ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties finally. 2. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in the advertisement for appointment of Staff Nurse (Annexure 7), the eligibility criteria that the applicant should have passed "Intermediate by Science" is illegal; and that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner, who passed Intermediate with Arts, for appointment on such post as she has successfully completed training under the respondents. He further submitted that one Renu Kumari, similarly situated, was appointed as Staff Nurse Grade II on 7.12.1998 and, therefore, there has been discrimination with the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in view of Clause 5(Kha)(iii) of the Nurses Training-Recognition, Affiliation and Conduct of Examinations of School of Nursing Rules, 1997 (for short "the Rules") notified on 14.7.1997, the respondents were obliged to put the said criteria of Intermediate with Science and to have better candidates, "2nd Division" was prescribed. He further submitted that there has been no discrimination with the petitioner. 4. It appears that petitioner did Intermediate in Arts (I.A.) and underwent Student Nurse Training under the respondents from 1994, which she completed in April, 1998. She then completed Midwifery Training in 1999. She applied against the said advertisement (Annexure 7) but her application was rejected as she did not fulfill the criteria of passing Intermediate with Science. She filed this writ petition challenging the said criteria and rejection of her application. 5. Under Rule 5 (Kha) (iii) of the Rules which was notified on 14.7.1997, the minimum qualification prescribed was 10 + 2 pass with Biology and English or Intermediate with Science. There is no provision with regard to the students who had passed Intermediate with Arts and were undergoing training, when the said Rules were notified. The said Rules simply superceded the earlier Nursing Rules of 1993. The Rules are not under challenge. The respondents were obliged to follow the said Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents in fixing the criteria of Intermediate Science cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. For choosing from better candidates, they could also prescribe the criteria of 2nd Division. 6. The Rules are not under challenge. The respondents were obliged to follow the said Rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents in fixing the criteria of Intermediate Science cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. For choosing from better candidates, they could also prescribe the criteria of 2nd Division. 6. So far the allegation of discrimination is concerned, it is true that Renu Kumari was also Intermediate with Arts but she along with 15 others were of 1991 batch and were appointed by regularising them on 7.12.1998 but the petitioner could not be considered along with them as she completed the training of Midwifery only in April, 1999. 7. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, appearing for the petitioner, then relying, on the following order passed in this case on 23.2.2007, submitted that the petitioner has not been interviewed: Counter within three weeks. In the meanwhile, petitioner shall be interviewed for the post of Staff Nurse. However, the result of the petitioner shall be kept in sealed cover and any appointment already made or to be made hereafter shall remain subject to outcome of the writ application or any direction to be passed by this Court. The appointment of the last selectee shall be provisional in nature and shall be subject to the rights of the petitioner. In reply, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner did not qualify in the written test and, therefore, she could not be interviewed. He further submitted that the interview presupposes passing of the written test but the petitioner did not secure pass marks. 8. It is true that it is not said in the order dated 23.2.2007 quoted above that before interview the petitioner was to appear in the written test, but as per the advertisement, passing of written test was a pre-condition for qualifying for interview. Accordingly, on the basis of the said order, written examination of the petitioner was taken, but from the affidavits and the documents produced in sealed cover, it appears that the petitioner failed in the written test. Therefore, she could not be interviewed. 9. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. The documents in sealed cover are returned to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, counsel for the respondents.