1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by Director Animal Husbandry in File No. 2642/Estb.-V/Sa. Pa. She. Chi. A. Recruitment /2018-19 by which the appointment of the petitioner to the post of A.V.F.O. has been cancelled.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that an advertisement was issued on 27.02.2017 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and the last date for submission of application was 18.03.2017. Application was submitted by the petitioner on online on 11.03.2017. The requisite qualification for appointment on the post of A.V.F.O. was Higher Secondary and Diploma of 2 years A.V.F.O. Training. It is true that on the date of filing of the application, the petitioner had not completed the last semester of diploma of A.V.F.O. and the result was declared in the month of December, 2017 whereas the last date for submission of application was 18.03.2017. The application form submitted by the petitioner was accepted by Vyapam and no objection was raised by Vyapam and accordingly, he appeared in the recruitment examination and was declared successful. Accordingly, on 30.07.2018, the petitioner appeared before the Counseling Committee for verification of the documents. No objection was taken by the Counseling Committee and after due verification of his documents, appointment order was issued in favour of petitioner and he was directed to join in the Veterinary Hospital Barkhed, District Betul. When the petitioner was preparing for joining at the place of posting, then an impugned order dated 27.02.2019 was issued by which the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on ground that the petitioner had acquired the qualification of diploma in A.V.F.O. after the last date of submission of application. It is submitted that it is true that the minimum qualification was acquired by the petitioner after last date of submission of his application but once the entire exercise has been done by the respondents and an order of appointment has also been issued, then the respondents could have condoned the lack of qualification on the last submission of application form.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 2011 [LQ/SC/2000/847] and order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 5435/2018, W.P. No. 5475/2018, W.P. No. 5566/2018 and W.P. No. 8176/2018.

4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. By referring to the application form submitted online by the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner had given misleading declaration. In the column which was meant for a declaration to the effect as to whether the petitioner is having all the minimum qualification or not, the petitioner had mentioned "Yes" whereas on the last date of submission of application form he was not having diploma in A.V.F.O.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was not having a diploma in A.V.F.O. on the last date of submission of the application form but he acquired that qualification in the month of December, 2017. The only question for consideration is as to whether the candidate must have minimum qualifications on the last date of submission of application form or they can acquire the same at the later stage also.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 [LQ/SC/2013/818] has held as under:-

11. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfills the requisite qualification.

12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana [(1994) 2 SCC 723 [LQ/SC/1994/69] : 1994 SCC (L&S) 742 : (1994) 27 ATC 101] , this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible.

13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in M.V. Nair v. Union of India [(1993) 2 SCC 429 [LQ/SC/1993/70] : 1993 SCC (L&S) 512 : (1993) 24 ATC 236] held as under : (SCC p. 434, para 9) "9. ... It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date."

(emphasis supplied)

14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions [1995 Supp (4) SCC 706 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 226 : (1996) 32 ATC 172] this Court held : (SCC p. 707, para 2) "2. ... It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules."

(emphasis supplied)

15. This Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 [LQ/SC/1993/42] : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] held : (SCC p. 175, para 10)

"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. 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. ... Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra [ (1990) 2 SCC 669 [LQ/SC/1990/229] : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 13 ATC 708] and Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [ (1990) 3 SCC 655 [LQ/SC/1990/261 ;] : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766] ."

(emphasis supplied)

16. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher [1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 857 : (1993) 24 ATC 798] [hereinafter referred to as Ashok Kumar (1993)], the majority view was as under : (SCC pp. 616-17, para 15) "15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect...."

(emphasis supplied)

However, the opinion of R.M. Sahai, J. had been that these 33 persons could not have been allowed to appear for the interview as they did not possess the requisite eligibility/qualification on the last date of submission of applications.

17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar [(1997) 4 SCC 18 [LQ/SC/1997/440] : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma [ 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 857 : (1993) 24 ATC 798] observing : (Chander Shekhar case [(1997) 4 SCC 18 [LQ/SC/1997/440] : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] , SCC pp. 21-22, para 6)

"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. 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. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment."

(emphasis added)

The Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma [(1997) 4 SCC 18 [LQ/SC/1997/440] : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] further explained that the majority view in Ashok Kumar Sharma [1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 857 : (1993) 24 ATC 798] was not correct, rather the dissenting view by R.M. Sahai, J. was correct as the Court held as under : (SCC p. 22, para 6)

"6. ... The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best 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 law 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 been allowed to appear for the interview."

(emphasis added)

18. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case reference to Rekha Chaturvedi [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 [LQ/SC/1993/42] : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] appears to have been made by a typographical error as the said judgment is by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. n fact the Court wanted to make a reference to the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma [ 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 857 : (1993) 24 ATC 798] .

19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2000) 5 SCC 262 [LQ/SC/2000/847] : 2000 SCC (L&S) 639 : AIR 2000 SC 2011 [LQ/SC/2000/847] ] this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held : (SCC p. 268, para 13)

"13. ... The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a 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; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with."

(emphasis supplied)

20. This Court lately in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari [(2012) 9 SCC 545 [LQ/SC/2012/795] : (2012) 9 SCC (L&S) 795 : AIR 2012 SC 3281 [LQ/SC/2012/795] ] held : (SCC p. 550, para 14)

"14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (See Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal [1993 Supp (1) SCC 714 [LQ/SC/1992/574] : 1993 SCC (L&S) 246 : (1993) 23 ATC 783] and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [ (2008) 7 SCC 153 [LQ/SC/2008/634] : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244] .)"

(emphasis supplied)

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission [(2008) 7 SCC 153 [LQ/SC/2008/634] : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 244] and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436 [LQ/SC/2011/230] : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 83] .

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 [LQ/SC/1997/440] held as under:-

"6. The review petitions came up for final hearing on 3-3-1997. We heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, for the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for the 33 respondents. So far as the first issue referred to in our Order dated 1-9-1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by 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 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. 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. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment.

This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 [LQ/SC/1993/42] : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] . The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best 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 law 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 been allowed to appear for the interview."

9. This Court in the case of Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and Others, decided on 22.06.2023 in W.P. No. 12079/2023 has held as under:-

"9. Therefore, even if the result was not declared prior to the last for submission of application form without there being any fault on the part of the candidate, still the subsequent acquisition of qualification cannot be considered. Furthermore, the petitioner has not disclosed the date on which the examination of B.A. 3rd year main examination was conducted."

10. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) paragraph-18 of the said judgment reads as under:-

"18. It was conceded during the course of hearing that candidates belonging to category-1 had acquired the requisite eligibility qualifications by the extended date. As to category-3 it was conceded that the candidates had given Punjabi examination before the cut off date and though the results were not declared but their answer books were evaluated before 30-10-1996 and the results were formally declared after the cut off date and they had passed the requisite examination in Punjabi. The appellants and the petitioners before us are either in category-1 or in category-3. In our opinion in view of the appointment letters having been issued, the selection and appointment of such candidates should not be disturbed and that order we make under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in the facts and circumstances of the cases before us as already stated."

11. From the plain reading of aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the direction was given by the Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India, and this Court does not have that power.

12. So far as the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this in the case of Shivani Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh W.P. No. 5435/2018 (supra) is concerned, the facts are distinguishable. In the said case the person was holding the minimum qualification, but the documents were filed subsequently. In the present case, the petitioner was not holding the minimum qualification and he cleared the examination in the month of December, 2017 whereas the last date of submission of application form was 18.03.2017.

13. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity could be pointed out by counsel for the petitioner in impugned order dated 27.02.2019 by which appointment of the petitioner was cancelled.

14. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.