IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 98 of 2010 Rajeev Majila …......Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ...Respondents. Present: Mr. Syed Nadeem, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Date of Decision : 6.7.2010 Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 states, that it is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to file a detailed counter affidavit. He states, that the purpose of respondent no. 2 will be served, if the provisions of the Regulations of the B.D.S. Course laid down by the Dental Council of India as modified on 27.6.1983, as also, as modified on 10.9.2007 are taken on record. In view of the above, the B.D.S. Course Regulations modified on 27.6.1983 are taken on record and marked as Annexure-A and the B.D.S. Course Regulations modified on 10.9.2007 are taken on record and marked as Annexure-B. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states, that he is ready and willing to address arguments in this case for the final disposal of the instant Writ Petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The claim of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is, that he had applied for an appointment against the post of Dental Surgeon (General Grade) in response to an advertisement, which appeared in the Dainik Jagran dated 4.7.2009. Despite the fact that his aforesaid application was submitted before the last date stipulated therein i.e. 4.8.2009, the respondents have declined to consider his claim by passing the impugned order dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure -9). A perusal of Annuexure-9 reveals, that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualifications. It also reveals, that the petitioner had not completed his 2 internship till the last date of submission of the Application Form i.e. till 4.8.2009. 5. It is in the background of the aforesaid factual position, that we shall examine the different contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this behalf, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner completed four years’ B.D.S. Course well before the last date of submission of the Application Forms i.e. well before 4.8.2009, and as such, he should be treated as eligible for the advertised posts. Additionally, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the advertisement nowhere stipulates the completion of period of internship before the last date of submission of the Application Forms, and as such, the petitioner can neither be treated as ineligible nor unqualified on account of the fact, that he had not completed the period of internship before the last date of submission of the Application Form i.e. before 4.8.2009. 6. Insofar as the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the B.D.S. Course Regulations issued on 27.6.1983, as also, the B.D.S. Course Regulations issued on 10.9.2007 reveals that the Undergraduate Dental Training Programme is for a duration of five years. Out of the aforesaid five years, the last year is assigned to internship. A candidate, who has completed the entire five years’ duration, including four years of academic qualifications and one year of internship, only would be entitled to be awarded the B.D.S. degree. As such, it is submitted that non-completion of internship would mean, that the petitioner does not possess the B.D.S. qualification. The instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be fully justified on account of the fact, that the petitioner has not appended to the instant Writ Petition the B.D.S. degree qualification, which he ought to have acquired before 4.8.2009. Naturally, he would be entitled to such a degree qualification only on completion of the internship. Having not completed the internship by 4.8.2009, he was not issued any such degree, and as such, he was unable to place the same on the record of this case. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for 3 the petitioner very fairly handed over to us the Internship Completion Certificate. The same is taken on record and marked as Annexure-C. Annexure – C reveals, that the petitioner completed the compulsory one year paid internship on 14.9.2009. Thus viewed, the petitioner was entitled to be awarded the B.D.S. Degree for the first time on 14.9.2009. The date by which the applications had to be submitted in response to the posts advertised, depicted in the advertisement itself, was 4.8.2009. The petitioner having not acquired the B.D.S. degree by 4.8.2009, was rightly described as ineligible for the advertised post. The aforesaid conclusion is imperative on account of the fact, that it is by now well settled, that qualifications depicted in the advertisement must be acquired before the last date of submission of applications. In view of the above, we find no merit in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that the petitioner acquired the B.D.S. qualification after the last date of submission of the Application Form i.e. 4.8.2009 was on account of the delayed commencement of the last academic session, which he attended. As such, it is submitted, that the petitioner should not be penalised for something for which he is not responsible. It is submitted, that if the academic session had begun at the prescribed schedule, he would have acquired the B.D.S. qualification well before the submission of the Application Forms and would be eligible for consideration in the selection process, liable to be initiated by the respondents in furtherance of the advertisement dated 4.7.2009. 8. We have considered the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are merely conjectural in nature. The Competent Authority inviting applications expressly provided therein, that the last date of submission of the Application Forms was 4.8.2009. Those, who could not acquire eligibility before the stipulated date, for whatever reasons, could not claim eligibility for participating in the selection process. If the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the very concept of possession of the 4 prescribed qualification before the last date of submission of the Application Forms would be rendered nugatory. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept even the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 6.7.2010 Rathour