IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14253 of 2011 Maya Kumari wife of Amit Kumar Thakur, Daughter of Sri Sudama Thakur, resident of Mohalla-Shidhnath Ghat, Ward No. 14, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar. .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Director, Integrated Child Development Services, Department of Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Buxar. 5. District Programme Co-ordinator, Buxar. ..........Respondents ----------- 02 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents Petitioner’s grievances is that even though the respondents authorities had prepared the summaries list of candidates, eligible for appointment on the post of supervisors under the I.C.D.S. Programme, by giving her weightage of ten marks, because she is a post graduate, when it came down to final publication of the merit list, those vital ten marks have gone missing. Because of the same, the merit position of the petitioner has drastically fallen. There is no genuine reason why the petitioner ought to be denied the benefit of the ten marks to which she is eligible as petitioner has a post graduate degree in psychology from Veer Kunwar Singh University. On the face of it, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seemed attractive, but as pointed out by learned counsel for the State there is a fallacy in such a submission, as the 2 reason for withdrawal of that award of ten marks is based on actual state of affairs. State counsel submits that when the application was made by the petitioner, she had not cleared her post graduation but had only appeared in the examination. Based on the kind of information furnished by the petitioner, an impression was given that she was already holder of a post graduate degree. Ten marks was awarded initially but on final scrutiny, before publication of the merit list, it was discovered that the petitioner had not yet acquired the post graduate degree, at least on the date when the application was made. Any acquisition made subsequent thereto, cannot accrue to the benefit of the petitioner, as there has to be some kind of sanctity given to the cut off date based on which merit position of candidates have to be worked out. The stand of the petitioner thereafter is that she has not suppressed anything in the application filed, but on a closer questioning, the counsel does accept the position that the acquisition of post graduate degree was a subsequent event and, therefore, the benefit of that acquisition will not accrue to the petitioner. The law being what it is any acquisition of qualification will have to co-relate to the cut off date and not anything done thereafter. This is to maintain consistency of appraisal and a comparative analysis of eligibility of all those persons, who had already become eligible. Giving advantage of all kinds on the basis 3 of subsequent event would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the opinion of this Court. In the above circumstances, therefore, there was a valid and cogent reason for withdrawal of ten marks given to the petitioner for having a post graduate degree and no direction can be given to maintain that ten marks in preparation of the final merit position. Writ has no merit. In the above stated circumstances, it is dismissed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)