Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.@mdashPetitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to accept his application form as regards candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science). Brief facts are that the Haryana Public Service Commission (herein after to be referred as the Commission) issued advertisement dated 24.1.2014 inviting applications for recruitment to 1396 temporary posts of Assistant Professors (College Cadre), H.E.S.-II in various subjects in the Higher Education Department, State of Haryana. 127 posts were earmarked in the subject of Computer Science. The essential qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) as stipulated in the advertisement were for a candidate to have at least 55% marks in Masters Degree level in Computer Science from an Indian university or an equivalent degree from a foreign university, possessing knowledge of Hindi and Sanskrit up to matric standard and to have qualified the National Eligibility Test (N.E.T) for Lecturers conducted by the U.G.C. The closing date for submission of application forms was stipulated as 21.2.2014.
2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has qualified his M. Tech. in Computer Science (Object Oriented Software Development) in August, 2005 and secured 68.94% marks. It has further been averred that petitioner appeared for the N.E.T. Examination conducted by the U.G.C. in December, 2012 and the result of which was declared in April, 2013 and in which he was shown unsuccessful. Certain objections had been raised by the candidates as regards the result of the N.E.T. Examination and which were considered by the U.G.C. and as such, the result was revised and declared on 21.4.2014 and in which the petitioner was shown to have been duly qualified.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that application for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) could not be submitted by the closing date i.e. 21.2.2014 as on that date the petitioner could not claim to have qualified the N.E.T. Examination conducted by the U.G.C. It is submitted that since the revised result was declared on 21.4.2014 and in which the petitioner had duly qualified, the same should relate back to the original date of declaration and thereby the petitioner cannot be denied his right to participate in the process of selection. Counsel has further submitted that as per advertisement dated 24.1.2014, issued by the Commission, candidates, who possessed the Ph.D. Degree were also not eligible and such matter was agitated before this Court and in the light of order dated 9.6.2014, passed by a Division Bench in CWP No. 11894 of 2014 at Annexure P-4 candidates possessing the degree of Ph.D. had been permitted to apply and submit applications up to 16.6.2014.
It has been argued that since time has been extended for such candidates, who possessed the Ph.D. qualification no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties, be it the recruitment agency or the prospective candidate, if, the application of the petitioner is also considered for the post in question. Yet another submission raised is that the recruitment process is at the very initial stage and as such, a candidate who has come to possess the requisite essential qualifications prior to the stage of selection, then, such candidate has a right to be considered as eligible.
4. The claim of the petitioner has been strongly resisted by Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/Commission and who would submit that the eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) had to be adjudged in relation to the closing date stipulated in the advertisement i.e. 21.2.2014. Mr. Mehtani would submit that as on such date the petitioner had not qualified the N.E.T. Examination, conducted by the U.G.C. which was one of the essential qualification for the post and as such, the claim of the petitioner is not liable to be accepted.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused.
6. The advertisement dated 24.1.2014 issued by the Commission has been placed on record and appended as Annexure P-3 along with the petition. Perusal thereof would reveal that the closing date for submission of applicant online was fixed as 21.2.2014. One of the essential qualifications for the post in question was to have cleared the N.E.T. Examination for Lecturers conducted by the U.G.C. Clause 8(ii) in the advertisement would be crucial and was in the following terms:-
"The eligibility of the candidates with regard to qualifications will be determined as on 21.2.2014."
7. It is by now well settled that the cut of date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking public employment is the date appointed by the rules and if not, then, such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications and even if there be no such date fixed in the advertisement, then, the eligibility would be with reference to the last date by which the applications have to be received by the recruitment authority/agency. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Bhupinder Pal Singh & others v. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) S.C.T. 826.
8. In the facts of the present case, it has gone uncontroverted that the last date for submission of application forms as per advertisement was 21.2.2014. There was a clear and categoric stipulation in the advertisement that the eligibility of candidates with regard to qualifications will be determined as on the closing date i.e. 21.2.2014. One of the essential qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) was to have qualified the N.E.T. Examination conducted by the U.G.C. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner himself in the light of certificate appended as Annexure P-2 along with the writ petition that he has qualified the N.E.T. Examination and such certificate issued on 16.5.2014 reflects the date of having qualified such test as 21.4.2014. Clearly the petitioner was ineligible to be considered for the post in question as on 21.2.2014 i.e. the relevant date to determine the eligibility of a prospective candidate.
9. Even the Division Bench order dated 9.6.2013, passed in CWP No. 11894 of 2014 at Annexure P-4 cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner. The controversy therein was with regard to candidates possessing Ph.D. qualification and still being considered ineligible only on account of not having qualified the N.E.T. Examination. Even though, such candidates possessing Ph.D. qualification were held to be eligible and directions had been issued to accept their application forms still the eligibility even in respect of such candidates was reckoned by reference to the last date fixed as per advertisement i.e. 21.2.2014. This would be clear from the notice/announcement dated 9.6.2014, issued by the Commission and appended as Annexure R-1 along with the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. In such announcement, it was made clear that candidates who have Ph.D. Degree on or before 21.2.2014 but have not passed the N.E.T. Examination for the post of Assistant Professor (College Cadre) could submit online applications between 10.6.2014 to 16.6.2014. As such, it was only such candidates, who had acquired the Ph.D. qualification up to the closing date i.e. 21.2.2014, who could gain from the directions issued by the Division Bench. By applying the same very yardstick even to the petitioner, he is held to be ineligible for the post in question as he concededly had not qualified the N.E.T. Examination as on the crucial date i.e. 21.2.2014.
10. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the recruitment process is still at the initial stage and the petitioner having acquired the essential qualification of N.E.T. prior to the stage of selection would now require consideration.
11. In case of
"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. 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) Vizianagaram & Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 4 SLR 237."
12. The afore reproduced observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi''s case (supra) negate the submission made by the counsel as regards the petitioner to be considered eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) on account of having acquired the qualification of N.E.T. after the date stipulated in the advertisement but prior to the stage of selection for purpose of determining eligibility. For the reasons recorded above, the claim and prayer made by the petitioner as regards his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science) to be accepted in the light of advertisement dated 24.1.2014, issued by the Commission, is found to be without merit.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
