JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the petitioner, the respondent no.5 and counsel for the institution (respondent nos. 3 and 4) and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. 2. Petitioner and respondent no.5 were non permanent teachers in English seeking permanent appointment in Raj Kumari Ganesh Sharma Sanskrit Vidyapith Kolhanta Patori, District- Darbhanga, which is run by Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India. From 18 to 24 October, 2008, under the signature of the Chairman of the said institution, an advertisement was issued calling for applications, within thirty days of advertisement, for the post of Post Graduate Teacher, inter alia, in English, which is appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.The relevant part of the advertisement dealing with essential qualification for the post is quoted hereunder: "Qualification: Essential:- i. masters degree or its equivalent in the subject concerned. ii. Degree or Diploma in Training/ Education. The qualifications at serial No.(ii) above shall be relaxable for those (a) Having Ph.D Degree in the subject concerned, or (b) Have obtained first class in higher Secondary examination, Degree and Post graduate examinations provided the candidate shall do B.Ed/B.T within a period of three years from the date of joining." 3. A reference to the said advertisement would show that essential qualifications required were (i) Masters Degree or its equivalent in the subject concerned and (ii) Degree or Diploma in Training/Education. This second condition would be relaxed if any candidate had a doctorate degree in the subject concerned or he passed first class in Higher Secondary examination, Degree and post graduate examination and the candidate acquired B.Ed/B.T. degree within three years from the date of joining. There is an additional desirable qualification clause which is that a person should have three years teaching experience in the subject concerned in a College/ Higher Secondary School/ High School. 4. Seven persons including the petitioner and the respondent no.5 made applications. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner had passed higher secondary, graduation, post graduation, all in first division and had three months teaching experience in the institution itself. Private respondent no.5 to the contrary was a consistent second division student and was teaching in the institution for five years. In his application respondent no.5 had stated that he was pursuing doctorate level study and had already submitted his theses and, vice voce was to be held soon. Private respondent no.5 to the contrary was a consistent second division student and was teaching in the institution for five years. In his application respondent no.5 had stated that he was pursuing doctorate level study and had already submitted his theses and, vice voce was to be held soon. Admittedly, on the day when application was made, respondent no.5 was not a doctorate. 5. It seems that the matter was considered by the institution for the purposes of appointment and petitioner and respondent no.5 were called for interview. Petitioner was ranked no.2 and respondent no.5 as no.1 and thus the selection. 6. The petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent no.5 on the ground that the petitioner and respondent no.5 were merely post graduate at the time when the applications were made and that date was the cut off date for considering academic qualification. The advertisement (Annexure 4) does not contemplate impending results. If the qualification as on date of filing application is taken into account, then petitioner was consistently first divisioner whereas respondent no.5 was consistently second divisioner. The selection process was thus obvious but respondents took into account the doctorate which respondent no.5 was to get at future date and which the respondent no.5 got a day or two before the date of interview but certainly long after the last date of filing of the application and as such could not be considered. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and for the institution submit that there is nothing wrong or arbitrary in the selection inasmuch as the best candidate has been selected. 8. Having heard the counsels and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. 9. The first thing is to be noted is: there are two qualifications essentially required (i) Masters Degree and (ii) Degree or Diploma in Training/Education. In the facts of the present case neither of the two i.e. petitioner or respondent no.5 fulfilled the second criteria of essential qualification but the second essential qualification was relaxable. The question is at what stage relaxation has to come about. Petitioner submits that the question of relaxation has to be considered with reference to the date when the application is to be filed because that is the relevant date for consideration of essential qualification. To the contrary respondent no.5 says that it would be the date of interview. The question is at what stage relaxation has to come about. Petitioner submits that the question of relaxation has to be considered with reference to the date when the application is to be filed because that is the relevant date for consideration of essential qualification. To the contrary respondent no.5 says that it would be the date of interview. In my view, petitioners submission is correct for the reason is simple. If on the day a person filed an application, he is not qualified and acquires qualification subsequently, his initial application cannot be validated for that reason. Here on the day respondent no.5 made an application he neither had Post Graduate Degree nor was a consistent first divisioner. Thus, on the day when he made application unfortunately he was not eligible for relaxation whereas the petitioner being a consistent first divisioner was eligible for relaxation. If he was not eligible for relaxation then essential qualification (ii) was not at all complied with and he was ineligible for consideration at all. Subsequent acquisition of Post Graduate Degree and using the same for relaxation the essential condition (ii) was a futile exercise not consistent with the advertisement. 10. It is well established principle of law that once advertisement is issued then during selection process the terms or intent of advertisement cannot be altered. 11. Lastly, learned counsel for Institution i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the selection was made looking to teaching experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submits that this is the plea not, substantiated from the records rather is contrary to the records apart from being untenable. Teaching experience is not essential qualification but only desirable as would be apparent from the advertisement itself. Respondents have appended the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee dated 28.11.2008.There it is clearly noted as against respondent no.5 that he had submitted his theses and must produce the result of Ph.D at the time of interview. There is not peferential treatment for teaching experience. It is accordingly found that respondent nos. 5 was the first candidate empanelled only on basis of Ph.D as there was no other consideration which came about much after the applications were made. 12. As I have found respondent no.5 lacking essential qualification, the question of further consideration of case of respondent no.5 did not arise at all and therefore his teaching experience was of no relevance. 5 was the first candidate empanelled only on basis of Ph.D as there was no other consideration which came about much after the applications were made. 12. As I have found respondent no.5 lacking essential qualification, the question of further consideration of case of respondent no.5 did not arise at all and therefore his teaching experience was of no relevance. The plea was clearly an after thought and not tenable. 13. Thus, the selection of respondent no.5 has to be set aside and as petitioner was number 2 in the panel it is directed that respondents would consider petitioner for appointment to the said post. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.