IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 5090 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.3.2009. Shaveta & others --Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioners applied for the post of Education Services Providers (P.T.I.s) pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.4.2008 issued by respondent no.2, inviting applications for filling up of 244 posts of Education Services Providers. The last date for making application was 29.4.2008. The essential qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement notice is basic academic qualification 10+2 and the professional qualification C.P.Ed. The selection is required to be made on the basis of the aforesaid two essential qualifications. It is admitted case of the petitioners that on the last date of making application, they were not having C.P.Ed qualification to their credit. It is alleged that petitioners had already appeared in the examination and acquired C.P.Ed qualification in July, 2008. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to a public notice dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) whereby the respondents extended the date for counselling. Based upon the aforesaid notice, it is contended that since the respondents have extended the date of counselling, the petitioners may also be permitted to participate in the selection process CWP. No. 5090 of 2009 -2- as the number of vacancies are available due to non-participation of a number of candidates. The issue is no more res integra having been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of judgements including Bhupinderpal Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab 2002(2) SCT, 826, wherein the following observations have been made:- “ All the appeals and the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing analogously. The only question arising for decision in this case is by reference to which date the eligibility of the several candidates is to be judged and the consequences flowing from failure to satisfy the eligibility test in the facts & circumstances of the case. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar & another, JT 1997 (4) SC, 199: 1997 (2) SCT 208 (SC); A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., 1990(4) SLR 235; The Distt. Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (4) SLR 237; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan & ors., JT 1993 (1) SC 220 : 1993 (2) SCT 279 (SC); Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India & ors., 1993 (2) SCT 77 (SC) and U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr. v. Alpana, JT 1994 (1) SC 94: 1994 (1) SCT 701 (SC), the High Court has held (i) that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut offdate appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility CWP. No. 5090 of 2009 -3- criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.” In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to participate in the selection process as they were ineligible as on the last date of making applications in terms of the advertisement, referred to above. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 31.3.2009 lucky