appearing for the State respondents on the other hand contended that the appellant public service commission lawfully cancelled the recommendation of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) because she did not possess essential qualification required for the post of Dental Surgeon. Counsel, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal. 22. We have perused the record, examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties. 23. As noted, under the advertisement No. 06/2016 issued by the appellant on 01.07.2016, following qualifications have been prescribed as the eligibility criteria for making an application for the post of Dental Surgeon: '(a) Essential:- A recognized Dental qualification included in Part-I & Part-III of the Schedule of the Dentist Act, 1948, as appended to this schedule. (b) Preferable: (i) Recognized post-graduate degree as appended to this schedule. (ii) Working knowledge of Bengali.' 24. Under Part-I of the schedule appended to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) the recognized dental qualifications granted by the authorities or institutions in India have been prescribed which includes Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) as one of such recognized dental qualifications. (b) Preferable: (i) Recognized post-graduate degree as appended to this schedule. (ii) Working knowledge of Bengali.' 24. Under Part-I of the schedule appended to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) the recognized dental qualifications granted by the authorities or institutions in India have been prescribed which includes Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) as one of such recognized dental qualifications. Similarly, under Part-III of the schedule appended to the said act, the dental qualifications granted by authorities and institutions outside India have been recognized as dental qualifications for the purpose of registration in India. 25. It is true that in the said advertisement issued by the appellant, registration as a Dental Surgeon under the said act was not made an essential eligibility criteria to apply for the post. But, before the written screening test was held, the appellant public service commission by a notification issued on 09.12.2016 clarified that registration certificate after completion of BDS/MDS would be an essential criteria for appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon and the candidates must possess such registration certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of application i.e. 30.07.2016. The candidates who did not submit their registration certificate along with their application was provisionally allowed to sit in the screening test. 26. Apparently, the appellant public service commission advertised for the post on the requisition received from the nodal department. The nodal department is the Directorate of Health Services. After advertisement No. 06/2016 was issued by the appellant public service commission on 01.07.2016, the nodal department by a communication dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit of the State respondents) informed the appellant public service commission that as per section 46 and 48 of the Dentists Act, 1948, registration under the Dental Council is essential to be eligible as a Dental Surgeon. On the basis of such communication, the appellant public service commission came out with notification dated 09.12.2016 in reference to its advertisement No. 06/2016 to the effect that candidate should possess registration certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of the application i.e. 30.07.2016 to be eligible for the appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. On the basis of such communication, the appellant public service commission came out with notification dated 09.12.2016 in reference to its advertisement No. 06/2016 to the effect that candidate should possess registration certificate issued on or before the closing date of receipt of the application i.e. 30.07.2016 to be eligible for the appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon. Section 46 of the Dentists Act, 1948 provides, inter alia, no person who is not registered as a dentist shall except with the sanction of the Central Government or State Government hold any appointment as a dentist in any dispensary, hospital or other institution/supported wholly or partially from public or local funds. Section 48 of the said act, inter alia, provides that it shall be punishable offence to take or use the description of dental practitioner or dental surgeon or surgeon dentist or dentist without being registered in a register of dentist. 27. A conjoint reading of these two provisions makes it clear that no one is allowed to carry out the profession as a Dental Surgeon without being registered in the register of dentists after the Dentists Act, 1948 came into operation. There is, therefore, no illegality in the notification dated 09.12.2016 whereby the appellant public service commission made it clear that registration on completion of BDS/MDS would be essential qualification for consideration for selection and appointment of the candidates to the post of Dental Surgeon. This notification dated 09.12.2016 should obviously be treated as a part of the advertisement No. 06/2016 issued by the public service commission on 01.07.2016. The learned Single Judge made a distinction between selection and appointment relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra (Supra). It has been rightly contended by the counsel of the appellant public service commission that the decision in Vijay Kumar Mishra (Supra) has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by rendering judgment in the case of Dheeraj Mor (Supra) insofar as it made a distinction between consideration of eligibility at the stage of selection and eligibility at the time of appointment. In the case of Dheeraj Mor (Supra), the Apex Court reiterated the ratio laid down in the earlier decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 wherein it was held that the eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to the last date of filing the applications alone where applications are called for, prescribing a particular date. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such date cannot be considered at all. The relevant extract of the decision held in Dheeraj Mor (Supra) in paragraphs 88 and 89 is as under: 88. This Court is of the opinion that the decision in Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra), 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 v. Chander Shekhar (1997) 4 SCC 18 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as follows (Ashok Kumar Sharma case (1997) 4 SCC 18 , 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 or 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. 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 (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 v. State of Punjab (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 Articles 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 (sic eligible). 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. Anyone fulfilling those eligibility conditions, with reference to such date, would be ineligible (sic eligible). 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. 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. 89. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra), to the extent that it is contrary to Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), as regards participation in the selection process, of candidates who are members of the judicial service, for appointment to the post of District Judge, from amongst the quota earmarked for advocates with seven years' practice, was wrongly decided. To that extent, Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra) is hereby overruled.' 28. Indisputably, in the instant case, the closing date of applications was 30.07.2016 and the registration certificate of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was issued on 30.10.2016 by the Tripura (Dentists) Registration Tribunal constituted under the Dentists Act, 1948 after she applied for registration on completion of her paid compulsory rotating internship on 03.09.2016. Therefore, on the closing date of receipt of application i.e. on 30.07.2016, the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) did not even complete her paid compulsory rotating internship as a result of which she could not apply for her registration as a dentist under the Dentists Act, 1948 meaning thereby she did not possess the requisite qualification on or before 30.07.2016 to apply for selection and appointment to the post of Dental Surgeon under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. 29. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. 30. 29. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. 30. In terms of the above, the case is disposed of. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated and pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.