The crucial date for qualification should be reckoned with respect to the date of the application made, and a technical interpretation should not be given when the candidates were allowed to apply, write the examination, found to be qualified, and called for an interview.

1. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order.

2. The petitioners are few of the candidates, who have applied to the respondent for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts included in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The notification was issued in Notification No.19A/2012 dated 13.6.2012. As per the said notification, applications were invited through online mode upto 13.7.2012. Clause 3(B)(a) of the notification speaks about the educational qualification. It also states that the candidates should possess the qualification on the date of the qualification viz., 13.6.2012. All the petitioners wrote their examinations much prior to the notification. However, they got their results declared on 27.6.2012 – after the publication notification. After their results were declared the petitioners applied online before the expiry of the last date i.e., 13.7.2012. They were permitted to write the written Examination. It is not in dispute that they scored high marks. They were also called for the interview. However, by a subsequent decision in pursuant to the meeting held on 6.11.2013 the respondent made a decision to reject the applications of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners' result having been declared after the date of the notification their applications should be rejected. Seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment by accepting the Degree Qualification as satisfying the educational qualification and well within the cut-off date the present writ petitions have been filed.

3. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that what is relevant is the qualification per se. Admittedly the petitioners have acquired the qualification much prior to the date of applications made by them. They wrote the examination prior to the notification. When once the results were published it will relate back to the date of notification. The petitioners are highly qualified and they have been selected on merit. Therefore, the petitioners will have to be considered for appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel made reliance upon the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18573 of 2010 dated 2.9.2010, wherein it has been held as follows:

''4. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Graduate Assistant, one must have obtained the requisite qualifications as on 01.01.2010. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not eligible for consideration as on 01.01.2010, since he did not qualify before the said date.

5. But, the above stand of the respondents is actually fallacious. The acquisition of educational qualification would always be with reference to the date on which the last examination was taken by the candidate. In this writ petition, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioner wrote the qualifying Examination in December 2009, but the results were published only in May 2010. The moment results are published, they would relate back to the date of the lst Examination. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner should have actually obtained the degree before 01.01.2010 is not sustainable.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner as eligible for recruitment to the post of Graduate Assistant, provided all other conditions are satisfied. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.''

4. Per contra, Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the notification governs the case on hand. Though the petitioners completed their degree on 27.6.2012, the crucial date is the qualification as on the date of the notification, whi