# Chand Gupta and others v. State

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 34
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-04-16
- **Case number:** Misc. Writ Petition No. 13169 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chand-gupta-and-others-v-state-41476
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution Of India Act-226-Selection
of petition in Special B.T.C. Course- in
year-2008- obtained 323 out of 600- on
last date of Submission of Form 20.2.09
and subsequently the result of basic
paper dated on 2.9.09 and theory marks
enhance from 323 to 339-whether the
enhance
marks
can
be
taken
into
account for consideration of merit? Held
'No' reasons -explained.

Held: Para-19

In view of the above, I am categorically
of the opinion that the marks obtained
by the petitioner in back paper as a
result of his appearing therein after the
last date of submission of the application
form cannot be allowed to be considered
by respondent No.2 for considering his
candidature for admission in Special
B.T.C. Course, 2008 since the same
would not relate back entitling him to
seek a direction to the respondent No.2
to take into account the new marks
which he has obtained subsequently as a
result of his appearing in back paper.
The writ petition therefore lacks merit.
Dismissed.
Case law discussed:
W.P. No.1920 of 2010, (Ankit Kumar Tiwari &
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), Ankit Kumar
1 All] Sudhir Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
35
Tiwari (supra) 18th January, 2010, W.P. No.
4638 of 2006 (Sushil Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.), W.P. No. 70082 of 2009
(Akhilesh Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.), Sushil Kumar Singh's case (supra), W.P.
No. 39289 of 2000, (Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Vs.
Director, Rajya Shaikshik, Anusandhan Evam
Prashikshan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and
Ors.), Special Appeal No.86 of 2004, (1994) 2
SCC 723, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611.

## Text

34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
19. We may mention that in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 13169 of 2008
(Kirti Chand Gupta and others Vs. State
of U.P. and others) connected with
various other Writ Petitions, similar
controversy was involved. A Division
Bench of this Court by its Judgment and
Order dated 16th April, 2009 (Annexure
10 to the Writ Petition) decided the said
Writ Petitions following the decision of
this Court in Dr. Shri Gopal Gupta
(supra), and gave directions to the
respondents in the said Writ Petitions for
extending
the
benefit
of
the
said
Government Order dated 25th August,
1999 to the petitioners in the said Writ
Petitions.

20. Respectfully following the above
decisions, we decide the present Writ
Petition giving similar directions.

21. The Writ Petition is accordingly
allowed.

22. The respondents are directed to
give benefit of the Government Order
dated 25.08.1999 to the petitioners in
terms of the options exercised by the
petitioners within three months of the
filing of the certified copy of this Order
before the Director of Higher Education,
Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad.

23. On the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the parties will
bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2958 of 2010

Sudhir Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Constitution Of India Act-226-Selection
of petition in Special B.T.C. Course- in
year-2008- obtained 323 out of 600- on
last date of Submission of Form 20.2.09
and subsequently the result of basic
paper dated on 2.9.09 and theory marks
enhance from 323 to 339-whether the
enhance
marks
can
be
taken
into
account for consideration of merit? Held
'No' reasons -explained.

Held: Para-19

In view of the above, I am categorically
of the opinion that the marks obtained
by the petitioner in back paper as a
result of his appearing therein after the
last date of submission of the application
form cannot be allowed to be considered
by respondent No.2 for considering his
candidature for admission in Special
B.T.C. Course, 2008 since the same
would not relate back entitling him to
seek a direction to the respondent No.2
to take into account the new marks
which he has obtained subsequently as a
result of his appearing in back paper.
The writ petition therefore lacks merit.
Dismissed.
Case law discussed:
W.P. No.1920 of 2010, (Ankit Kumar Tiwari &
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), Ankit Kumar
1 All] Sudhir Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
35
Tiwari (supra) 18th January, 2010, W.P. No.
4638 of 2006 (Sushil Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.), W.P. No. 70082 of 2009
(Akhilesh Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.), Sushil Kumar Singh's case (supra), W.P.
No. 39289 of 2000, (Kamlesh Kumar Yadav Vs.
Director, Rajya Shaikshik, Anusandhan Evam
Prashikshan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and
Ors.), Special Appeal No.86 of 2004, (1994) 2
SCC 723, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.

2. The petitioner applied for Special
B.T.C. Training Course- 2008 showing
his marks in B.Ed. examination as 323 out
of 600 in theory and 378 out of 400 in
practical. He was student of B.Ed. in Desh
Deepak Adarsh Mahavidhyalaya Tendua
Mafi Beekapur, Faizabad. The institution
is affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia
Audh Vishwavidhyalaya, Faizabad (U.P.).
The last date of submission of the
application for Special B.T.C. Training
Course-2008 was 20th February, 2009.
The petitioner applied for the said training
course along with all the documents and
testimonials he possessed till then. Later
on, it appears that the petitioner appeared
in some back paper and examination
result was declared on 2nd September,
2009 and his marks in theory were
increased from 323 to 339 out of 600.

3. In the light of the result of back
paper, the representation of the petitioner
dated 15.10.2009, requesting the Director,
S.E.R.T.I.
Nishatganj,
Lucknow
to
consider his candidature based on the
marks he had obtained in back-paper of
B.Ed., the result whereof declared on 2nd
September, 2009, is pending and the
counsel for the petitioner seeks a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents
to decide his representation taking into
account the increased marks of the
petitioner in back paper.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relying
on a judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No.1920 of 2010, (Ankit Kumar
Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)
contended that he is also entitled for the
same direction.

5. Having considered the submission
carefully, I do not find myself to agree
with him. It is admitted that the petitioner
was supposed to furnish full details of his
educational qualification, marks obtained
therein etc. along with his application
form, the last date whereof was 20th
February, 2009. Admittedly, till then the
petitioner had the documents showing his
theory marks in B.Ed. as 323 and that is
what he submitted along with application
form.

6. The short question, which is to
decide is, whether the subsequent event
whereby the petitioner has got higher
marks, can be treated to relate back with
the initial examination so as to make the
effect of back paper and the revised marks
entitle the incumbent to claim benefit
thereof in a case where the last date of
submission of the application form or
submission of any document had already
expired.

7. There can be two circumstances
in which the marks obtained by a
candidate in his examination stands
revised. Sometimes where provisions
exist, the candidate apply for scrutiny or
revaluation of his answer sheets if he
suspects anything wrong in the marks
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
disclosed in his result and if his complaint
is found true and on revaluation or
scrutiny the marks obtained by the
candidate are declared increased to some
extent, there would be no difficulty at all
to relate back the effect of such scrutiny
or revaluation, inasmuch as, here is a case
of mistake of fact or declaration by the
Examining Body itself and for fault of the
Examining Body, the candidate cannot be
made to suffer because this is admitted by
the Examining Body that it has committed
mistake in declaration of lower marks
though the candidate was entitled of
higher marks and they rectify the same.

8. In my view, in such a case the
mark sheet issued to the candidate would
stand corrected from the date it was
originally issued and even if last date for
submission of an application form or a
document has expired and such an
eventuality takes place on a later date, the
candidate can be given the benefit of such
increased marks and the authority would
be entitled to consider the revised mark
sheet. In fact it is a case of reappraisal of
marks itself and the original mark sheet
issued to the candidate becomes non est
from its inception and stands substituted
by the revised mark sheet. Whether the
candidate
apply
for
scrutiny
or
revaluation before the last date of
submission of the application form or
subsequent thereto would be wholly
irrelevant so long as he had validly
applied for the same and such request has
been accepted by the Examining Body.

9. However, second is a contingency
where if the statutes permit a candidate
whose result is already declared, may be
allowed to improve his position by freshly
appearing in some papers, which are
normally called "back paper" and there he
secure better marks than what he has got
earlier. The question would be, whether
the subsequent transaction would entitle
the candidate to claim the benefit of the
fresh mark sheet to be treated as a
substitute of original mark sheet with
retrospective effect, even in those cases,
where the last date for submission of the
application form or document has already
been expired, I find that in none of the
judgments cited and relied by the counsel
for the petitioner, this issue has been
raised, argued and decided. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the judgments relied
on by the petitioner lay down any law on
this issue. In fact they are all silent on the
legal aspect of the matter and only a
direction
has
been
issued
to
the
respondents to consider the marks of the
candidate received in back paper without
deciding the issue whether such mark
sheet, in law, could have been considered
or not.

10. In Ankit Kumar Tiwari (supra)
the
Hon'ble
Single
Judge
passed
following order on 18th January, 2010:

"The petitioners, by means of this
writ
petition
has
prayed
that
the
respondents be directed to entertain their
new marksheets for the purposes of
preparing the merit list for appointment in
Special B.T.C. training course 2008.

The petitioners after applying for the
above course appeared in the back paper
and their marks were increased. They
want that on the basis of the increased
marks their names in the merit list be
included.

In writ petition No. 4638 of 2006 Sushil
Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of
U.P. and others, decided on 11.2.2009,
1 All] Sudhir Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
37
this Court in similar circumstances has
allowed the writ petition and permitted
the filing and consideration of the
marksheets of the back papers to the
petitioners as the same were presented
before the authority concerned before the
declaration of the result. Following the
above decision, another bench of this
Court vide order dated 22.12.2009 passed
in writ petition No. 70082 of 2009
Akhilesh Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
and others directed the respondents to
consider
the
candidature
of
the
petitioners on the basis of the improved
marks secured in the back paper.

In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this writ petition is also
disposed of at this stage, with the consent
of the parties, in the light of the aforesaid
decisions and it is directed that the
respondents
shall
consider
the
candidature of the petitioners as per their
improved marks in accordance with law
within a period of two months from the
date of production of the certified copy of
this order."

11. His Lordship has relied on the
earlier judgment of this Court in Writ
Petition No.4638 of 2006 (Sushil Kumar
Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)
decided on 11th February, 2009 and Writ
Petition No.70082 of 2009 (Akhilesh
Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)
decided on 22nd December, 2009.

12. A perusal of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Single Judge in Sushil Kumar
Singh's case (supra) shows that the same
has been decided in terms of the judgment
dated 22.5.2003 passed in Writ Petition
No.39289 of 2000, (Kamlesh Kumar
Yadav Vs. Director, Rajya Shaikshik
Anusandhan
Evam
Prashikshan
Parishad, U.P., Lucknow and Ors.) as
affirmed in Special Appeal No.86 of
2004 decided on 11.9.2007. This leads to
the judgment in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
(supra). A perusal of the judgment shows
that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav passed B.Ed.
examination securing 3rd Division in
theory. He appeared in back papers under
the provision of Statute of the University
concerned and improved his position by
securing 2nd Division in Theory papers.
The
degree
was
awarded
by
the
University to him on 1st February, 1998
mentioning that he has passed B.Ed
examination and has secured 2nd Division
in Theory paper and 1st Division in
practical paper. The application was filed
by Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav on 17th
March, 1998 along with which he could
not file mark sheet showing the marks
obtained by him in back papers but before
declaration of the result, he filed the
same.
Though
his
documents
subsequently submitted were rejected by
the
Director,
Rajya
Shaikshik
Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Parishad
on the ground that after the last date of
receipt of application form no fresh
document can be entertained but this
Court observed that the facts are not
disputed that Kamlesh Kumar Yadav had
passed B.Ed. Course viz. 2nd Division in
theory paper and 1st Division in practical
papers as per degree awarded to him on
1st February, 1998 by the University and
therefore the Director ought to have taken
into consideration the marks obtained by
him in consequence of the back paper as
per degree awarded to him.

13. The judgment in Kamlesh
Kumar Yadav (supra) clearly show that
since the B.Ed. degree was issued to him
on 1st February, 1998 showing that he
had passed in Theory in 2nd Division
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
which was admittedly before date of
submission of the application form, and
this fact having not been disputed, this
Court granted relief to him directing the
respondent to take into consideration the
marks
of
Kamlesh
Kumar
Yadav
according to the degree awarded to him
which was in accordance with the marks
he has obtained in back paper. It is true
that this Court, while considering Sushil
Kumar Singh's case (supra) found as a
matter of fact that the mark sheet was
awarded to Kamlesh Kumar Yadav on
25th August, 1998 and not prior to March,
1998 which is the last date of submission
of application form and even then he was
allowed relief by the Court extending the
benefit of the said judgment to the
petitioners in Sushil Kumar Singh's case.

14. So far as this case is concerned,
it is not the case of the petitioner before
this Court that the degree has been
awarded to him before last date of the
application form showing his marks
according to the result in back paper. In
fact the case of the petitioner is that he,
having passed B.Ed. examination in 2009
itself, the degree has not been issued so
far and only a mark sheet was issued to
him on 17th February, 2009 showing 323
marks in theory paper which he submitted
along with his application form on 20th
February, 2009 and in fact he appeared in
back paper subsequent to the last date of
submission of the application form and
has secured higher marks only in the
result declared in September, 2009 vide
mark sheet dated 2nd September, 2009.
The entire transaction in the case in hand
with respect to the revised mark sheet as a
result of petitioner's appearing in back
paper is subsequent to the last date of
submission of the application form and
therefore apparently the judgment of this
Court in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra)
has no application.

15. The other judgements having
simply followed Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
(supra) and its follow up judgments,
therefore also inapplicable since no issue
at all has been considered therein. At this
stage the question as to whether the
transaction
which
has
taken
place
subsequent to the last date of submission
of application form can be taken into
account or not can be considered in the
light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in U.P. Public Service Commission
U.P., Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Alpana
(1994) 2 SCC 723 wherein the last date of
submission of the application form was
20th August 1988. The qualification
necessary to be possessed by the
candidate was a degree of Bachelor in
Laws. The candidate was also required to
submit law degree examination certificate
and mark sheet along with application
form. Alpana, who filed application had
appeared in the Law examination in 1988
before 20th August, 1988 but till the last
date of submission of application form her
result of the law examination had not
been
declared.
The
result
of
law
examination was declared in October,
1988.
However,
she
submitted
the
application form in anticipation of her
clearance of the Law examination in
which she was found successful in the
result
declared
in
October,
1988.
However,
the
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission cancelled her candidature on
the ground that she was not eligible since
she had not passed law examination up to
20th August, 1988. The writ petition filed
before this Court was allowed. The writ
petition No.18918 of 1991 was allowed
by this Court vide judgement dated 17th
March, 1993 observing that the result
1 All] Sudhir Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
39
would relate back to the date of
examination and therefore cancellation of
candidature of Alpana was illegal. This
Court followed the Apex Court decision
in Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chandra
Shekher, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 611.
Reversing the decision of this Court in
appeal filed by the Commission, the Apex
Court distinguished the judgment in
Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) & observed
as under:

"........Whether this decision was
correct or not was not gone into as Sahai,
J. was of the view that it would be unfair
to quash selection after such a long lapse
of time. It was thus on equitable
considerations that the learned Judge
ultimately agreed with the order proposed
by the majority. Two things stand out
from this judgment, namely, the majority
applied by analogy the principle of Rule
37 whereas Sahai, J. endorsed the
decision on equitable consideration. It
must, however, be noticed that in that
case a conscious decision was taken by
the Secretary of the Department that such
candidates
who
submitted
the
applications after the last date for receipt
of applications but before the interviews
were held should be considered eligible
for appointment. This decision was not
challenged and its validity was not
required to be gone into. Pursuant to this
decision such candidates were examined
and
selected
on
merits
and
were
ultimately appointed. It was only when
they were granted seniority over others
that
the
latter
challenged
their
appointments after a long lapse of time.
The Court was, therefore, reluctant to
disturb the status quo."

16. Thereafter the legal question as
to whether the subsequent declaration of
result could make the petitioner eligible
and would relate back to the date of
examination or not was considered in para
6 of the judgment, and, the Apex Court
has held as under:

"In the facts of the present case we
fail to appreciate how the ratio of the said
decision of this Court can be attracted.
The facts of this case reveal that the
respondent was not qualified to apply
since the last date fixed for receipt of
applications was August 20, 1988. No
rule or practice is shown to have existed
which permitted entertainment of her
application.
The
Public
Service
Commission was, therefore, right in
refusing to call her for interview. The
High Court in Writ Petition No.1898 of
1991
mandated
the
Public
Service
Commission to interview her but directed
to withhold the result until further orders.
In obedience to the directive of the High
Court the Public Service Commission
interviewed her but her result was kept in
abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court
while disposing of the matter finally
directed the Public Service Commission
to declare her result and, if successful, to
forward her name for appointment. The
High Court even went to the length of
ordering the creation of a supernumerary
post to accommodate her. This approach
of the High Court cannot be supported on
any rule or prevalent practice nor can it
be supported on equitable considerations.
In fact there was no occasion for the High
Court to interfere with the refusal of the
Public Service Commission to interview
her in the absence of any specific rule in
that behalf. We find it difficult to give
recognition to such an approach of the
High Court as that would open up a flood
of litigation. Many candidates superior to
the respondent in merit may not have
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
applied as the result of the examination
was not declared before the last date for
receipt of applications. If once such an
approach is recognised there would be
several applications received from such
candidates not eligible to apply and that
would not only increase avoidable work
of the selecting authorities but would also
increase the pressure on such authorities
to withhold interviews till the results are
declared,
thereby
causing
avoidable
administrative difficulties. This would
also leave vacancies unfilled for long
spells of time. We, therefore, find it
difficult to uphold the view of the High
Court impugned in this appeal."

17. This is what has been held by
this Court also in Writ Petition No.19404
of 2005 (Arvind Kumar Dubey Vs. State
of U.P.) decided on 19th April, 2006
wherein this Court held as under :

"The
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner further submitted that the
certificate issued by the University
declaring him successful in B.P.Ed
Examination relates back to the Year
2001 as the certificate issued by the
University is the year 2001 and therefore,
he should be treated to be an eligible
applicant for applying for the Special
BTC 2004.

The submission raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner seems to be
lucrative in the first instance. However, in
the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is
not entitled for any relief as the matter is
squarely covered by three decisions of the
Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi
(Smt.) Vs. University of Rajasthan and
Commission, U.P. Allahabad and another
Vs. Alpana, 1994(2)SCC 723 and in the
case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Other
Vs. Chander Sekhar and another, 1997
(4) SCC 18 in which the Supreme Court
held that if a candidate does not possess
the requisite prescribed qualification on
or before the last date prescribed for
receiving
the
application
by
the
respondents, in that event, the candidate
was eligible to apply or apply for the said
examination.

In the present case, the petitioner did not
had a degree in B.P.Ed examination on or
before the last date of receiving the
application for the Special BTC 2004 and
the degree was granted after the results
were
declared
on
19.8.2004.
Even
through the said degree relates back to
the year 2001, nevertheless, the petitioner
was not eligible on the date when the
advertisement was made nor was eligible
on the date of the receiving of the
applications in as much the result was not
declared
on
or
before
that
date.
Consequently, the judgement, as cited
aforesaid, are fully applicable to the
present facts circumstances of the case.
The petitioner is not entitled for any relief
and the writ petition is dismissed."

18. This Court has further taken a
view that only such document as were
available to a candidate on or before the
last date of submission of the application
form can be considered by the authorities
concerned but if a document has been
possessed later on cannot be allowed to be
considered. This is how while deciding
the Special Appeal No.579 of 2000
(Director, State Council of Educational
Research & Training & Ors. Vs. Raj
Kishor) on 03.4.2006 a Division Bench of
this Court also observed as under:

"This Court therefore, directed the
appellant no.1 to consider the document
1 All] Bhola Nath Singh V. State of U.P. and others
41
of the candidate which if he possessed
much before the last date of submission of
the application form and provided the
said documents are genuine and in case
they
are
selected,
to
give
all
consequential benefits. We are in the
entire agreement with the reasoning given
in the aforesaid judgment."

19. In view of the above, I am
categorically of the opinion that the marks
obtained by the petitioner in back paper as
a result of his appearing therein after the
last date of submission of the application
form cannot be allowed to be considered
by respondent No.2 for considering his
candidature for admission in Special
B.T.C. Course, 2008 since the same
would not relate back entitling him to
seek a direction to the respondent No.2 to
take into account the new marks which he
has obtained subsequently as a result of
his appearing in back paper. The writ
petition therefore lacks merit. Dismissed.

20. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2010

Bhola Nath Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Service
Selection
Board-Rules
1998-
Rule11(2)(b)
and
12(b)-
Selection
of
Principal-Regular
Principal
retired-
vacancy
advertised
in
2008-When
requisition sent-admittedly Mr. A was
senior most lecturer retired but working
at the end of session i.e. 30.6.2010-
petitioner claim his name among two
senior
most
lecturer
may
also
be
forwarded as after retirement of Mr. 'A'
he
stood
at
serial
no.
2-heldmisconceived-only
those
two
senior
most lecturer is to require to participate
in
selection-whose
name
send
in
requisition.

Held: Para-11

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I
have no hesitation in holding that if by
the time the selection is made one or
both the senior most teachers retire,
then the consideration of the next one or
two senior most teachers would be
contrary to the scheme of the Rules.
Only such teachers are to be considered
whose names are sent along with
requisition under Rule 1(a)
Case law discussed:
[(1990) 1 UPLBEC 539].

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties - Sri R.K. Ojha for
the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for respondent no.1 and Sri A.K. Yadav
on behalf of respondent no.2, this matter
is being finally disposed of at this stage
itself under the Rules of the Court, since a
pure question of law has been raised.

2. The post of principal of Gopal
Vidyalaya
Inter
College,
Koraon,
Allahabad, was requisitioned to the
Commission under Rule 11 of the U.P.
Secondary Education Service Selection
Board Rules, 1998 (for short, '1998
Rules). Pursuant thereto an advertisement
was published in 2008. At the time when