IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 706 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others ......Appellants Vs. Sunita and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate Geneal, Haryana, for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioners will be eligible for the post of Art and Craft Teachers as they acquired the requisite qualifications on 12.3.2007 before the last date of making applications, as per corrigendum. 3. The original advertisement was issued on 19.7.2006 and cut-off date for acquiring qualification was mentioned as 21.8.2006. Thereafter, the corrigendum dated 24.11.2008 was issued but the cut- off date was kept as 21.8.2006. 4. The respondents filed writ petition that they were eligible even though they acquired the requisite qualifications after the cut-off date. The contention was that even though the cut-off date was 21.8.2006, since the date to make application stood extended utp 10.12.2008 in the corrigendum, the same should be treated as cut-off date. Reliance was placed on a DB Judgment of this Court in Navneet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others LPA No. 706 of 2009 [2] 2008(4) SCT 192. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even though in the Division Bench judgment relied upon, it was held that the last date of application should be treated as cut-off date, but in that case no cut-off date was mentioned. The said judgment was distinguishable. Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt AIR 1998 SC 91 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and others 2007(4) SCC 54 to the effect that the cut-off date could not be ignored. 7. Even though we find that there may be distinction in the present case and the issue considered in the earlier Division Bench judgment in Navneet Kaur's case (supra) having regard to the fact that the corrigendum was issued after two years of original advertisement and the process remained pending for long, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 10, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No LPA No. 706 of 2009 [3] LPA No. 706 of 2009 [4]