JUDGMENT : By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of Drawing Master, Post code:637, against General (BPL) category in District Shimla, or in the alternative, the respondent may kindly be directed to not to fill up one post of Drawing Master, Post code: 637, in District Shimla against General (BPL) category, during the pendency of the present original application, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The respondent-Commission invited applications vide advertisement No.33-2/2017 (Annexure A1) for various posts including the posts of Drawing Master in the Department of Elementary Education, in terms whereof, Online applications were invited for direct recruitment for the categories mentioned in the advertisement. As per the advertisement, the Online applications were to be filled up from 16.09.2017 to 15.10.2017, till 11:59 p.m. Under the heading “Essential Qualification(s) and Experience etc.” it was mentioned that the date for determining eligibility of all the candidates in respect of essential qualifications and experience, if any, etc. shall be the prescribed closing date for submission of Online Recruitment Application Form (ORA), i.e. 15.10.2017. The essential qualifications for being eligible to apply for the post of Drawing Master as were mentioned in the advertisement were as under:- 637 Drawing Master 10+2 with 50% marks with two years diploma in Art & Craft Teacher or its equivalent from a University/Institution recognized by the HP Govt. OR Bachelor of Arts with Fine Arts/Visual Arts(Painting or sculpture or applied Arts) as an elective subject with 50% marks in Fine Arts or its equivalent from a recognized University. OR Master Degree in Fine Arts/Visual Arts (Painting and Sculpture) or its equivalent from University/Institution recognized by the HP Govt. 3. Further, in terms of the advertisement, for the Department of Elementary Education, the applications were invited for the post of Drawing Master on contract basis and in all ninety six posts were offered to eligible candidates which were falling under ten districts mentioned in the advertisement. The number of posts which were available in each district alongwith the category under which the posts were available were spelled out in the advertisement. The number of posts which were available in each district alongwith the category under which the posts were available were spelled out in the advertisement. As the present case pertains to district Shimla, therefore, it is pertinent to mention that as far as district Shimla is concerned, therein six posts in all were advertised which included two posts of General (unreserved) category, one post of General (IRDP) category, one post of Scheduled Caste (unreserved) category and two posts of OBC (unreserved) category. 4. The petitioner being eligible to apply for the post in issue, applied for the same in district Shimla, falling in General (IRDP) category. As per the petitioner, as on the last date of submitting the Online application, she was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for being considered against the post reserved for General (IRDP) category, i.e. educational qualifications as well as her belonging to BPL category. 5. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that Clause-9 and Clause-10 of the advertisement which dealt with the ‘Category Claimed’ and ‘Eligibility Conditions’. The same are reproduced as under:- ”9. CATEGORY CLAIMS:- The category once claimed by the candidate(s) will not be allowed to be changed at any stage. The S.C. of Himachal Pradesh/S.T. of Himachal Pradesh/O.B.C. of Himachal Pradesh/WFF of Himachal Pradesh/Ex-Servicemen of Himachal Pradesh and Physically Disabled of Himachal Pradesh candidates must possess such certificate(s) in support of their claim made in the Online Recruitment Application(s) (ORA) while applying for the concerned post(s). The benefit of reservation will be admissible on parental basis only. All the candidates belonging to reserved categories are also required to go through the relevant instructions of the government of Himachal Pradesh issued from time to time in order to ensure that they are eligible under a particular category and submit the application certificates only on the prescribed formats at the time of evaluation. 10. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS:- (i) The date of determining the eligibility of all candidates in terms of Essential qualifications, experience etc. shall be reckoned as on the closing date for submitting the Online Recruitment Applications (ORA). (ii) The decision of the Commission regarding eligibility etc. of a candidate will be final. 10. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS:- (i) The date of determining the eligibility of all candidates in terms of Essential qualifications, experience etc. shall be reckoned as on the closing date for submitting the Online Recruitment Applications (ORA). (ii) The decision of the Commission regarding eligibility etc. of a candidate will be final. (iii) Onus of proving that a candidate has acquired requisite degree/essential qualifications by the stipulated date is on the candidate and in the absence of proof the date as mentioned on the face of certificate/degree or the date of issue of certificate/degree shall be taken as date of acquiring essential qualification. (iv) In respect of equivalent clause in Essential Qualifications, if a candidate is claiming a particular qualification as equivalent qualification as per the recruitment of advertisement, then the candidate is required to produce order/ letter in this regard, indicating the Authority (with number and date) under which it has been so treated otherwise the Online Recruitment Application is liable to be rejected.” 6. The BPL Certificate which was issued in favour of the petitioner at the relevant time is appended with the petition as Annexure A-3 and perusal thereof demonstrates that it was issued by the competent authority on 22.05.2017 and it was specifically mentioned upon the same that said certificate was valid for a period of six months. 7. The petitioner participated in the process of selection as was initiated by the respondent/Commission and as she successfully cleared the written objective test, her name was short listed for evaluation on prescribed parameters in terms of the criteria mentioned in the advertisement and for this purpose the petitioner was directed to appear for evaluation on 18.10.2018 at 9;00 a.m. in the office of Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in terms of the result of the screening evaluation as was declared by the respondent/ Commission, the cut-off marks for General (BPL) category were 56.41% , as is evident from Annexure A-8 and despite the petitioner having scored 59.30% marks, as is evident from Annexure A-6, yet she was not recommended for appointment under the General (BPL) category, but was considered under General (unreserved) category, which has resulted in great injustice to her as she was wrongfully denied appointment against the post reserved for General (IRDP) category. It is in this background that this petition stands filed. 9. It is in this background that this petition stands filed. 9. The petition is resisted by the respondent/Commission, on the ground that though the petitioner was successful in the initial screening test which was conducted by the respondent/Commission for recruitment to the post in issue, but the petitioner failed to produce a valid certificate to the effect that she belonged to BPL category as on 18.10.2018. As per the Commission, as per conditions laid down in the Instructions which were part and parcel of the advertisement itself in general and condition No.16 in particular, the validity of the IRDP/BPL Certificate was stated to be six months from the date of its issuance and the candidate was required to furnish a valid certificate in support of his/her claim and the validity of the certificate which was to be seen at the time of evaluation of the same. Commission had justified its act of not considering the petitioner under the General (BPL) category by stating that the petitioner was not possessing a valid BPL Certificate as on the date of evaluation. 10. In addition, as per the respondent/Commiseration, on the date of evaluation, i.e. 18.10.2018, the petitioner in terms of Annexure R-2 gave in writing that she no more belonged to General (BPL) category and she be treated as a candidate under the General (unreserved) category. Further, as per the respondent/Commission, the last date of submission of the Online applications was relevant only for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether a candidate was fulfilling the eligibility criteria with regard to educational qualifications, but with regard to other conditions, i.e. whether a candidate was belonging to the category under which he or she was seeking appointment, the relevant date was the date of evaluation. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents appended with the petition. 12. The relevant Clauses of the advertisement have already been quoted by me hereinabove and the important instructions which were issued to the candidates alongwith the advertisement for filling up the Online applications are also on record as Annexure R-1 appended with the reply by the respondent-Commission. 13. 12. The relevant Clauses of the advertisement have already been quoted by me hereinabove and the important instructions which were issued to the candidates alongwith the advertisement for filling up the Online applications are also on record as Annexure R-1 appended with the reply by the respondent-Commission. 13. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that as on the date when the petitioner applied for the post or to be more precise, as on the last date of submission of the Online applications, the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for being considered for the post as far as educational qualifications are concerned and in addition she was also possessing a BPL Certificate issued by the competent authority, which was not more than six months old as on 15.10.2017. 14. The moot issue is as to whether the eligibility of the petitioner of her belonging to General (BPL) category was to be seen as on 15.10.2017, as is the contention of the petitioner or as on 18.10.2018, as is the contention of the respondent/Commission. 15. This Court is of the considered view that when the posts are advertised and candidates are called upon to apply for the posts in issue with a clear cut rider that they should be fulfilling the eligibility conditions as on the closing date for submitting the applications, then all the eligibility conditions have to be assessed on the touch stone of the said closing date. The words “eligibility conditions” cannot be construed myopically so as to include only educational qualifications. If there are any other eligibility conditions which are to be fulfilled by a candidate including the condition of furnishing a certificate if a candidate applies under a particular category, say SC/ST/BPL etc., then in order to assess as to whether the candidate fulfills the eligibility condition of belonging to that particular category, the cut-off date has to be the said closing date. This is for the reason that here is a case where the petitioner who admittedly was having a valid certificate of belonging to BPL category as on the closing date for submitting the Recruitment Applications has been denied consideration under that category on the ground that as on the date of evaluation, the petitioner was not possessing a valid certificate as the certificate on the strength of which the petitioner had applied had lost its efficacy because the same was more than six months old. 16. If eligibility of such like candidates has to be assessed as on the date of evaluation, then the Court poses a question to itself whether a candidate who as on the last date of submitting the application was not belonging to the BPL category could have had participated in the process in anticipation that may be by the date of evaluation he may fall under the BPL category? The answer is in negative. Only those candidates could have had participated in the process by submitting their applications for the post which was reserved for the General (BPL) category who were fulfilling the eligibility criteria as on the last date of applying for the post. 17. That being the case, what ought to have been examined on the date of evaluation was as to whether the certificate on the strength of which the petitioner had applied was valid as on the last date of submission of application or not. This extremely important aspect of the matter was thrown to wind by the respondent-Commission while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. The advertisement nowhere expressly mentioned that a candidate who was applying under General (BPL) category mandatorily had to produce one certificate valid as on the last date for applying for the post in issue and the other valid at the time of evaluation. In fact, the condition contained in Clause-9 of the ‘Category Claimed’ was that all candidates belonging to reserve category were required to ensure that they are eligible under a particular category and were to submit applicable certificates on the prescribed format at the time of evaluation has to be read harmoniously with the other conditions contained in the advertisement that date of determining the eligibility shall be reckoned as on the closing date for submitting the Online Recruitment Applications. 18. 18. In other words, the assessment of the eligibility though was to be finally done on the date of evaluation on the basis of the certificates which were to be produced by the candidate on the said date, however, the same was relatable to the closing date for submitting the Online Recruitment Applications, which was the date fixed in the advertisement for determining the eligibility. The advertisement nowhere mentioned that the eligibility of a candidate who was appearing under General (BPL) category was not to be determined on the date of submission of the Online Recruitment Application Form, but on the date of evaluation. 19. It is settled law that a candidate may be belonging to a reserve category if found meritorious, has a right to be considered under the General category seats. Therefore, the petitioner otherwise was having a vested right to be considered as a candidate under the General category, dehors the fact that she had applied under the General (BPL) category, though the converse may not be true and Clause-9 of the advertisement has to be understood in this manner. The consent which was given by the petitioner vide Annexure R-2 that she be considered as a General category candidate, has to be treated as a dotted line consent, otherwise also taking into consideration the bargaining power of the petitioner vis-a-vis the Commission. 20. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2021) 6 SCC 163 , titled as Suman Devi and others Versus State of Uttarakhand and others, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to reiterate the well settled principle that 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. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment relied upon its earlier judgment in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , titled as Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Versus Chander Shekhar and another (which is a three Judge Bench judgment), in Para-6 whereof Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “6. The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment relied upon its earlier judgment in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , titled as Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Versus Chander Shekhar and another (which is a three Judge Bench judgment), in Para-6 whereof Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. 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 Judgement. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others [1993 Suppl. (3) S.C.C 168]. 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 Judgement. 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. 21. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the act of the respondent-Commission of not considering the candidature of the petitioner under the BPL category is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. By no stretch of imagination, the eligibility of the petitioner as to whether she belonged to the General (BPL) category could have been assessed by the respondent-Commission as on 18.10.2018. This date ought to have been taken to be as 15.10.2017. As far as the contention of the respondent-Commission that the petitioner herself had given in writing that she be treated as a General category candidate as she was no more belonging to the BPL category is concerned, this Court is of the view that same is of no consequence in view of reasons already assigned hereinabove. 22. Accordingly, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The act of the respondent-Commission of not treating the petitioner as a candidate under the General (BPL) category is held to be bad in law. The Commission is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment under the General (BPL) category for the post of Drawing Master in district Shimla. This direction is being issued by the Court, for the reason that record demonstrates that the marks scored by the petitioner were higher than the cut-off which was arrived at by the respondent-Commission with regard to the General (BPL) category. Appointment be offered to the petitioner prospectively by the employer. This direction is being issued by the Court, for the reason that record demonstrates that the marks scored by the petitioner were higher than the cut-off which was arrived at by the respondent-Commission with regard to the General (BPL) category. Appointment be offered to the petitioner prospectively by the employer. However, it is made clear that as the candidate who was selected under the General (BPL) category is not before the Court, therefore, the Court is not interfering with the appointment of any such candidate. Needful be done by the respondent/Commission within a period of two months from today. 23. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.