JUDGMENT : Nivedita P.Mehta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant petition has been filed against the non-selection of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector vide selection list dated 02.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Selection List'). The petitioner has prayed for the quashing and setting aside the selection of respondent no.4 and respondent no. 5 vide the Impugned Selection List as well as for directions to respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 to appoint him as Police Sub-Inspector in the Goa Police Department. 3. Briefly, the facts of the instant petition are that respondent no.3 published an advertisement dated 28.03.2021 inviting applications for the post of Police Sub-Inspector to fill up 145 vacancies, which were segregated into separate sets of vacancies for Male and Female applicants, 122 and 23 in number, respectively.Out of the 145 vacancies, 58 were to be filled up from the Unreserved Category, 2 from the Scheduled Caste (SC), 17 from the Scheduled Tribe (ST), 5 from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), 40 from Other Backward Classes (OBC), 5 for ex-servicemen and 8 vacancies were reserved for sports persons out of the 122 vacancies reserved for the male candidates. The advertisement specified that the requisite conditions to be eligible for the post were that the applicant should possess the minimum prescribed qualifications as on 30.04.2021, as well as a 15-year residence certificate. 4. On 10.04.2021, the petitioner was informed by his college byway of an e-mail that he had passed the VIth semester and had completed the B.E. Mechanical Engineering Course and was entitled to the Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical Engineering) Degree. Subsequently, on 12.04.2021, the petitioner applied to the Vice Chancellor of the Goa University for provisional as well as final marksheet and passing certificate of his graduation in B.E. Mechanical Engineering. 5. On 19.04.2021, the petitioner applied to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. On 16.06.2021, the Provisional Passing Certificate and the marksheet for the final year of the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) course were declared. According to the petitioner, the marksheet as well as the Passing Certificate were supplied by Goa University belatedly, for reasons not attributable to him, although the petitioner had appeared in the final examination on 17.03.2021. 6. On 16.06.2021, the Provisional Passing Certificate and the marksheet for the final year of the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) course were declared. According to the petitioner, the marksheet as well as the Passing Certificate were supplied by Goa University belatedly, for reasons not attributable to him, although the petitioner had appeared in the final examination on 17.03.2021. 6. On 09.08.2021, a Call Letter was addressed to the petitioner calling upon him to participate in the selection test and give his physical measurements. On 18.08.2021, another Call Letter was addressed to the petitioner informing him of the physical efficiency test. The petitioner was present for both tests on the dates stipulated by the call letters. 7. The petitioner was notified by a notice dated 27.11.2021 of a written examination that was to be conducted on 02.12.2021. The petitioner duly appeared for the written examination on 02.12.2021 and scored 89 marks against his allotted seat no.20748. 8. Eventually, by the call letter dated 24.06.2022, the petitioner was called for verification of original documents on 04.07.2022 at Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa. The petitioner appeared with the certificates and documents specified in the call letter. However, the essential qualification as per the advertisement was that on the cut-off date, i.e. 30.04.2021 the candidates were to produce a passing certificate of the educational qualification prescribed. The petitioner contended that on 10.04.2021 he received an email which satisfied the requisite qualifications as prescribed. 9. On 02.12.2022, the Impugned Selection List was released by respondent no. 3, and the petitioner's name was absent from the selection list. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 07.12.2022 to respondent no. 2 and sent a copy to respondent no. 3 stating therein that the petitioner, after having obtained 89 marks in the written examination conducted on 02.12.2021, should have been placed between serial numbers 38 to 40 of the selection list. The petitioner iterated that at the very least, the candidate placed at serial number 40 had obtained fewer marks than him. Pertinently, it is stated in the representation that the petitioner had enquired as to the cause of his non-selection and was thereby replied to, stating the non-production of his Certificate of Passing on or before 30.04.2021. Respondent no.2 did not reply to this representation. Subsequently, on 16.02.2023, the petitioner addressed another representation to respondent no.2 seeking are- examination of his case. 10. Respondent no.2 did not reply to this representation. Subsequently, on 16.02.2023, the petitioner addressed another representation to respondent no.2 seeking are- examination of his case. 10. Aggrieved by his non-selection and the conduct of the respondents that followed, the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition. 11. In support of his position, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Anand, has advanced the following arguments: 11.1. The conditions as stipulated by the advertisement were satisfied by the petitioner as he had appeared in the VIth semester examinations on 17.03.2021 and had been informed vide e-mail dated 10.04.2021 sent by the Exam Cell of his college, Agnel Institute of Technology and Design, stating that he had passed the examinations. 11.2. Merely because Goa University did not issue a Passing Certificate on or before 30.04.2021, it cannot be held that the petitioner had no passing certificate on or before 30.04.2021. For the University's laxity in issuing certificates in a timely fashion, the petitioner cannot be denied employment. 11.3. On 04.07.2021, the petitioner had produced the Passing Certificate when he was called upon to produce all his documents. This was well before the Impugned Selection List was released; therefore, it was incumbent upon the selection authority to consider the Passing Certificate as produced by the Petitioner. 11.4. The condition stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.03.2021 that applicants should produce all the requisite documents on or before 30.04.2021 is unreasonable and unconstitutional as opposed to the essential condition that the candidate should have passed the qualifying examination or on before 30.04.2021. 11.5. The Petitioner has been denied equality of opportunities in matters of public employment in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India , 1950. 11.6. The selection of respondent no.4 as per the Impugned Selection List violates rule 16 stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.03.32 which provides that in case two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the written examination, their, merit will be fixed as per the date of birth, i.e. the older candidate holding the same marks will be placed at a higher serial number in the selection list. Therefore, the petitioner, having been born on 14.01.1996, makes him older than respondent no.4, who was born on 18.02.1996. Hence, the selection of respondent no.4 over that of the petitioner is arbitrary and unconstitutional. 11.7. Respondent no. Therefore, the petitioner, having been born on 14.01.1996, makes him older than respondent no.4, who was born on 18.02.1996. Hence, the selection of respondent no.4 over that of the petitioner is arbitrary and unconstitutional. 11.7. Respondent no. 5 had scored 80 marks, which is less than the 89 marks obtained by the petitioner, therefore, his selection too is arbitrary and unconstitutional and should not have superseded the petitioner's. 12. In support of the stance adopted by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. P Faldessai, made the following submissions: 12.1. The petitioner did not possess one of the essential qualifications as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement on the cut-off date of 30.04.2021. 12.2. The date of acquiring a Certificate of Passing from a recognised university or equivalent as on the cut-off date, i.e. 30.04.2021, is the deemed date and not the date of examination. 12.3. The contention of the petitioner that the date of declaration of result is not relevant is an unacceptable submission. Merely appearing in the final examination in March 2021 does not entitle the petitioner to claim that he had the necessary qualification as on the cut-off date. 12.4. Furthermore, the Agnel Institute of Technology and Design declared the results of the said examination on 10.04.2021, wherein the petitioner was declared passed is an incorrect statement, as the results can be declared only by the Goa University and not by any institute. Moreover, the Email dated 10.04.2021 reflects the marks obtained by the petitioner in only one subject. 12.5. Therefore, the department selection committee did not recommend the petitioner for the appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector as he lacked the essential qualification as per the advertisement dated 28.03.2021. 12.6. The challenge of the petitioner to the selection of respondent nos.4 and 5 does not call for any interference. 12.7. The petitioner does not possess one of the essential qualifications as per the Advertisement as on the cut-off date of 30.04 2021 which is the "Certificate of having passed Computer Course for minimum period of three months covering the basics like Windows Operating System, Microsoft Office etc. from an Institute recognized by the Government" as the certificate produced by the Petitioner is issued by the Institution which is not recognized by Government. 12.8. from an Institute recognized by the Government" as the certificate produced by the Petitioner is issued by the Institution which is not recognized by Government. 12.8. This Court vide order dated 29.03.2023 directed that no appointment orders should be issued to respondent nos. 4 and 5, and the said order will not apply to any parties other than respondent nos.4 and 5 in this petition and therefore the orders of appointment of respondent nos.4 and 5 was kept in abeyance. 12.9. The date to be borne in mind with regards to the cut-off date of 30.04.2021 as stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.03.2021 is the date of acquiring the Certificate of passing of a recognised University and not the date of the examination, since the date of examination cannot be considered the date of acquiring the necessary qualifications. 12.10. Appearing in the final examination for the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) course does not create an entitlement on the part of the petitioner to claim that he possessed the necessary qualification on the cut-off date. 12.11. Respondent no.3 could only proceed to process the application of the petitioner based on a Certificate of Passing from the University of Goa and not based on a provisional certificate from a university that is not recognised. 13. Mr. D. Lawande, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Mr. C Padgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, made the following submissions: 13.1. The scope of judicial review to question an executive action can only lie when the executive action in question is entirely irrational, unreasonable and unconstitutional. The instant petition fails to disclose grounds that would indicate executive action that falls within such parameters. 13.2. The advertisement dated 28.03.2021 specified the requisite qualifications for eligibility, and condition 2 of the advertisement specifically stipulated that the candidate possessing the qualifications/documents as on 30.04.02021, may make their application m the prescribed form. 13.3. The Petitioner had appeared for the final examination for the Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering course held on 17.03.2021, the results for which were declared on 16.06.2021. Subsequently, a Certificate of Passing was issued to the petitioner by the Goa University on 30.06.2021. 13.4. Therefore, as on 30.04.2021, the cut-off date as prescribed by the advertisement, the petitioner was not suitable and eligible for the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Goa Police Department. 13.5. Subsequently, a Certificate of Passing was issued to the petitioner by the Goa University on 30.06.2021. 13.4. Therefore, as on 30.04.2021, the cut-off date as prescribed by the advertisement, the petitioner was not suitable and eligible for the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Goa Police Department. 13.5. The Petitioner, not having acquired the certificate of passing in Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering, did not fulfil the mandatory conditions for applying to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Goa Police Department. 13.6. It is a well-settled principle of law that the suitability and eligibility of a candidate have to be tested in the context of the date of closing as fixed by the recruiting authority. 13.7. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he had completed the course of B.E. in the month of April 2021 and the results had come to be declared in June 2021 is arbitrary and contrary to the settled position of law. 13.8. The e-mail dated 10.04.2021 only indicates that the petitioner had received 40 marks out of a total 60 and that the final results would be declared later by Goa University after the necessary scaling of sessional and theory marks. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the condition to possess a Certificate of Passing in a Computer Course was not contained in the body of the advertisement dated28.03.2021. It was further submitted that, notwithstanding such omission, the petitioner had carried his Certificate of Passing from Comtech Computer Academy, which he had attended for six months from September 2020 to March 2021. 15. At this juncture, to understand the controversy in issue, to look at the relevant condition stipulated against the Note, at serial no. 2 as well as serial no. 4 of the advertisement dated 28.03.2021, which has been extracted hereunder for convenience: "2. The candidates possessing the above mentioned qualiflcations/documents as on 30.04.2021 and possessing 15 years Residence Certificate (valid) issued by the Competent Authority, Government of Goa, may submit their Applications in the prescribed Application Form at the counter opened to accept the application forms at the Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa. The prescribed Application Forms are available at the Administrative Block, GRP Camp, Altinho, Panaji­ Goa, which can be collected between 10:00 hours to 17:00 hours on all working days by producing the Caste/Category Certificate. 3....... 4. The prescribed Application Forms are available at the Administrative Block, GRP Camp, Altinho, Panaji­ Goa, which can be collected between 10:00 hours to 17:00 hours on all working days by producing the Caste/Category Certificate. 3....... 4. The Application Forms completed in all respects should be personally submitted by the candidate at the counter opened to accept the Application Forms at Police Headquarters, Panaji-Goa between 10:00 hours and 17:00 hours on all working days, on or before30.04.2021. The candidates should produce Passing Certificate of the educational qualification prescribed for the post (not mark list) and Caste/Category Certificate (valid) at the counter while submitting the application form for verification without which application form will not be accepted. Incomplete Application Forms, Application Forms received after30.04.2021 and Applications not in prescribed Form will be summarily rejected and no intimation will be sent to the applicants in this regard . The candidates should minutely go through all the provisions in the advertisement to ensure that he/she is eligible for the posts in terms of recruitment of age, educational qualification etc. and only eligible candidates may apply in the prescribed Application Form." 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a hyper-technical approach is unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise undertaken for selection. In this vein, reliance was placed on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria and ors. Vs. C. Mathew and ors. , (1980) 2 SCC 752 , District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Ors. V/s. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 666 , Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and ors., (2005) 9 SCC 779 and Food Corporation of India V/s. Rimjhim , (2019) 5 SCC 793 . 17. Having heard the learned counsel on behalf of the respective parties, the rival contentions now fall for our determination. 18. Succinctly, the issue in the writ petition is whether the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.03.2021 that the candidates applying for the post should be in possession of the requisite qualifications as on 30.04.2021 is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India , 1950 as well as the mandate of the 1999 Recruitment Rules. 19. Succinctly, the issue in the writ petition is whether the conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.03.2021 that the candidates applying for the post should be in possession of the requisite qualifications as on 30.04.2021 is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India , 1950 as well as the mandate of the 1999 Recruitment Rules. 19. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner orally as well as in writing are premised on the submission that the condition, such as the one stipulated in the advertisement dated 28.030.2021, is an unjust condition. The case of the petitioner is that, within the timeline prescribed by the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, he had obtained the requisite qualifications, and it was purely on account of the University's laxity in providing the requisite certificates that he was not in possession of the certificates on the cut-off date stipulated by the advertisement. 20. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on Charles K.Skaria (supra) wherein it was held that a ritualistic approach would be subversive of the purpose of the exercise of selection and that the selection committee rightly treated the mode of proving of the holdings of the diplomas as directory and not mandatory. However, we find that this judgment is distinguishable because the modus operandi adopted by the selection committee therein was in consequence of a decision taken by the state government to grant a relaxation. In the absence of such a policy adopted by the respondents herein, it does not stand to reason that they should be measured with the same yardstick and be compelled to allow the selection, contrary to conditions expressly stipulated by them. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification before the cut­ off date and, therefore, in the present case, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the case of District Collector &Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Ors. V/s. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Ors. (supra) and Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjhim (supra), would not be attracted as the facts are different in these cases. 21. The case of the petitioner rests on the e-mail dated 10.04.2021 sent by Agnel Institute of Technology and Design. V/s. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (supra), Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Ors. (supra) and Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjhim (supra), would not be attracted as the facts are different in these cases. 21. The case of the petitioner rests on the e-mail dated 10.04.2021 sent by Agnel Institute of Technology and Design. The petitioner submits that the e-mail acts as the first communication made to the petitioner stating that the petitioner had passed the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) Course. It is pertinent to note that the marksheet attached to this mail specifies the marks of the petitioner in only one subject. However, the same e-mail specifically states that the "final results will be declared by Goa University after necessary scaling of sessional and Theory Marks". This could not have been treated as a conclusive determination that the petitioner passed in the B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) Course. It would be an unfair burden to be placed on any selection committee to delve into the specific details of the case of each individual applicant and ascertain the cause of omission of necessary details for the selection process. 22. The reason that selection committees proceed based on documents adduced in the process of selection, inter alia, is the verification of the bona fide nature of an application. It does not stand to reason that a condition be imposed on the selection committee to undertake a drawn-out process of reasoning with a candidate to entertain their application. If, as a matter of practice, selection committees proceeded based on such e-mails without awaiting confirmation from the University in the form of a certificate of passing and subsequently the applicant did not obtain the certificate, it would render the entire exercise abortive. We must bear in mind that the exercise of selection is ultimately undertaken by the machinery of the state, and it is trite that state machinery should be employed with prudence. 23. It is a well-accepted position in law that the last date for filing of such applications constitutes the touchstone for determining the eligibility and suitability of a candidate for applying for a post. Deviation from such a rule cannot be permitted. The petitioner, by way of this petition, seems to be seeking a relaxation to be granted to him. Such relaxation, if to be granted, has to be within the contours of the relevant recruitment rules. 24. Deviation from such a rule cannot be permitted. The petitioner, by way of this petition, seems to be seeking a relaxation to be granted to him. Such relaxation, if to be granted, has to be within the contours of the relevant recruitment rules. 24. The submissions of the petitioner that he had successfully completed the course in the month of April 2021 and the results had been declared in June 2021 are not acceptable. The result of the examination does not relate back to the date of the examination. A person would only possess the qualification of a particular degree on the date of the declaration of the result and not prior to that. The email dated 10.04.2021 only seems to indicate that the petitioner has scored 40 marks out of a possible 60 maximum marks. The final marksheet was only drawn out by Goa University in the month of June 2024, and therefore, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications on the cut-off date prescribed by the advertisement. 25. Further, the recruitment rules, i.e. Government of Goa, Officer of Director General of Police, Group 'C' Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted Post Recruitment Rules, 1999 specifically provides that a degree of a recognized University or an equivalent is mandatory for applying to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in the Goa Police Department. The petitioner did not meet the requisite eligibility criteria as on the last date of filing of the application. 26. The argument that the petitioner submitted the requisite documents belatedly does not hold weight in the wake of the fact that the advertisement clearly specifies that the petitioner had to be eligible on the date of the cut-off as prescribed by the advertisement. In simple terms, the selection committee had no basis on which to proceed in the absence of a Certificate of passing. 27. In Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others , (2013) 11 SCC 59 the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that: "21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application, though he applied, representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him, which was provisional and conditional, subject to the verification of educational qualification, i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application, though he applied, representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him, which was provisional and conditional, subject to the verification of educational qualification, i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case the character is not certified, or he do not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possessa qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court." 28. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the mandate which was set out in the advertisement was that the requisite qualification should have been crystallised on or before the cut-off date i.e. 30.04.2021. The instant petition is covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned Selection List. 29. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 30. Rule discharged.