Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116166 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9738 of 2025 Petitioner :- Meenu Singh And 11 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Yadav,Amit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gagan Mehta Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. The instant petition has been filed with the following main prayers: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari to pass/set aside the impugned press note dated 23.05.2025 being letter nо. 414 / (2025) अधधययचन / 2025-26 published by respondent no. 2 i.e. Secretary U.P. Education Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj extent to last date of qualification eligibility would be 31.08.2022. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no. 2 for accepting the application forms of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) and also permit to the petitioners for participating in the selection process pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No. 8260 of 2025 (Roshan Kumar Pandey and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. and Another). III. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no. 2 to declare the result after findings the petitioners cleared the examination accordance with law." 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as per the Advertisement No.51, the following programme was given for submission of the application forms: (i) The starting date for online application registration was 09.07.2022. (ii) The starting date for depositing online application fee was 09.07.2022. (iii) The last date for registration of online application form was 07.08.2022. (iv) The last date for depositing online application fee was 08.08.2022. (v) The last date for submitting online application form was 10.08.2022. 3. It is also provided in paragraph no.1.11 of the advertisement that the candidates must have completed their educational qualification on or before the last date of submission of application form. 4. It is submitted that the said advertisement was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing no.12803 of 2022. The said writ petition was allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.12.2022, by which the Advertisement No.51 so for as the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) has been set aside. The Court has directed to the respondent to return the fees etc. as deposited by the applicants and issue a fresh advertisement. A Special Appeal was preferred, but same was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2023. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.17719 of 2023 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2023. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that on the earlier occasion, the Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 09.12.2022 has held that the aforesaid impugned advertisement is contrary to the mandatory law and quashed to that extent and directed that the Commission of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) to proceed to refund the application money to all the effected applicants. It is also directed that to issue a fresh advertisement with respect to the post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) with the terms and norms as fixed in the N.C.T.E. regulations. 6. It is apprised to this Court that now U.P. Higher Education Commission has been dismentaled and thereafter new Commission knows as the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission has been established under the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (for short "the Act, 2023"). 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned press note dated 23.05.2025 issued by the Commission is contrary to the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Single Judge in Writ - A No.12803 of 2022. It is further submitted that from perusal of the press note and amended advertisement of Advertisement No.51, it is crystal clear that respondent no.2 advertised 75 posts in earlier advertisement, which has been enhanced up to 107 posts. It is further submitted that as per the direction of Single Judge on earlier occasion, the Commission supposed to be issued a fresh advertisement not amended advertisement. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved with the clause and conditions of the impugned press note dated 23.05.2025, wherein a condition has been imposed that the candidates must have educational eligibility on the date i.e. 31.08.2022 to be applied as per the N.C.T.E. Rules, which is absolutely illegal and arbitrary, because if fresh advertisement is being issued by the respondent authorities, the rights of the petitioners cannot be deprived, since they have now qualified for the said post. It is submitted that the cut off date for determining the qualification of candidates given in previous advertisement can not be criteria for new applicants who applied under new/amended advertisement. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that since this Court has also disposed of the writ petition bearing No.8260 of 2025 vide order dated 01.02.2025 with direction that the Commission to open the portal for filling up their forms, therefore, that the present writ petitioners may also be permitted to fill up their forms after opening the portal by the Commission. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the instant petition may also be disposed of with the above-said directions. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 - Commission has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the last date of submission of application form has already been given in the advertisement and it is also submitted that the Commission has all the rights to fix the last date for submission of forms as also last date of determination of qualification of the candidates. In such of the cases, the judicial review is not warranted. It is also submitted that in the instant case, the petitioners have not attained the qualification as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. It is further submitted that the benefit has been granted by this Court only to the petitioners of Writ - A No.8260 of 2025 vide order dated 01.07.2025, as the petitioners therein were filed the writ petition prior to the last date of submission of the forms as per the amended advertisement. He has referred the paragraph nos.-13, 14 and 15 of order dated 01.07.2025 passed in Writ - A No.8260 of 2025, which is quoted below:- "13. The main arguments and objections raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that for purpose of recruitment on the post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.) in accordance with fresh amended advertisement the educational eligibility will be considered on the date of the submission of the form as per the old advertisement no. 51 i.e. 31.08.2022 without application of mind, arbitrary in nature and unjust, violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. After taking into consideration of the contents of the petition and the submissions of learned Senior Counsel, I find force in the argument but I have also considered that the recruitment process has already been started in pursuance of the new amended advertisement, therefore I am not inclined to interfere in the recruitment process at this stage but in the interest of justice, I am inclined to consider the alternative prayer to allow the writ petitioners to fill the form online as they have approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition before the last date of filling of the form as per amended advertisement. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the Commission is directed to open the portal to enable the petitioners for filling up their form for one day i.e. 7th July, 2025 from 10.00 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is also made clear that the aforesaid direction has been passed only for the writ petitioners as the instant writ petition has been filed prior to the last date of submission of form as per the amended advertisement." 12. It is vehemently submitted that the process to the recruitment has already started as per schedule given in the amended advertisement. The petitioners in the instant writ petition are also not entitled to get the similar relief as granted in Writ - A No.8260 of 2025 as they have filed the instant writ petition after expiry of the last date of filing the application form. 13. Now the question which arises for consideration whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the candidature of the petitioners was rightly rejected as they were not qualified for the post as on the last date of submission of application form. 14. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri D.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, perused the contents made in the writ petition and the documents on record. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chandra Shekhar and another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 has held that educational qualifications fulfilled on the date of interview could be taken into consideration and the fulfillment of the educational qualification on the date of submission of application form was not necessary, but later on, on the view expressed in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), was not found proper by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition filed in the above case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide his judgement dated 10.03.1997, held that the view taken in above judgment was unsustainable and amounted to clear the error of law apparent on the face of record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed the Judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and held that the qualifications are to be seen as on the date of advertisement and not on the date of interview. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vijay Kumar Mishra, (2017) 11 SCC 521, has observed that the applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post on the date of submission of application form or by the cut off date, if any, prescribed under the Rules, as stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post and the qualification acquired by him, subsequently does not entitle the applicant to come within the zone of consideration and it cannot be considered for appointment in absence of any power in appointing authority to relax the qualification. 17. Thus, it can be said that the candidate who does not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application form, is not entitled to be considered for appointment and the suitability and eligibility has to be considered with respect to the last date of submission of application form. 18. In the case in hand, it is admitted fact that the petitioners were not possessed the requisite qualification as per the advertisement on or before the date of submission of the application form. The petitioners have also prayed that the benefit which has been given by this Court on the earlier occasion, to the petitioners in Writ - A No.8260 of 2025 (Roshan Kumar Pandey and others Vs. The State of U.P. and another) vide order dated 01.07.2025, the same may also be given to the present petitioners, but in the instant case, the petitioners have not possessed the requisite qualification on or before the submission of application form, but the petitioners in Writ - A No.8260 of 2025, filed the writ petition before the date of submission of application form and it is also clarified in the said order dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Court that the order passed in Writ - A No.8260 of 2025 is only for the writ petitioners and not open to other candidates. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case just mentioned above, no doubt as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) and State of U.P. (supra), the petitioners were not legally entitled for any relief, as prayed. 20. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. . (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Atul Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad