IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20023 of 2010 DR.RAVI ANAND, son of Sri Sachchidanand Singh, resident of Mana Singh Market Station Road, Bakhtiarpur, P. S. Bakhtiarpur, District-Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Principal Secretary, Health Department, Medical Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. The Sectional Officer, Direct Recruitment Branch, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Examination Controller cum Addl. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. ----------- 03. 19.05.2011 Petitioner cries discrimination of hostile kind in matter of his non-selection by the BPSC for the post of Specialist Doctor in Anaesthesia. According to him, he had all the qualifications in terms of the advertisement contained in Annexure-5 but deliberately the BPSC ignored his claim and made appointment of other candidate at his cost. Petitioner is supposed to have obtained a DNB degree for training from Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sheikhpura. It is a three years course. The course started from 14.8.2006 and was completed on 13.8.2009. This fact is not in dispute. BPSC was directed to explain the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner because prima facie on the assertions made in the writ application it looked like a case where petitioner could have been wronged. But now there are 2 materials which emerge from the counter affidavit and the stand taken, the reasons for rejection are available and are cogent. Stand of the respondents is that in terms of the advertisement 13th April, 2009 was the last date for filing applications. Petitioner did file his application with certain declaration with regard to his eligibility and based on such a declaration he was even issued admit card. But subsequently it was found that the petitioner had not completed his DNB training on the date he had filed his application i.e. the last date in question. Admitted position which emerges from perusal of Annexure-8 is that the petitioner had completed his DNB training certificate only on 13.8.2009 i.e. four months after the last cut off date. If that be so, then obviously the petitioner did not have all the requisite qualifications or the degree/training on the date the window was drawn with regard to filing of such applications for consideration for appointment on the post advertised. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that there are many alternatives which have been given in terms of the eligibility and even a year training was good enough to permit the petitioner to be considered for such appointment. This Court has certain difficulty in accepting such a wild submission on the ground that if the DNB certificate could only be granted after completion of 3 years training, then one 3 year training may not be good enough for him because that is not a complete certification of training of the course on which the petitioner is claiming a right for appointment. Petitioner never made a claim that he has a one year diploma or training and that could be considered to be his basic eligibility. The eligibility is drawn from his DNB training and not any other course. If the petitioner had completed his DNB training only on 13.8.2009 i.e. after four months of cut off date for filing applications, obviously petitioner lacked eligibility. He may have applied in anticipation of his completing the process of training before exercise of final appointment was completed but that will not help the petitioner. Eligibility must accrue in favour of the candidate on the last date for filing applications and not during the course of appointment. No direction therefore can be given in favour of the petitioner. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)