Hon'ble SAPRE, J.—The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other six connected special appeals being SAW Nos. 03954/2010, 03956/2010, 03957/2010, 03958/2010, 03959/2010 and 03960/2010 because firstly all these appeals arise out of common order passed by learned Single Judge and secondly they involve common questions of law and fact. 2. This is an intra court appeal filed by the respondents of W.P. No. 2764 of 2010 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High Court Rules against an order dt. 11.5.2010 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief. 4. The appellant No. 1 is a Company engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in State of Rajasthan. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is, thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. On, 18.5.2009, the appellant published an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Junior Engineer First (Electrical). In all there were 135 posts for which applications were invited. The application forms were to be submitted by the candidates on or before 18.6.2009 along with necessary details and documents. The advertisement mentioned the requisite qualifications for the post. As per the requirement, it was necessary for the candidate to posses the B.E. degree or its equivalent with minimum 55% marks. The forms, if found incomplete in any respect were liable to be rejected. These conditions being relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are reproduced herein below for convenience. As per the requirement, it was necessary for the candidate to posses the B.E. degree or its equivalent with minimum 55% marks. The forms, if found incomplete in any respect were liable to be rejected. These conditions being relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are reproduced herein below for convenience. dfu"B vfHk;Urk izFke ¼bysDVªhdy½ Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir ekU;rk izkIr fdlh Hkh fo'ofo|ky; ;k laLFkku@ fdlh fons'kh fo'ofo|ky; ;k laLFkku }kjk iznRr ,slh mikf/k tks fd Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk ekU; gks] ls fo|qr vfHk;kaf=dh esa Lukrd@,-,e-vkbZ-bZ- mikf/k ;k fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;@laLFkku }kjk iznRr ,slh mikf/k tks Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|qr vfHk;kaf=dh@,-,e-vkbZ-bZ- mikf/k ds led{k gksA¼v½ fo|qr vfHk;kaf=dh@ esa U;wure 60 izfr'kr rFkk ,-,e-vkbZ-bZ- mikf/k esa U;wure 55 izfr'kr ,xzhesV ¼Aggregate½ izkIrkad vko';d gSA¼c½ ,-,e-vkbZ-bZ- mikf/k esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@fodykax rFkk vU; fiNM+k Js.kh vH;fFkZ;ksa dks U;wure izkIrkad esa 5 izfr'kr dh NwV ns; gSA¼l½ ,-,e-vkbZ-bZ- mikf/k esa vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@fodykax rFkk vU; fiNM+k Js.kh vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, U;wure izfr'kr vadksa esa 5 izfr'kr dh NwV ns; gSaA fnukad 18 twu 2009 dks U;wure vk;q 21 o"kZ ,oa vf/kdre vk;q 35 o"kZ ls vf/kd uk gksA¼v½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr @vU; fiNM+k oxZ ds iq:"k ,oa lkekU; oxZ dh efgyk ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 5 o"kZ dh NwV ns; gksxhA¼c½ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vU; fiNM+k oxZ dh efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, vk;q lhek esa vf/kdre 10 o"kZ dh NwVA¼l½ lkekU; oxZ ,oa vU; fiNM+k oxZ@vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds fodykax vH;fFkZ;ka ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa Øe'k% 10 o"kZ] 13 o"kZ ,oa 15 o"kZ dh NwV gksxhA ^^6- vfUre frfFk 18 twu 2009 vkosnu i= fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa Hkjdj vko';d izek.k i=ksa ,oa fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd lfgr fnukad 18-6-2009 ¼lka; 6-00 cts½ rd lfpo ¼iz'kklu½] tks/kiqj fo|qr forj.k fuxe fyfeVsM] U;w ikoj gkÅl] tks/kiqj ¼jktLFkku½ 342003 ds dk;kZy; esa vko';d :i ls izkIr gks tkus pkfg;sA fyQkQs ij vkosfnr in dk uke Li"V vafdr djsaA viw.kZ ,oa fu/kkZfjr frfFk@le;@'kqYd ds i'pkr~ izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA** 6. The respondents claiming to be the eligible candidates submitted their forms. It may be relevant to mention that none of the respondent was having the B.E. Degree or its equivalent. The respondents claiming to be the eligible candidates submitted their forms. It may be relevant to mention that none of the respondent was having the B.E. Degree or its equivalent. In other words, it was an admitted fact that none of the respondents had completed their B.E. Course or/and its equivalent course on the date of submission of their form (18.6.2009) but they all claimed that they had appeared in the Final Examination of B.E. Course or its equivalent prior to issuance of the advertisement and were awaiting their results. The appellants scrutinized the forms and noticed that none of respondents had enclosed along with their forms either the copy of their B.E.Degree or its equivalent so also their mark sheets. Due to this defect in the forms so also due to non-submission of degree/mark sheet, It was not possible to verify as to whether such candidate was having the requisite qualification prescribed for the post and if so whether he had secured minimum 55% marks so as to declare him as an eligible candidate. 7. The appellants, therefore, rejected their forms on the ground that firstly it was incomplete for want of requisite documents namely- degree and mark sheet and secondly none of the respondents was eligible to apply for the post in question because none of them possessed requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement. 8. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved of this action of the appellants, filed writ petition out of which this appeal arise against the appellants and prayed that they be declared as an eligible candidate and they be allowed to appear and participate in selection process for the post of Junior Engineer. According to them, even though he/they did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of advertisement or on the date of submission of form but since he/they had appeared in the Final B.E. Examination prior to issuance of examination and only awaiting for the declaration of their result, they were eligible to apply for the post as an eligible candidate. 9. The appellants contested the writ petition. According to them, none of the writ petitioners were eligible candidates for the post in question because no one possessed B.E. Degree or its equivalent on the date of issuance of advertisement or/and on the date of submission of the form. 9. The appellants contested the writ petition. According to them, none of the writ petitioners were eligible candidates for the post in question because no one possessed B.E. Degree or its equivalent on the date of issuance of advertisement or/and on the date of submission of the form. It was contended that mere appearing in the Final B.E. Examination was not enough and the same could not be regarded as equivalent to possessing B.E. Degree. It was thus contended that the appellants were justified in rejecting the forms of the writ petitioners treating them to be ineligible for the post as on the date of advertisement on the ground of they not possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post and for not filing the degree and mark sheet along with their application forms. 10. The learned Single Judge did not decide the main question as to whether writ petitioner were eligible to apply for the post or not and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by giving following directions to the appellants. Since the order impugned is a short one, it is reproduced in full infra. "By these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short, hereinafter referred to `Nigam') to permit the petitioners in the written examination to be held on 21.3.2010 for the purpose of appointment to the post of Junior Engineer-I (Electrical). By the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioners were so permitted to appear in the examination and learned counsel for the petitioners submits that result of these petitioners is yet to be declared whereas the result of other candidates who appeared in the written examination and interview, has already been declared on 4.5.2010. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties as some length, it appears appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions by directing the respondent-Nigam to declare the result of these petitioners also, and if they're found successful in such written examination as well as in the personal interview, which was held for the said purpose, their candidature for appointment on the said post may also be considered in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly." 11. It is against this order, the respondents of writ petitions, have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 12. In the result, the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly." 11. It is against this order, the respondents of writ petitions, have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and in consequence while setting aside of the impugned order, dismiss the writ petition. 13. In our considered opinion, the basic question that arose for consideration in the writ petitions was whether, seven writ petitions were eligible to apply for the post of Junior Engineer (First) (Electrical) pursuant to advertisement dt. 18.5.2009, or in other words, whether these writ petitioners could be held to have fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement for the post in question so as to allow them to appear in the written examination and then in interview as an eligible candidate. 14. In our view, the answer to this question has to be given in negative i.e. against the respondents (writ petitioners) by holding that none of the writ petitioners could be held eligible for the post in question. 15. In our opinion, when the advertisement in clear terms provided that only those candidates having B.E.Degree with minimum 55% marks or its equivalent Degree are eligible to apply then it only meant that only such candidates who had obtained the B.E. Degree or its equivalent with minimum 55% marks were eligible to apply and not the one who did not possess such qualification. This condition had to be fulfilled by every candidate as on the date of advertisement i.e. on 18.5.2009 or at best as on the date of submission of application forms i.e. on or before 18.6.2009. In other words, it was obligatory upon the candidates to have enclosed the copy of B.E. Degree or its equivalent and the mark sheet along with the application form and failure to enclose these two material documents, rendered the application form incomplete so also rendered the candidate ineligible for the post. 16. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) when the contended that even the candidate who had appeared in the Final B.E. Examination prior to issuance of advertisement and awaiting his results could apply as an eligible candidate. This submission is not acceptable for more than one reason. 16. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) when the contended that even the candidate who had appeared in the Final B.E. Examination prior to issuance of advertisement and awaiting his results could apply as an eligible candidate. This submission is not acceptable for more than one reason. Firstly, there was no such condition in the advertisement that such candidate was also eligible to apply. Secondly, in the absence of any condition, such candidate had no right to apply. Thirdly, a candidate holding a degree could not be equated with the candidate who had appeared in the examination and awaiting declaration of his result. Both candidates were not at par. In the case of former, a candidate had successfully passed the examination and secured the B.E. Degree whereas in the case of later, he was not possessed of the degree but was awaiting it. Fourthly, if this contention were to be accepted then it would mean that any candidate irrespective of his qualification could apply. In other words, in such case no distinction could be made between the degree holder and non-degree holder and both candidates would be required to be treated at par for applying to the post. This was never the intention nor it was possible in the absence of any clear condition in the advertisement. 17. We also cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents when he contended that even though candidate did not have a B.E. Degree in his name on the date of issuance of advertisement but if such candidate was able to obtain the degree and file the same along with the mark sheet of his final examination before the date of written examination to be held for selection of the post in question then in such eventuality such candidate should have been held as an eligible candidate. We do not agree to this submission for more than one reason. Firstly, and again, this was not the condition in the advertisement that such candidate could also apply for the post as an eligible candidate. Secondly, so long as it was not prescribed in the advertisement as a condition, the candidate of his own could not treat himself to be an eligible candidate. Thirdly, it was for the appellant to decide as to whether such relaxation should be provided or not. Secondly, so long as it was not prescribed in the advertisement as a condition, the candidate of his own could not treat himself to be an eligible candidate. Thirdly, it was for the appellant to decide as to whether such relaxation should be provided or not. If it was not provided, then the candidate had no right to infer such type of relaxation being available while applying for the post. Fourthly, the condition relating to qualification was most relevant and had to be fulfilled strictly. Fifthly, if on the date of issuance of advertisement, or on the date of submission of application form, a candidate was not found to have possessed the B.E. Degree or its equivalent, then he was not eligible to apply and lastly, obtaining of degree subsequent to the date of advertisement was of no significance so far as present case was concerned. 18. We cannot also accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondents when he contended that since all the respondents were allowed to appear in the examination by the interim orders of this Court and pursuant thereto they not only appeared in the examination but also faced the interview, and hence their results should be declared and if any one out of seven is found to have successfully passed the examination, then he be allowed to join the post and those who have failed, their writ petition should be dismissed. 19. In our opinion, there is a fallacy in this submission and hence we cannot accept this submission. Mere appearance in the examination without first deciding as to whether a candidate has satisfied the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement did not give to candidate any right to be considered as an eligible candidate much less a right to appear in the examination. In other words, only those candidates were allowed to appear in the examination that are declared eligible. It cannot be disputed that interim order granting permission to appear in the examination had to be understood in the context that it did not create any right in favour of writ petitioner nor it absolved him from proving the eligibility criteria prescribed for applying to the post. It cannot be disputed that interim order granting permission to appear in the examination had to be understood in the context that it did not create any right in favour of writ petitioner nor it absolved him from proving the eligibility criteria prescribed for applying to the post. In other words, it only meant, that if writ petitioner was eventually held qualified to apply for the post in terms of the advertisement while deciding the writ petition, then his result should be declared because he was permitted provisionally to appear in the examination. But when the basic question itself was decided against the writ petitioner, then it was hardly of any consequence as to whether he passed the written examination successfully or not. This court, in such eventuality, cannot hold that since writ petitioner has successfully passed the written examination and scored the requisite number in the interview irrespective of his basic qualification required for the post and hence he is declared as an eligible candidate on his good performance in the examination. It is a settled principal of law that interim order is always subject to final decision of the case and if the writ petition is dismissed on merits, then interim order too merges in the final order. It is for all these reasons, we cannot hold the writ petitioners to be an eligible candidates for the post inquestion only on the basis of an interim direction issued by this court and on their appearing in the examination/interview. 20. We cannot accept another submission of learned counsel for the respondents when he contended on the basis of advertisement issued for I.A.S. examination in past by U.P.S.C. that when U.P.S.C. advertisement permitted the candidates to appear in the examination whose cases were alike the writ petitioner, then why writ petitioner was denied such right. The submission is misconceived. In the first place, an advertisement of other examination conducted by U.P.S.C. cannot be used against the appellants. Secondly, every examination has its own condition depending upon its peculiarity and hence it cannot be cited as an example to be followed by others while conducting their examination. The submission is misconceived. In the first place, an advertisement of other examination conducted by U.P.S.C. cannot be used against the appellants. Secondly, every examination has its own condition depending upon its peculiarity and hence it cannot be cited as an example to be followed by others while conducting their examination. Thirdly, in the advertisement on which reliance was placed by the respondents, there was a specific clause which enabled a candidate to apply even though he did not hold the necessary degree whereas in the present case as we have held supra, no such Clause was provided in the advertisement. It is essentially for this reason, we have held that in the absence of any such Clause in the advertisement, the writ petitioner could not consider himself to be an eligible candidate. 21. We also cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents when he contended that one candidate had filed the mark sheet, and others had submitted the same before the start of examination and hence they were eligible. Since we have held that on the date of advertisement or/and on the date of submission of form (18.6.2009) no writ petitioner was holding the requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement and hence in the light of this finding, this submission has no merit. In other words, subsequent submission of mark sheet or any other relevant documents after the cut off date was of no significance. The Court cannot alter the terms of conditions nor can insert any condition just to suit the ineligible candidate and make them eligible by passing any interim order nor can compel the appellants to treat an ineligible candidate as eligible one. 22. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions to give appointment to the writ petitioners on the basis of their result in the examination and interview without first deciding the issue of writ petitioners eligibility to the post. Such direction in our considered opinion was not factually and legally sustainable and hence liable to be set aside. 23. In view of foregoing discussion, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and hence, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arise stands dismissed.