* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1804/2007 VINEET VERMA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R L Nanda, Adv. versus UOI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Sameer Agarwal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 06.05.2008 1. The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Junior Telecom Officer in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.9.2005. Clause 3 (b) relating to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement regarding educational qualification was as under : “3.b) Educational qualifications : Applicant must possess as on 03.10.2005 Bachelor of Engineering/Bachelor of Technology degree from a recognized engineering college/university in any of the following disciplines or in equivalent engineering disciplines:” 2. A bare perusal of the said Clause would indicate that the applicants were required to possess a degree of Bachelor of Engineering or Bachelor of Technology as on 3.10.2005. Clause 9 of the said advertisement prescribed last date for receipt of application forms complete in all respect. The last date fixed under clause 9 was 3.10.2005. 3. By a corrigendum subsequently issued, the last date of receipt of applications was extended up to 7.11.2005. 4. As per the original application form submitted by the petitioner and filed on record by the respondent, the petitioner with reference to the month and year of obtaining engineering degree had merely mentioned 2005. No date and month was mentioned. Along with application form the petitioner had enclosed provisional certificate issued by Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow dated 12.5.2006. 5. As per the certificate placed on record by the petitioner dated 24th April, 2006, the petitioner’s result for final year was declared on 30th October, 2005 after he cleared a special paper. It is clear from this document relied upon by the petitioner himself that he did not possess a bachelor’s degree in Engineering or Technology as on 3rd September, 2005, as his result was declared on 30th October, 2005. Thus the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however relies upon letter dated 9th September, 2005. This letter is an internal document which was written by the Recruitment Section of BSNL to all Chief General Managers of Telecom circle etc. In para 3.3 of the said letter it is mentioned that with reference to educational qualifications, candidates were required to possess qualification as on the closing date of receipt of application. On this basis it is submitted that the closing date for receipt of applications was extended till 7th November, 2005, and therefore the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria. 7. I have examined the contention raised by the petitioner but I am unable to agree. The letter dated 9th September, 2005 is an internal letter. What is important is the advertisement issued by the respondent/BSNL in the newspaper inviting applications. Public at large was informed by the advertisement to respond and apply for selection to the post of Junior Telecom Officers. The relevant clause of the advertisement has been quoted above. The Clause specifically stated that the applicant must possess a bachelor degree in Technology or Engineering as on 3rd October, 2005. Public had applied for recruitment to the post of Junior Telecom Officers on the basis of the advertisement and not on the basis of the internal circular. In view of the terms and conditions including the eligibility criteria mentioned by the respondent/BSNL in the advertisement the same could not have been amended or modified without another advertisement. This is necessary for giving opportunity to others to apply. Corrigendum issued by BSNL was only to extend the date for receipt of applications. The respondent did not state that the eligibility criteria with regard to the educational qualification as on 3.10.2005 was also modified and candidates who have obtained engineering degree or degree in technology on or after 3.10.2005 till 7.11.2005 could also apply. The date, 3.10.2005 mentioned for the educational qualification was not changed. 8. I may also mention that respondent/BSNL has raised issue of territorial jurisdiction relying upon clause 12 of the advertisement dated 17.9.2005. I am not inclined to go into this aspect in view of the fact that the respondent’s registered office and head office are located at Delhi and as I have examined the facts and circumstances of the case on merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 06, 2008 Vld/P