JUDGMENT 1. - An advertisement for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr. III (Urdu), for the year 2000-2001 was issued by the respondents on 7.11.2000. The last date of receipt of application forms was 16.12.2000. In the advertisement itself, the minimum qualifications and experience required for the post had been notified. A detailed criteria for preparing the merit list was also given in advertisement itself. 2. The petitioner also applied for the above post notified for District Bundi. After receiving application forms, merit list was prepared and published on 30.12.2000 for District Bundi as per the criteria notified in the advertisement dated 7.11.2000. In the merit list, the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 61 on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by him as per the criteria notified in the advertisement. Since the petitioner could not be given appointment on the post referred to above, being lower in the merit list, the present writ petition has been filed by him on 23.1.2001 with the following prayers : "(i) by issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, clause 8 of the circular dated 8.11.2000 as advertisement dated 7.11.2000 be quashed and be declared to be ultra vires the provisions of Constitution of India and as such, be declared to null, non est and void ab initio; (ii) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the selection process taken in issuance of the advertisement/notification dated 7.11.2000 be declared as illegal; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioners as Teacher (Gr. III) in pursuance to the notification/advertisement dated 7.11.2000." 3. The only contention raised by Shri K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has been that the respondents should have given weightage to the persons having higher qualifications than the minimum qualifications prescribed under the Rules and notified in the advertisement. The submission has been that no weightage or bonus marks, whatsoever, has been given to the persons having higher qualifications liked Graduation or Post Graduation in the subject concerned. The submission has been that no weightage or bonus marks, whatsoever, has been given to the persons having higher qualifications liked Graduation or Post Graduation in the subject concerned. The submission of Shri Sharma has been that if the petitioner would have been given any weightage or bonus marks for higher qualification, he would have been placed higher in the Merit List and would have also got an appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III (Urdu). 4. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the material on record. 5. Though, there is no fixed criteria laid down under the relevant Rules for making selections to the post of Teacher Gr. III, however, it is for the (sic) merit list. The recruitment is to be made on the post of Teacher Gr. III, which is the lowest post in the category of Teachers. The requirement and exigencies of a particular service are best in the knowledge of the appointing authority, as such, in such matters of selections, no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in absence of any violation of statutory rules. 6. Be that as it may, in the present case, all the conditions and even the criteria for preparing the merit list was duly notified by the respondents in the advertisement dated 7.11.2000 itself. Fully knowing all the conditions and the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner also submitted his application form without any protest and was further called for interview so far as verifying his documents are concerned. Once having availed of the opportunity of applying for the post as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, having failed to get higher position in the merit list, the petitioner now cannot be allowed to challenge the advertisement dated 7.11.2000 and the criteria fixed therein. Furthermore, the selections in pursuance to the advertisement referred to above in almost all the districts of the State have already been made and the appointments must have also been given. In my opinion, even otherwise, no interference is called for by this court in the present matter. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******