ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellant had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Teachers, for which, the qualifying degree was B.Ed. The advertisement was issued on 28.06.2015 and the last date for submission of the application was 12.10.2015. The requirement was that on the date of submission of the application the candidate should have passed B.Ed.

3. The undisputed facts in this case are that the private respondents had appeared in the B.Ed examination of the respective Universities and although the final result was not declared but the private respondents (candidates for the post) were, on their demand, provided with the provisional/confidential result of their B.Ed. examination by the respective universities, which was prior to 12.10.2015. On the basis of such provisional/confidential result provided to the private respondents/candidates, they applied for the post of Post-graduate Teachers prior to the last date of submission of the application, which was 12.10.2015. Such facts are not in dispute before us.

4. The only ground on which the candidature of the private respondents was rejected by the appellant/Commission is that the result of the private respondents/candidates had not been officially declared by the respective Universities prior to the cut off date, i.e. 12.10.2015, and the provisional/confidential result (certificates) which were issued in favour of the private respondents/candidates thus could not be the basis on which they could have applied in response to the advertisement dated 28.06.2015.

5. Challenging the said order of rejection, the respondents filed writ petitions, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge and thereafter affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the intra court appeals filed by the appellant/Commission. Aggrieved by the said orders of the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeals.

6. We have heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Garima Bajaj, learned AOR for the contesting respondents/original writ petitioners and perused the record.

7. The short question which was raised before the High Court and also before us is as to whether the provisional/confidential result declared by the Universities would be a validly declared result or not. The question has been considered by the High Court in detail and it has been held in favour of the candidates. In our view also, as long as the authenticity of the provisional/confidential result declared by the Universities is not in doubt, which in the present case has been confirmed by the Universities on the request made by the appellant/commission, the view taken by the High Court is perfectly justified. It cannot be said that the respondents were not qualified as on the cut off date, which was 12.10.2015, as the provisional/confidential result had been declared by the respective Universities in favour of the candidates prior to the said date and the applications were filed by the respondents well within time, along with such provisional/confidential result. As such, to this extent, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in these appeals.

8. Mr. Maninder Singh has then pointed out that the High Court has gone further in directing/advising the appellant/Commission to suitably amend its Rules to the extent that the date of eligibility should be as on the date of screening or interview. The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court which offends the appell