JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, J. -This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondents in the writ petition being W.P. (S) No.348 of 2014. The writ petition was preferred by the respondents and it was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 30th July, 2014 and hence the original respondents have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that public advertisement was issued being No.95 of 2012 for holding Teachers'' Eligibility Test. Only those candidates, who are clearing these tests, are eligible to be appointed as a Teacher in the Primary and Middle Schools.

3. The respondents applied to appear in the Teachers'' Eligibility Test conducted by the appellants.

4. As, they were appearing in B.Ed. Examination, they were permitted to appear in Teachers'' Eligibility Test, but, they had to produce either their marks-sheet or B.Ed. certificate on or before 13th May, 2013.

5. It appears from the facts of this case that the respondents (original petitioners) have produced, neither the original marks-sheets, nor the original certificate of B.Ed examination, before the appellants.

6. The respondents have produced Web copy of marks-sheet of Semester-I which is a part of Annexures C Series to this writ petition. Looking to the said annexures, it appears that the documents which were produced by the respondents (original petitioners), cannot be said to be the final marks-sheet or final B.Ed. certificate. It is of Semester-I only. Meaning thereby to, the respondents are half B.Ed. The respondents are not sure whether they have cleared final Semester examination of B.Ed. or not. Even if the respondents are alleging that they have cleared the final examination of final Semester of B.Ed., neither the final Semester marks-sheets nor the B.Ed. certificates were ever produced by them before the cut-off date i.e. 13th May, 2013. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents being W.P. (S) No.348 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 30th July, 2014 and hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the respondents (original petitioners) that the marks sheet of B.Ed. is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Be as it may, the High Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot extend the cut-off date. To prescribe the cut-off date is a matter of policy floated by the State of Jharkhand.

8. It has been held by Hon''ble The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works, (1975) 1 SCC 305 at paragraph 10 as under:-

"10. The concessional rate of duty can be availed of only by those who satisfy the conditions which have been laid down under the notification. The respondent was not a manufacturer before September 4, 1967 as it had applied for licence only on September 5, 1967 and it could not have made a declaration before September 4, 1967 that its total clearance for the financial year 1967-68 is not estimated to exceed 75 million matches. In the matter of granting concession or exemption from tax, the Government has a wide latitude of discretion. It need not give exemption or concession to everyone in order that it may grant the same to some. As we said, the object of granting the concessional rate of duty was to protect the smaller units in the industry from the competition by the larger ones and that object would have been frustrated, if, by adopting the device of fragmentation, the larger units could become the ultimate beneficiaries of the bounty. That a classification can be founded on a particular date and yet be reasonable, has been held by this Court in several decisions (see Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India ,Dr Mohammad SahebMahboob Medico v.