LPA No. 1540 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1540 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 26.8.2011 Preeti Yadav . Appellants Versus State of Haryana etc. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 17.8.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant is simply a graduate with 60 percent marks and in the absence of fulfilling the qualification of NET/SLET or Ph.D before the cut off date she would not be eligible and hence not entitled to participate in the selection process . The subsequent corrigendum issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission would also not come to the rescue of the appellant. In the absence of requisite qualification of NET/SLET or Ph.D, the appellant cannot be considered eligible. It is true that the petitioner has passed NET examination on 4.8.2011, a date which is after the last date of receipt of application. It is well settled that cut of date for determining the eligibility of a candidate would be the last date of receipt of application and her degree of NET is after the last date of receipt of application i.e. 31.5.2009. By the corrigendum exemption from NET was LPA No. 1540 of 2011 2 granted only in respect of those who were enrolled for Ph.D on or before 31.5.2009 and by the date of interview a candidate was required to have qualified his Ph.D. The case of the appellant is not covered by the corrigendum whereby qualification of NET has been relaxed in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. There is no substance in the submission that if qualification has been relaxed for Ph.D qualified candidate then it should also be relaxed in respect of those who have qualified NET later. In fact the decision of the respondents is based on the policy of UGC and it does not suffer from any legal infirmity like discrimination, arbitrariness and against principles of natural justice. We find no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the eligibility criterion on the material date as is well settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case M.B.Nair v. UOI (1993) 2 SCC 429. The appeal does not merit admission. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 26 .8.2011 Judge okg