JUDGMENT: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Letter no.A12/ 16/2/2011Exam. dated 8th April, 2011 issued under the signature of Respondent no.2, communicating the decision that relaxation in qualification with regard to experience shall not be granted to the candidates. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in Note II of the advertisement, discretion was given to the appointing authority to relax qualification with regard to experience on recommendation of the Selection Committee in case the candidates are otherwise qualified. 3. By the impugned letter, it has been communicated that the said discretion would not be available. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot change the rule of game once the process of appointment has been initiated. Withdrawal of that discretion, according to the petitioner, would change the rules and conditions of appointment. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2008)7 SCC 11. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Note I in the said advertisement sought to give discretionary power to the appointing authority to relax qualification with regard to experience of the candidates and there was chance of attracting some controversy. The said clause has been, thus, made ineffective by the impugned letter. It has been stated that there is no change in the rule. The said note does not contain in any rule and the same was an unnecesary addition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. On perusal of Note II, 2appended to the advertisement, inviting applications for filling up the post, specifically GradeII (Junior Scale) in ESI Hospitals in the State of Jharkhand, I find that the said note sought to confer discretion on the appointing authority to relax qualification with regard to experience. The said clause apparently appears to be arbitrary and giving an unbridled power to the appointing authority to exercise discretion to give relaxation to one or to refuse relaxation to another. The authorities subsequently realised the same and has rightly issued the impugned letter dated 8th April, 2011 (Annexure3), whereby the competent authority has decided that relaxation in qualification regarding experience should not be granted to the candidates having less or no experience. The authorities subsequently realised the same and has rightly issued the impugned letter dated 8th April, 2011 (Annexure3), whereby the competent authority has decided that relaxation in qualification regarding experience should not be granted to the candidates having less or no experience. I find no illegality in the said letter dated 8th April, 2011, which, in effect, gives arbitrary power to the appointing authority. 6. In Hemani Malhotra (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before commencement of selection process, the authority concerned cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. In substance, it has been held that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent High Court for viva voce, after written test was illegal. 7. In the instant writ petition, no such clause, in addition to the requirement under the prescribed rule and regulation, has been added. The said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, does not support the case of the petitioner. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 8th April, 2011 (Annexure3). 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.