IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.13235 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 29, 2010 ROMIKA GARG ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing action of the respondents whereby the petitioner has been held to be ineligible for interview for the post of Medical Officer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P- 7 i.e. list published by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, of applicants found ineligible for interview for 212 posts of Medical Officers (General). The name of the petitioner figures in the list. 3. The case pleaded on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner applied for appointment as Medical Officer (General). The Civil Writ Petition No.13235 of 2009 2 application, however, was not made as per the date stipulated in the advertisement. In the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Corrigendum was issued by the respondents, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-5, whereby the date for making applications was extended. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application of the petitioner was required to be entertained by the extended date given in the Corrigendum. The respondents, having held the petitioner ineligible because the petitioner did not apply by the last date provided in the advertisement, manifest injustice has been caused and it is on account of arbitrary action of the respondents that right of the petitioner to appear for interview has been denied. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not furnish the application before the last date given in the Advertisement inviting candidates for the post of Medical Officer (General). 5. Subsequently, a Corrigendum was issued in regard to relaxation of age. The petitioner claims a right to be considered because she made the application before the last date prescribed in the Corrigendum. 6. Relevant portion of the Corrigendum (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “3. According to the first Advertisement i.e. No. 3(ii) published on 10/10/2008, the last date for submission of application forms was 7/11/2008 and according to the second Advertisement i.e. No.5 published on 1/3/2009, the last date for submission of application forms was 20/3/2009. 4. After reconsideration, the Punjab Public Service Commission has amended the age limit as follows:- Civil Writ Petition No.13235 of 2009 3 (i)For the Advertisement No.3(ii) for the posts of 100 Medical Officers (General), the age limit should have been not below 18 years and not above 35 years on 1/1/2008. (ii)For the Advertisement No.5 for the posts of 212 Medical Officers (General), the age limit should have been not below 18 years and not above 35 years on 1/1/2009. (iii)The upper age limit in both cases is relaxable upto 45 years for all State/Central Govt. employees. 5. Those candidates who were declared ineligible because of this clerical mistake will be reconsidered for eligibility according to this corrigendum. 6. Those candidates who could not apply because of this age condition as issued in the Advertisements mentioned above may apply now within 21 days of publication/issuance of this corrigendum, i.e. till 21st of May, 2009. 7. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.” 7. Admittedly, the petitioner does not claim relaxation of age, as provided under the Corrigendum, portion whereof has been extracted above and, therefore, in my considered opinion, cannot take advantage of the last date prescribed in the Corrigendum for making applications. As a corollary, the condition stipulated in the original advertisement was required to be complied with by the petitioner. 8. The issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases 18. Following needs to be extracted therefrom:- “6. . . . . . . . . . The proposition that where applications are Civil Writ Petition No.13235 of 2009 4 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, 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. 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).. . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 33 candidates, submitted that these 33 candidates had appeared for the B.E. Examination prior to their applying for the post and that there was some delay in publishing the results and that these respondents cannot be punished for the delay on the part of the concerned authorities in publishing the results. In our opinion, the said contention is beside the point. In these proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons for delay - assuming that there was delay in publishing the results. That issues is outside the purview of the writ petition. Whatever may be the reason, the 33 persons were Civil Writ Petition No.13235 of 2009 5 not qualified as on the prescribed date and, therefore, could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. On the first issue (mentioned in the order dated 1st September, 1995), therefore, we hold in favour of the review petitioners, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J.” 7. It has been made clear by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that none of the persons similarly situated as the petitioner, has been considered as eligible. 8. The petitioner having not made the application by the last date provided in the advertisement, the petition is dismissed. July 29, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?