JUDGMENT : 1. These Intra Court Appeals have been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.4533 of 2022 (Devendra Pal Singh and 16 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby and whereunder the prayer No. (iii) and (iv) made in the writ petition have been allowed qua the Petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 and directions have been issued permitting them to appear in the examination after due verification of their Course on Computer Concepts Certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'CCC Certificate'). The writ petition has been dismissed qua the writ petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 13 & 14 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. The writ petition has been further directed to be heard finally on the following question framed :- "11. In view of this interim order, the prayers no.(iii) and (iv) are allowed and the matter will be heard finally on following issues :- "Whether considering that addition of a new eligibility qualification by way of amendment (in present case, CCC Certificate), a course of minimum three months in order to participate in a competitive examination for Class IV employees of the High Court for the posts in the cadre of Computer Assistant, requirement to posses all the qualifications including the amended qualification before the date of advertisement could be relaxed up to the date of examination due to the short time-line that amendment was carried out on 13.3.2021, date of advertisement was 28.9.2021 and the examination is scheduled on 10.4.2022 ?" 2. The issue before the learned Single Judge pertains to the recruitment to the 17 posts of Computer Assistant in the Establishment of the High Court by way of promotion by holding a Departmental Examination from amongst eligible Class IV Employees working in the High Court Establishment. The Notice dated 28.09.2021 was issued for inviting applications from Class IV employees who have completed 5 years continuous satisfactory service as on 01.07.2021 and possess the minimum educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules. The relevant Rules which govern the recruitment are "the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976". The Notice dated 28.09.2021 was issued for inviting applications from Class IV employees who have completed 5 years continuous satisfactory service as on 01.07.2021 and possess the minimum educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules. The relevant Rules which govern the recruitment are "the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976". The Clause (ii) of Rule 8(a)(i) of the 1976 Rules existing at the time of issuance of the Recruitment Notice is reproduced hereunder:- "(ii) 40% by promotion on merit through competitive examination from Class IV employees who have completed five years continuous satisfactory service as on 01st July of the year of recruitment and possesses the minimum educational qualification of intermediate along with CCC Certificate/Diploma/Degree in Computer Science from recognized institute established by law in India." 3. The cut off date for submitting the application forms was 19.10.2021. A total of 135 Class-IV candidates are stated to have applied for the Departmental Examination-2021 to be held for the purpose of the aforesaid Recruitment. The application forms of 114 candidates were rejected on the ground that they did not satisfy the condition stipulated in Rule 8(a)(i)(ii) of the 1976 Rules inasmuch as they did not possess the minimum educational qualification of Intermediate along with CCC Certificate/Diploma/Degree of Computer Science from recognized institute established by law in India. Accordingly, vide Notice dated 16th March, 2022 the Registrar (J) (S & A/Establishment) informed the eligible 21 Class-IV candidates of the High Court, Allahabad/Lucknow Bench that the Departmental Examination for promotion of Class-IV employees to the post of Computer Assistant is scheduled to be conducted on 10.04.2022 at 11:00 AM in the High Court Premises. The notice also informed that the application forms of the rest of the 114 Class-IV candidates who had applied for the Departmental Examination-2021 for the post of Computer Assistant had been rejected. 4. A set of 17 candidates, whose application forms had been rejected, approached this Court by filing Writ (A) No.4533 of 2022 claiming the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 16th March 2022 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) by which the candidature of the petitioners has been cancelled. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 28th September 2021 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) issued by Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad (Respondent No.2). (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination and also declare their results. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Hon'ble High Court to accept the CCC Certificate said to be completed and accept to the candidates who have completed their CCC before the examination for the purpose of minimum qualification. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents Hon'ble High Court to permit some of the petitioners who have not completed their CCC Certificate and grant them sometime to complete the same. (vi) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vii) Award to cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 5. The contention of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioners No. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 have obtained the CCC Certificates subsequent to the Recruitment Notice dated 28.09.2021 but before the date of the scheduled examination i.e. 10.04.2022 and in such view of the matter they be permitted to appear in the examination. It was also contended that initially vide Notification dated 21.12.2020, 17 posts of Computer Assistant were sought to be filled up and the petitioners were eligible as the Rules did not contain the requirement of possessing CCC Certificate/Diploma/Degree of Computer Science but the said notification was cancelled and fresh notice has been issued on 28.09.2021 but in the interregnum the Recruitment Rules have been amended and their application forms have been rejected on the ground of not possessing the qualification of CCC Certificate/ Diploma/ Degree in Computer Science. However, the petitioners No.4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 now possess the requisite certificate by December, 2021 and should not be deprived from appearing in the exam scheduled for 10.04.2022, particularly, in view of the fact that there was a surge of Covid-19 cases and the CCC Certificate Course which requires at lease 3 months could not be perused. 6. The learned Single Judge found favour with the contentions advanced by the petitioners and, accordingly, by the impugned order permitted the petitioners possessed with the CCC Certificates to appear in the examination after due verification of the certificates and allowed the final prayers (iii) & (iv) made in the writ petition while directing that the writ petition would be heard finally on the question framed as reproduced herein above. The Prayers No. iii and iv are quoted hereunder :- "(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination and also declare their results. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Hon'ble High Court to accept the CCC Certificate said to be completed and accept to the candidates who have completed their CCC before the examination for the purpose of minimum qualification." 7. Sri Samir Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma, Advocate, representing the appellants in Special Appeal No.310 of 2022 vehemently submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in as much as the learned Single Judge has granted final relief as prayer Nos.3 & 4 have been finally allowed at the preliminary hearing stage. The learned Single Judge has by the impugned order permitted the petitioners to appear in the examination and at the same time directed for declaration of their result which is patently illegal and impermissible under the law. The learned Single Judge proceeds on equity alone ignoring the settled principle that "Equity follows Law" while granting interim relief contrary to law. The order of the learned Single Judge is self contradictory in as much as on one hand, prayer Nos.3 & 4 in the writ petition have been finally granted and yet the issue has been left open to be decided at the time of final hearing. The order of the learned Single Judge is self contradictory in as much as on one hand, prayer Nos.3 & 4 in the writ petition have been finally granted and yet the issue has been left open to be decided at the time of final hearing. It is submitted that a candidate for appointment to any particular post must fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria on the date of advertisement or the cut off mentioned. Admittedly, on the date of notice inviting applications for promotion to the posts in question i.e. 28.09.2021 the petitioners did not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria for promotion to the post and the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has issued directions dehors the Rules itself. Lastly, it is submitted that the writ petitioners did not implead the permitted candidates mentioned in the order dated 16.03.2022 as party respondents in the writ petition while seeking its quashing and above all the writ petition itself at the instance of the writ petitioners who admittedly were not eligible to participate in the recruitment process, was not maintainable and the learned Single Judge manifestly erred in law in entertaining and partly allowing the same. 8. Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner-respondents, in opposition to the Special Appeals, submits that the Special Appeals have been filed against an interlocutory/interim order and as such, are not maintainable. The interim order has already taken effect in as much as the writ petitioners have already appeared in the exam which was held on 10.04.2022 and the Special Appeals have thus been rendered infructuous. The Special Appeals are otherwise not maintainable as the appellants themselves pursuant to the impugned order have accepted the interim order and permitted the other similarly circumstanced candidates, besides the writ petitioners to appear in the examination. The 21 candidates mentioned in the list appended to the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 were not required to be impleaded as no relief was being claimed against them. The learned Senior Counsel thus submits that the appeals may be dismissed and the writ petition itself which is pending before the learned Single Judge be decided on its merit. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The learned Senior Counsel thus submits that the appeals may be dismissed and the writ petition itself which is pending before the learned Single Judge be decided on its merit. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 10. We are conscious of the fact that pursuant to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners have been permitted to appear in the examination held on 10.04.2022 and in fact the writ petitioners and similarly circumstanced candidates have also been permitted to appear in the examination held on 10.04.2022. The Special Appeal in our opinion to that extent has been rendered infructuous. However, we find that the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has not only permitted the writ petitioners to take the examination but has also directed for declaration of their results. Such a direction in our opinion was not required. In fact, the direction permitting the writ petitioners to appear in the examination even though they did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed under the relevant Rules governing the field itself is contrary to law. 11. In the opinion of the Court, the eligibility of a candidate is to be reckoned on the fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications. In the absence of a date fixed, the requisite eligibility is to be judged on the last date for making the applications and not on any date subsequent to that date. The Apex Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) Vs. University of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 in para 10 observed as under:- "10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed 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. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vidanagaran & Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237 ." 12. A similar question as involved in the case at hand arose in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another Vs. Chander Shekher and another, reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237 ." 12. A similar question as involved in the case at hand arose in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another Vs. Chander Shekher and another, reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611. The question involved was as to whether the educational qualifications should be possessed on the date of submission of the application form or on the date of interview. The majority view was that the requirement stood fulfilled if the candidates were possessed of the requisite educational qualifications on the date of the interview even though they admittedly did not possess the same at the time of submission of the application forms. The majority view held that it was in public interest to entertain applications of candidates who did not possess requisite educational qualification on the date of application but possessed it on the date of interview, despite express instructions in the advertisement that such applications would not be entertained. 13. The majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma's case was however reviewed and not approved by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & others Vs. Chander Shekhar and another, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 18 by observing as under:- "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. 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]. 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 furtherence 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." 14. In view of the above legal position, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in law in permitting the writ petitioners/ respondents who admittedly did not possess the minimum educational qualifications as prescribed under Rule 8(a)(i)(ii) of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 as it stood on the date of the notice inviting applications to appear in the examination and also declare their results. Since the writ petitioners/ respondents have already appeared in the examination held on 10.04.2022, we deem it appropriate to modify the order of the learned Single Judge by directing that the results of the writ petitioner/respondents and all other candidates who have been permitted to take the examination dated 10.04.2022 pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.04.2022 shall not be declared and shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition. The results of all other candidates may be declared by the High Court, if it so desires, however, the results so declared shall also abide by the outcome of the writ petition. We have been informed that the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Accordingly, in the circumstances, we request the learned Single Judge to proceed to decide the writ petition on merits at the earliest. 15. We have been informed that the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Accordingly, in the circumstances, we request the learned Single Judge to proceed to decide the writ petition on merits at the earliest. 15. The Special Appeals are disposed of accordingly.