JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. - Whether the petitioner although not a graduate was entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the advertisement as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application is the question involved in this application. 2. The petitioner admittedly is a matriculate. He was appointed as an Agent in the year 1976. According to the certificate issued by the Branch Manager, Nawadah Branch Office of the respondent - Corporation, his business performance for the years 1990 to 1993 arc as follows : No. of Lives. Sum Assured "1990-91 66 31,80,000 1991-92 34 18,17,000 1992-93 48 22,50,000" 3. The certificate dated 22.9.1993 issued by the Branch Manager (Annexure-2) shows that the petitioner has been a member of the Branch Manager's Club since 1987-88. 4. An advertisement had been issued by the respondent - Corporation on 17.7.1993 in the daily newspaper 'Hindusthan', wherein the minimum qualification for holding the said post was stated thus : "(i) The candidate must be a graduate of any recognised University in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture and Law or holder of any equivalent degree. Also a FIII Diploma holder of the Life Insurance Corporation of India was eligible to apply." In the said advertisement, it was further stated that despite the same such candidates who are employees or agents of the Corporation and have experience in Sales of Insurance (or equivalent) or had been in service of the Corporation for a long time, some relaxation may be made in their cases in extraordinary and special circumstances. 5. The petitioner filed an application upon obtaining a no objection certificate from the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. An admit card was issued to the petitioner permitting him to appear at the written examination being Roll No. 3150. 6. Thereafter an interview letter dated 8.9.1993 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application was issued to the petitioner inviting him to appear at the interview on 27.9.1993. However, the petitioner was not allowed to appear before the Board appointed for that purpose of holding interview. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein it has categorically been stated that holder of the graduate degree in any of the subjects mentioned in the advertisement was a prerequisite for appointment. 8. However, the petitioner was not allowed to appear before the Board appointed for that purpose of holding interview. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein it has categorically been stated that holder of the graduate degree in any of the subjects mentioned in the advertisement was a prerequisite for appointment. 8. It has been submitted that the Corporation had not waived or relaxed the requirement of a Bachelor's degree and even if the petitioner was allowed to appear at the written examination, he was bound to produce the requisite certificates. 9. Mr. J. P. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter-alia submitted that in view of the qualifications for appointment as laid down in the advertisement as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment. 10. The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon a. decision of the Supreme Court in Hoshiar Singh vs. The State of Haryana & ors. reported in 1993 (3) SVLR (L) 176 and Ajaib Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported in 1985 (2) Service Law Journal 260. 11. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, however, relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990) 3 S.C.C. 655 . 12. It is now a settled law that holding of a degree or experience may be laid down as a condition of appointment but such a condition in a given case can also be relaxed by the Appointing authority which however would depend upon the rules governing appointment and promotion etc. 13. It is true that the advertisement in question stipulates that the applicants must be a graduate in any of the subjects specified therein, but clearly enough a proviso has been appended thereto, in terms whereof not only a holder of diploma of FIII, but also the employees and existing agent of the Corporation, who had gained sufficient experience in sales of the Insurance and/or had been in service of the Corporation for a long time were entitled to be considered as a provision has been made for grant of some relaxation in their case in extraordinary and special situation. The proviso being in the nature of exception to the main rule, is applicable to the case of the petitioner and thus in our opinion the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment in the aforementioned post. 13. In Hoshiar Singh's case (Supra), it was inter-alia held : "Once it is held that the standards for physical fitness which have been laid down in the advertisement could be so prescribed, the matter of relaxation of the said standards would depend on the terms of the advertisement. The advertisement and the corrigendum are silent about relaxation of the said standards by the Board. In these circumstances, the Board could not, on its own, relax the standards of physical fitness as mentioned in the advertisement and the corrigendum." 14. In Ajaib Singh's case (Supra), a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows : "I am also of the view that the authority concerned having laid down the criteria for selection was not entitled to change it if not after the inviting of the applications, then at least after the issuance of the letters of interview to various candidates who were covered by that criteria. In the light of that the candidates who became eligible for being considered for the post advertised under the changed criteria have to be excluded from the arena of selection. As a necessary consequence of this the authorities concerned have to be directed to hold fresh selection for the reserved post from amongst the candidates who fulfilled the criteria as initially laid down, i.e. who had secured 55% or more marks in their Law Course." 15. In District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagnram Social Welfare Residentinl School Society, Vizianagaram and Another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in 1990 (3) S.C.C. 655 it has been held as follows : "It must further be realised by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualification are relaxabte. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact. " 16. It is, therefore, clear that the question as to whether a case of the candidate may be considered for appointment depends upon the qualification and other conditions laid down in the advertisement itself. As a bare reading of the advertisement clearly shows that relaxation is permissible in the case of holder of diploma as also in the case of agent or an' employee, the petitioner should have been considered by the Corporation. 17. There cannot however, be any doubt that the authorities of the respondent-Corporation shall consider as to whether the petitioner is fit for appointment even if some relaxation is granted in his favour with regard to qualification and whether the petitioner's case comes within the purview of extra-ordinary or special case or not. 18. The petitioner may now be interviewed by the authorities of the Respondent-Corporation and an appropriate order in this regard may be passed by them. 19. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore but there will be no order as to costs. Gurusharan Sharma, J. - I agree.