Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral).

All these writ petitions involve identical question of law, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of with common judgment.

2. To decide and understand the controversy involved in these petitions, facts of Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2010 (S/S), Basanti Rautela v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another, are being taken and summarized as under:

3. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, respondent no. 1, invited applications for the post of Lecturers in different colleges vide advertisement dated 30.5.2009. As per advertisement, requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) was Post Graduation in Hindi, Graduation with Sanskrit Subject or certificate of Shastri issued by Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi with L.T. Diploma or B.Ed. Meaning thereby, the requisite qualification was Post Graduate and Sanskrit should be one of the subjects in Graduation plus either L.T. Diploma or B.Ed. degree.

4. As per condition no. 11 of the advertisement, candidate must possess requisite qualification on or before the date of submission of application form and must indicate that on the date of submission of application form, all the requisite qualifications possessed by the candidate. Last date of submission of application for was 30.6.2009. Petitioner submitted her application form for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) within time stipulated in the advertisement. Petitioner was postgraduate in Hindi, however, she earlier did her graduation without Sanskrit subject, therefore, she was undergoing once again graduation course in Sanskrit subject and examinations of B.A. (Sanskrit) were held in the month of July, 2009 and result thereof was declared on 10.9.2009. Petitioner was permitted to appear in the written test and result thereof was declared on 20.7.2010. Thereafter, petitioner was interviewed, however, despite the fact that she was shown selected, she was not appointed saying that she was not having requisite qualification of graduation with Sanskrit subject on or before the last date of submission of application form dated 30.6.2009.

5. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per Rule 8 of Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturers Grade) Service Rules, 2008, a candidate for recruitment to the post must possess the qualification specified against each post in Appendix A. It means, on the date of recruitment candidate must possess qualification and not before it. Further contends that since the petitioner had acquired graduation degree in Sanskrit subject on or before the written examination, therefore, petitioner must be considered qualified for appointment and her candidature was wrongly rejected.

6. The next argument of Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since as per Rule 8, candidate must possess requisite qualification on the date of recruitment, therefore, condition no. 11 of the advertisement inviting application should be read along with Rule 8 to understand and say that those who have acquired requisite qualification on or before the date of recruitment were eligible.

7. On the other hand, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission submits that none of the petitioners challenged the advertisement inviting applications and participated in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement and now thereafter, it would not be open to the petitioner to say that condition No. 11 should be read along with Rule 8 and should be understood to mean that the qualification must be possessed on the date of recruitment.

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra and others reported in 1993 (1) SLR 565 had occasioned to deal the definition of “recruitment” and “appointment”. Hon’ble Apex Court in paragra