JUDGMENT Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J. & Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is 3 fold. Firstly, the advertisement was not published in terms of the Rules which require the advertisement to be published in a newspaper having circulation in the State and having circulation in the locality. Secondly, his submission is that though the advertisement was not in terms of the Rules even though there are other category of qualifications namely Certificate of Hafiz and Maulvi. The advertisement only calls for application from those who have certificate of Alim or Inter with Urdu with 55% marks. Thirdly, it is submitted that on remand there were directions that the petitioner be heard yet he was not given proper hearing. 3. We have heard learned counsel. 4. In so far as the first objection is concerned, Dainik Jagran is a newspaper circulated in the State. The expression State level newspaper does not mean that the advertisement should be published in all the editions in the State. The test is whether such a newspaper is circulated around the State. Dainik Jagran is a widely circulated newspaper. Apart from that it was advertised in the said newspaper on 4.5.2002, 23.9.2002 and 17.10.2002 as also in the local weekly newspaper Halchal. In our opinion, considering the above, the first objection is devoid of merit. 5. Insofar as the second objection is concerned, no doubt that there were some variations. However, it is admitted that the Certificate of Alim is superior to the other 2 certificates of Maulvi and Hafiz. If the institution has called for better qualified candidates that really cannot follow that the person, who is selected, is not qualified. That objection is also rejected. 6. The third objection with regard to opportunity of hearing, considering the above, we find that the Registrar has passed an order setting out various facts in detail, therefore, this objection also is devoid of merit. 7. Learned single Judge considered the aforesaid issues and thereafter refused to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction. 8. We are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge hence this appeal is dismissed.