ORDER
Krishna Moorthy, J.
1. The Respondent University – University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, issued a Notification dated 30.9.1993 inviting applications for the appointment of various posts in the University including (i) Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, (ii) Assistant Professor of Agricultural Marketing and (iii) Farm Superintendent. The above Notification is produced as Annexure ‘A’. The petitioner applied for an appointment to the above three posts. The last date for submitting the application pursuant to Annexure ‘A’ Notification was 22.11.1993. Along with the application, the petitioner had enclosed a Certificate dated 20.11.1993 issued by the Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore, in which, it is stated that the petitioner had completed the final M.Sc., in Agricultural Economics Degree Programme of the University and that he had secured a Cummulative Grade Point Average of 3.20 out of 4.00. The application submitted by the petitioner was entertained by the Respondent – University. The petitioner received three separate intimations from the Registrar of the Respondent-University calling upon him to appear for the Interview for the aforesaid three posts. Those intimations were produced as Annexures ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’. The petitioner states that he belongs to Schedule Caste Community and that he is entitled to reservation in accordance with the Government Orders and the Respondent-University has also adopted the same. The petitioner was interviewed on 11.8.1994 for the post of Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics. But later, he was informed that he was not qualified to have his case considered for selection and appointment to the posts in question on the ground that he had not completed his M.Sc., Degree before the last date prescribed. To that effect, a letter was issued to the petitioner evidenced by Annexure ‘F’, in which, it is stated that the petitioner had not completed the M.Sc., Degree before the last date prescribed in Annexure ‘A’ Notification and accordingly, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered. It is stated by the petitioner that, he had completed his M.Sc., Degree on 13.11.1993 itself and that the marks awarded and the Grade were also mentioned in the Certificate issued to him by the Head of the Department. The petitioner also informed that he had completed his theory as well as practical papers and this was also certified by the University of Agricultural Sciences at Bangalore. According to the Petitioner, only the issance of the Certificate was not completed before the last date fixed for submitting his application. According to the petitioner, he had completed the Course and that he was qualified for applying for the posts on the last date before he submitted his application. In support of the same, he has also produced a Certificate issued by the Registrar of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, by Certificate dated 10.10.1994, wherein, it was certified that the petitioner has successfully completed his M.Sc., Degree in Agricultural Economics on 13.11.1993, but, however, his marks card was issued on 17.12.1993. A copy of the said Certificate was also produced by the petitioner evidenced by Annexure ‘C’, but the petitioner was informed that he had not completed his degree as on the last date being 22.11.1993. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Selection Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner even though he was qualified on that date. Showing these facts, the petitioner submitted a representation evidenced by Annexure ‘H’ dated 12.10.1994, but the said representation has not been considered. Though the petitioner has received Interview intimations for the post of Assistant Professor of Agricultural Marketing as well as Farm Superintendent and he has also attended the interview on 11.8.1994 and 16.9.1994, in the light of the stand taken by the Selection Committee that he was not qualified for the posts on the last date, his case will not be considered for appointment to the posts in question. Accordingly, the petitioner states that the stand taken by the Respondent-University is arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner has also produced the Marks Card which he obtained, evidenced by Annexure ‘J’ dated 17.12.1993 to show that he had completed the Course. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of his application on the ground that the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for selection to the three posts is on an irrelevant and an arbitrary ground and that he was qualified as on the last date, i.e., 22.11.1993. It is further contended by him that, at any rate, by the date of interview, he had acquired M.Sc., Degree as evidenced by Annexure ‘J’, the Marks Card and that he is entitled to be considered for the posts for which he had applied for. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to call for the entire records of the case and issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction quashing the letter Annexure ‘F’ by which, it was said that the petitioner had not completed his M.Sc., Degree and to further issue direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection and appointment to any one of the three posts to which he had applied for.
2. The respondents have filed a Statement of Objections, in which, they have reiterated the stand that the petitioner is not qualified on the last date of the application, viz., 22.11.1993. It is further stated in the objections that the Certificate issued by the Professor and Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics, UAS, Hebbal, Bangalore, on 20.11.1993 is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has obtained a M.Sc., Degree on that day. The required qualification for the three posts for which the petitioner had applied is a pass in M.Sc., in Agricultural Economics with a minimum of M.Sc., Degree. The Respondent University had made a declaration that the applications are invited for the said posts only from the candidates who are qualified as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, viz., 22.11.1993. On that day, the petitioner was not qualified as he had not passed his M.Sc., Degree in Agricultural Economics and was not entitled to the award of the said Degree on the last date. It is further said that the Certificate issued by the Professor or the Registrar by itself will not confer him the title to M.Sc., Degree and unless and until the results are officially announced, the petitioner cannot be said to have acquired the M.Sc., Degree Qualification. The procedure for declaration of results is also stated in the Statement of Objections. According to the respondents, the results have to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor and thereafter, the Registrar issues Official Notification declaring the results as also the Provisional Degree Certificate for having completed the Degree. It is further stated in the instant case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, Official Notification is issued by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, only on 17.12.1993 on the date when the Marks Card was issued to the petitioner and that he became qualified only from 17.12.1993. Accordingly, he was not qualified as on the last date of the application, viz., 22.11.1993. It is also stated that persons similarly situated who had made application for the posts in pursuance to the publication in Annexure ‘A’, were not interviewed who had not produced the required marks card issued by the Registrar or of persons who became eligible only after the last date fixed. It is further stated that, when Annexure ‘B’ Certificate issued by the Professor and Head of the Department of Agriculture Economics, DAS, Hebbal, Bangalore, who is not the Competent Authority, will not confer title to the Degree of M.Sc., which the petitioner claims to have obtained on 13.11.1993.
3. In the light of the pleadings, two Questions arise for Consideration: viz.,
(i) Whether the petitioner was qualified for the posts as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, viz., 22.11.1993? and
(ii) Even if the petitioner is not qualified as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, is the petitioner’s case entitled to be considered as he became qualified before the date of interview?
4. Point No. 1 : In order to substantiate the petitioner’s case that he is qualified as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, he relies on Annexure ‘B’, the Certificate issued by the Professor, dated 20.11.1993. It is stated that the petitioner is a “student of M.Sc., in Agricultural Economics Degree Programme of this University during the years 1989-1993 has successfully completed the prescribed course and credit requirements for award of M.Sc., in Agricultural Economics, Degree Programme of this University, having secured a Cumulative Grade Point Average of 3.20 out of 4.00.
He has completed his final viva-voce on the 13th Nov. 1993 and the Registrar, UAS, Bangalore, is in the process of issuing him both the Marks Card and the Degree Certificate shortly.”
5. Annexure ‘G’ dated 10.10.1994 a Certificate issued by the Registrar states that the petitioner has successfully completed his M.Sc., Degree in Agricultural Economics on 13.11.1993. However, his Marks Card was issued on 17.12.1993. The petitioner is relying on these two Certificates in support of his contention that he is qualified as on 22.11.1993. On the other hand, the contention of the University is that, unless an Official Notification is issued by the University declaring the results of the Examination in which the petitioner took part, it cannot be said that the petitioner has acquired title to the Degree, that official declaration was made on 17.12.1993 and accordingly, the petitioner is not qualified for applying for the posts. In the Statement of Objections, the procedure adopted by the University in the matter of declaration of results for M.Sc., Degree is stated as follows:
“The marks/grades obtained by the concerned student are sent by the teacher offering the Course from different disciplines/ Department to the Office of DI(PGS). The office of the DI(PGS) go through the required courses other than the parent Department and after being satisfied that the prescribed courses have been successfully completed obtaining minimum marks. This is followed referring to the Scrutiny Committee consisting of few teachers appointed by the University to verify in detail whether the concerned student has completed all the prerequisite courses, required courses, grade obtained in research/seminar/etc., with reference to the original information of the grades from various teachers from different Departments from where the concerned student has undergone the study. After thorough scrutiny and after their signature, voucharing the concerned student has successfully completed all the requirement and obtained minimum grades at different stages of his study. Then, the DI(PGS) will forward the entire records to the Registrar’s Office, who inturn put up the papers for dean for recommendation and then for approval of Vice-Chancellor. After the approval of Vice Chancellor, the Registrar issues official notification, provisional Degree Certificate and CGPA Card for having completed the Degree.”
6. It is well established that by the mere fact that a student has appeared for the examination and that he has even obtained qualifying marks by itself will not clothe him with title to a Degree unless and until the results are officially announced by the University. A similar question arose for consideration in CHARLES K. SKARIA AND ORS. v. Dr. C. MATHEW AND ORS. AIR 1980 SC 1230. In that case, for admission to the Post Graduate Course, Diploma Holders were eligible for 10 extra marks. Some of the students had successfully completed the Diploma Course, but their results were announced only after the last date of receipt of applications. A question arose as to whether such students are entitled to the award of 10 marks which a Diploma Holder is entitled to. In that context, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 26 thus:
“Only those who, at least by the final date for making applications for admissions possess the diploma. Acquisition of a diploma later may qualify him later, not this year. Otherwise, the dateline makes no sense……….
To sum up, the applicant for post-graduate degree course earns the right to the added advantage of diploma only if (a) he has completed the diploma examination on or before the last date for the application, (b) the result of the examination is also published before that date, and (c) the candidate’s success in the diploma course is brought to the knowledge of the selection committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner.”
7. I have already quoted the procedure for declaration of results. There is no material to show that the results of the petitioner were officially declared before 22.11.1993. The Certificate issued by the Professor as also the Registrar at best can only show that he has only successfully completed the course and it cannot be a substitute for the official declaration of results by the University. As the official declaration has not been made before the last date for receipt of applications, it has to be held that the petitioner is not qualified as on the last date of the application.
8. Point No. 2: The further question to be considered is as to whether it is enough if the petitioner becomes qualified before the date of interview. Admittedly, the petitioner became qualified by acquiring M.Sc., Degree before he was called for the interview. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the Decision in ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR. v. CHANDER SHEKHER AND ANR.1993 Supp. (2) SCC 611, in support of his contention that it is enough if the petitioner becomes qualified on the date of interview. The question that arose in that case was whether or not candidates who were fully qualified to be appointed as Junior Engineers as on the date of interview but whose results were not announced before the last date for receipt of applications were entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer. After considering the facts and also placing reliance on Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules, the Supreme Court taking into account the generally followed principles of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, held that it is sufficient even if the applicants are qualified as on the date of interview. It has to be noted that, the Decision in the case was mainly based on Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules which allows even candidates who have appeared in the examination but the results have not been declared upto the date of making of applications to apply for the post. Though the Rule as such was not applicable to the case in question, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court relied on that Rule by way of analogy and held that it is sufficient if the candidate is qualified as on the date of interview as well. The fact that the selection was in 1982 has also weighed with Their Lordships. That Decision is on the facts of that case and on the basis of Rule 37 mentioned above is clear from the following observation made by the Supreme Court:
“The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir we are of the opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect and the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was, on the facts of this case, is the correct view”.
9. It is further seen from the Judgment of Justice R.M. Sahai that before selection was made a decision was taken by the appropriate authority to follow the principles laid down in Rule 37 of the Public Service Commission Business Rules, by which, even a candidate who had appeared for the qualifying examination and whose results have not been announced were entitled to apply. It is on the basis of that Rule, Their Lordships in that case, held that the appointments of the petitioners therein were proper. In this case, the Notification is categoric that the candidate who applied for the posts should be qualified as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications. In this context, it is apposite to quote the following passage from Charles K. Skaria’s Case;
“Judged by the above tests it is conceded that while the Calicut University’s diploma holders had completed their examination before the last date for M.D. applications and produced the certificate before the selection, the Kerala University diploma-holder completed his diploma examination including publication of results only after the last date for applications and produced the certificate before the selection. By this token he is ineligible for admission because his diploma result was published only after the last date for applications. The accident of time has cheated him even as in human affairs generally be it individual or collective, fortune ebbs and flows, influenced critically by happenstances of time and circumstances of life. That is the Relativity of Life, if one may look at problems philosophically. We, therefore, hold that appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to admission and their appeal must succeed. By the same token the appeal of appellant No. 1 must be dismissed.”
10. When the Notification clearly mentions that the candidates should be qualified as on the last date of the application, it has to be strictly followed, If an exception is made in the case of the petitioner, it may affect many similarly situated persons who might not have applied for the posts in the light of the categoric statement made in the Notification inviting applications. Unfortunately, the petitioner has to miss the chance this time.
In view of what is stated above, the Respondent-University was right in refusing to consider the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was not qualified and accordingly, I dismiss this Writ Petition, but without any order as to costs.