JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This appeal is preferred assailing the judgment dated 09.01.2024 in W.P.(C).No.43778 of 2023 of a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer sought for by the appellants to extend the cut-off date for submitting applications for the posts of Medical Officer Panchakarma and Assistant Professor of Panchakarma to enable the appellants to appear for the exam. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised by the appellants in this appeal, brief facts of the case are required to be stated: The appellants herein are the final-year MD students pursuing education in various Ayurveda Colleges in the State of Kerala. According to them, the final year exams ordinarily used to be held in November, and the results were published in December. However, insofar as they are concerned, the current year’s exams have been scheduled to be conducted in February. While so, a notification to the posts of Medical Officer Panchakarma and Assistant Professor of Panchakarma had been announced by the Public Service Commission with a cut-off date on 31.01.2024. The grievance of the appellants is that the results of their final year exam would be published only by April, 2024. Under the aforesaid circumstance, they had submitted a representation before the 1st respondent with a request to extend the application period to 30th of April, 2024. Their request was not considered by the 1st respondent. It was in the above circumstances that the appellants had approached the learned Single Judge seeking to direct the Kerala Public Service Commission to take steps to extend the cut-off date for the posts of Medical Officer Panchakarma, and Assistant Professor Panchakarma, from 31.01.2024 to 30.04.2024 to enable them to get an opportunity to apply for the posts upon completing their MD/PG Course. 3. The learned Single Judge noted that the notification had set 31.01.2024 as the last date for submitting applications in order for the appellants to have acquired minimum qualifications prior to the cut-off date. The learned Single Judge was of the view that this date could not be extended under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 4. We have heard Sri.Unni Namboodiri, the learned counsel for the appellants, who vehemently asserted that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained under law. 5. The learned Single Judge was of the view that this date could not be extended under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. 4. We have heard Sri.Unni Namboodiri, the learned counsel for the appellants, who vehemently asserted that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained under law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the prayer sought for has since become infructuous as the test has already been held and the results published. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced and have carefully gone through the records. 7. The prayer of the appellants, essentially, is that the notification issued by the Public Service Commission which fixed the last date on 31.01.2024 for applying to the post of Medical Officer Panchakarma, and Assistant Professor of Panchakarma has to be extended till the end of April, 2024 to enable them to appear for the exams. Such a request has been raised by the appellants on the ground that previous exams for the post of Medical Officer, Panchakarma had been held in 2011 while that for the post of Assistant Professor, Panchakarma had been held in 2016. They contend that if the exams are held prior to the announcement of their results, they would be denied an opportunity which would hinder their prospects of securing a job. 8. To understand the principle, one need not look further than in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 , wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “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 applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. 9. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 262 , the Apex Court had deprecated the practice prevalent in the State of Punjab to determine eligibility with reference to the date of interview. The Apex Court clarified that the applications made by such candidates who were not qualified but were in the process of acquiring eligibility cannot be scrutinized easily and subjected to the process of approval or elimination. It was noted that some of the candidates may be called to face the interview but they may have to be sent back if they fail to acquire requisite eligibility qualifications at the time of interview. It was also held that the concerned authority of the State should be tied down to the principles governing the cut-off date for testing the eligibility qualifications. While approving the findings of the High Court, it was held that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking public employment, is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications. If no such appointed date is given, then the eligibility criteria shall be applied with reference to the last date by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. 10. In view of the settled precedents above, we are firmly of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contentions raised by the appellants. There is yet another matter. The appellants overlook the fact that numerous job aspirants, much senior to the appellants, who had successfully completed the course were anxiously waiting for the issuance of the notification. There is yet another matter. The appellants overlook the fact that numerous job aspirants, much senior to the appellants, who had successfully completed the course were anxiously waiting for the issuance of the notification. Granting an extension at the appellants' behest would unfairly deny such individuals of the opportunity to aspire for public employment. Furthermore, as held in Yogesh Kumar and Another v Government of NCT, Delhi and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 , any deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. We hold that individuals like the appellants who are likely to secure qualifications only after the cut off date are not entitled to be considered. In view of the above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. This Appeal fails and is dismissed.