B. M. Lal, J. - (1.) THE short questions which arise in the Instant writ petition for our consideration are as to whether the examinee appearing in the law examination of University be deemed to have acquired qualification on the date of examination of last paper or on the date of formal declaration of result of that examination and whether the candidate for P.C S. (J) examination who was fully qualified on the dates of written examination and Interview but whose result of Law Examination had not been declared on the last date for submission of application form for P.C.S. (J) Examination, was entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of P.C.S. (J).
(2.) THE factual matrix of instant case are as follows. THE petitioner In this petition Km Alpana D/o. Shri Lakshmi Narayan Sharma appeared in LL.B. final (III) year examination for the year 1988 of Meerut University, She appeared in the last paper of Labour haw of the said examination on 5-6-1988. THE result was declared in the month of October 988 and she was declared successful in the said examination securing high percentage of marks. In pursuance of advertisement No AB/2/88/89 dated 16-7-1988 issued by U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), petitioner applied for P.C.S. (J) examination for the year 1988. The last date for submission of application form was 10-8-1988. The requisite educational qualification was that the candidate must possess on the last date fixed for receipt of applications a degree of Bachelor of Laws of a University established by law in Uttar Pradesh or any other University of India recognised for this purpose by the Governor which entitles him to practice in Courts of law or be an Advocate, Vakil or Pleader on the roll of or entitled to practise in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad or Courts subordinate thereto or Barrister of England or Northern Ireland or Member of Faculty of Advocates in Scotland. The candidate must also possess thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devnagri Script. Admittedly petitioner submitted her application form for the P.C.S. (J) Examination for the year 1988 before the. last date fixed for submission of forms i.e. 29-8-1988, specifically mentioning therein that though she had appeared in LL.B. Final (lll) year examination bat her result was awaited. Having known the true position, her application form was accepted by the Commission. After due scrutiny, she was allotted roll No. 5975 and was issued admit card by the Commission to appear in the written examination. Soon after declaration of result of LL.B. Final (III) year examination by Meerut University, petitioner submitted her marks sheet to the Commission as a proof that she is declared successful in the LL.B. examination. Ultimately petitioner was allowed to appear in P.C.S. (J) Examination by the Commission which was held on 3, 4 and 5 May 1990 and she was declared successful in the written examination.
(3.) HOWEVER, when she was not called for interview, on enquiry made it was found that since on the last date for submission of application forms i.e. 20-8-1988, she had not passed the LL.B. Examination hence according to the terms and conditions of the advertisement she was not entitled to appear in the P.C.S. (j) Examination. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court and this Court by its order dated 12-7-1991 as an Interim measure allowed her to appear in the interview which was held on 15th and 16th July 1991, but it was made clear that her result shall not be declared till further orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner did not conceal anything from the Commission therefore, since knowing everything fully well, the Commission, having accepted application form of petitioner having issued admit card to the petitioner, having permitted the petitioner to appear in the written examination and ultimately having declared the petitioner to be successful in the written examination is estopped in the eye of law to prohibit the petitioner from appearing in the interview. It was further contended that petitioner was fully qualified at the time Of written examination and interview therefore. she cannot be punished for the delay caused in declaration of her LL. B. Final year Result which was totally beyond the control of petitioner.;