IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4019 of 2009 Manisha . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 4. 19.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was an applicant under Advertisement No. 34 of 2005 for appointment on the post of CDPO. The essential educational qualification prescribed was Graduation. The last date for receipt of application was 31.5.2005. The advertisement did not contain any qualification that those who were studying in the final year or whose results were awaited could also apply. The law mandates that if the date of eligibility is not mentioned in the advertisement it shall be computed on the basis of last date for submission of applications. A similar fact situation fell for consideration in (1997) 6 SCC 574 (State of Rajasthan Vsa. Hitendra kumar Bhatt) at paragraph 3 and the conclusion observed in paragraph 6 as follows:- “3. The respondent did not possess the requisite technical qualification on 29-6-1992 which was the last date for submitting application. He had appeared for the B.Ed. examination but the results were not declared on 29-6-1992. The results were declared only on 6-8-1992. The interviews for the advertised posts were held from 1-9-1992 onwards. 6. Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has requested that his case should be considered sympathetically……………..One cannot, therefore, take too sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.” Therefore the petitioner had to be full-fledged a Graduate as on 31.5.2005. On her own submission her results have been published on 16.9.2005. That she may have appeared in the final examination in the month of April is not relevant. There has to be a difference between an essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement and the collateral or non-essential qualification. While the latter can be relaxed, question of relaxation in the essential qualification simply does not arise. The impermissibility for relaxation of an essential qualification has been considered in (2006) 6 SCC 430 (R.S.Garg Vs. State of U.P.) at paragraph 32 observing as follows:- “32. It has also not been disputed that no relaxation could be granted for promotion in terms of the 1994 Act. Five years' experience from the date of substantive appointment, thus, being an essential qualification, no relaxation could have been given in that regard to the 3rd respondent. The 1994 Act was not enacted for meeting such a contingency. In that view of the matter both the Chief Minister as well as the Principal Secretary themselves did not possess any authority to make any relaxation and in that view of the matter they must be held to have misdirected themselves in law necessitating interference by the superior courts by way of judicial review. When such an illegality is committed, the superior court cannot shut its eyes. Contention of such glaring illegality would create a dangerous trend in future………….” There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)