The main legal point established in the judgment is that eligibility for public employment must be acquired on the last date for filing applications, and appointing individuals with inferior qualifications in disregard of advertisement terms amounts to a fraud on the public.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is at the instance of the original applicant in Original Application No. 12 of 2016 on the file of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short). It is directed against the order dtd. 29/11/2018 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the original application on the ground that the same was devoid of merits.

2. The facts reveal that the petitioner was an aspirant for the post of police constable. She belongs to Other Backward Class community. Appointment was sought for by the petitioner in the sports quota. One of the requirements of the advertisement inviting applications dtd. 30/4/2014 read with the relevant Government Resolution dtd. 30/4/2005 was that any aspirant seeking to obtain employment in the sports quota must be a state-level player. The petitioner applied on 23/5/2014. Together with her application, she had enclosed a certificate that she had participated in a competition at the sub-junior national level in hockey.

3. The said certificate, however, was not considered by the authorities to satisfy the eligibility criteria with the result that despite selection of the petitioner for appointment as a police constable, she was ultimately not appointed. More than six (6) months after the petitioner was informed of her ineligibility, she applied before the District Sports Officer, Osmanabad on 23/4/2015 for a duplicate certificate on the ground that the original certificate had been lost. According to the petitioner, the original certificate had certified that she had participated in a hockey tournament of the state-level at Kolhapur, held during the period 31/10/2004 to 4/11/2004, in which the petitioner had turned out for the victorious team. Sufficient doubt is created in our minds by reason of the fact that the duplicate certificate was issued by the District Sports Officer, Osmanabad on 23/4/2015 itself, i.e., the very date on which the petitioner made the application without even she having reported the loss of the original certificate to the police station by that date. Further suspicion is aroused by the petitioner's letter dtd. 20/10/2014 addressed to the Commissioner (Recruitment Cell). Even in October 2014, the petitioner unambiguously stated that she had not played in any state-level games but was directly selected through her school for participation in the National level games. If indeed the petitioner had participated and obtained an original certificate from the District Sports Officer, Osmanabad to the effect that she was a participant in the state-level competition in hockey between 31/10/2004 and 4/11/2004, it is indeed quite strange and defies logic as to why the petitioner did not refer to such participation in the letter dtd. 20/10/2014.

4. Satisfied that the petitioner's conduct has not been above aboard, we proceed to consider whether the petitioner could have been considered eligible for appointment even assuming that the certificate dtd. 23/4/2015 is a genuine document.

5. In terms of the advertisement dtd. 30/4/2014, the last date for filing applications was 25/5/2014. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. V/s. Chander Shekhar & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 18. an aspirant for public employment is required to acquire the eligibility on the last date for filing the applications. As held in such decision, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone; also, a person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. While holding so, the Supreme Court held that the judgment and order under review taking a contrary view did not lay down the correct position of law and that there was a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record.

6. Although Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) dealt with a case where 32 candidates who were appointed did not possess the requisite academ