Judgment : Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. D. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Sanjay Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the appointment letter dated 15.04.2009 issued in favour of respondent no.2 on the post of Sanitary Inspector and has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sanitary Inspector. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that on 30th September, 2008 an advertisement was published in a daily newspaper Uttar Ujala for the post of Sanitary Inspector under the Cantonment Board, Almora. The advertisement indicated that one post for a general candidate was vacant. The qualification mentioned in the advertisement was that the candidate should be between 18 to 25 years. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied and appeared in the interview alongwith the departmental candidates. It transpires that the departmental candidate, respondent no.2, was given an appointment letter on the post of Sanitary Inspector. The departmental candidate was earlier working as an Assistant Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the appointment letter in favour of the respondent no.2 has filed the present writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the advertisement clearly indicated that the candidate should be between 18 to 25 years of age as on 30th October, 2008 whereas as per the information made available to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, the age of the respondent no.2 was more than 25 years and, therefore respondent no.2 was ineligible and could not be issued an appointment letter. The petitioner further stressed that the advertisement did not make any provision for relaxing the age of the departmental candidate. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar & others Vs. The petitioner further stressed that the advertisement did not make any provision for relaxing the age of the departmental candidate. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar & others Vs. Mithilesh Kumar 2011 (1) S.C.C. (L&S) 403 wherein the Supreme Court held that norms or rules as existing on the date when the process of selection had begun would control such selection process and that any alteration to such norms would not affect the selection process unless the alteration of norms have been given retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram, Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram & another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (3) S.C.C. 655 , wherein the Supreme Court held that an appointment made in disregard to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement was illegal unless the advertisement mentioned that the qualifications were relaxable otherwise it would amount to a fraud on public to appoint an inferior candidate. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid propositions, but in the opinion of the court that the said decisions are not applicable and are distinguishable. From a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos.1 & 2, namely, the Cantonment Board and the selected candidate, the court finds that under Rule 5-B(2) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules 1937, a power has been given to the authority to relax the age limit in case of appointment to any post under a Board. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:- “5-B(2) No person aged below eighteen years and more than twenty five years shall be appointed to any post under a Board. Provided that the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, may, if he considers it necessary so to do and subject to any directions issued by the Central Government in this behalf, relax the aforesaid age limits generally or specially, with reference to specified categories or specific Cantonments or with reference to individual cases to such extent as he considers appropriate.” Pursuant to the aforesaid Rule, the Ministry of Defence issued a Circular dated 29.08.1989. Clause (2) of the said Circular is relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue and the same is extracted hereunder:- “2. Clause (2) of the said Circular is relevant for the purpose of deciding this issue and the same is extracted hereunder:- “2. The Staff side of the National Council suggested that the age limit for the departmental candidates for the appointment to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts should be liberalized. They contended that in the case of Group ‘D’ employees there is no scope for promotion in the normal course and there is justification to increase the age limit at least for the Government servant to compete for higher grades by direct recruitment. The matter has been carefully examined and it has been decided that the departmental candidates may be allowed to compete alongwith the candidates from the open market upto the age of 40 years for Group ‘C’ posts in the case of general candidates and 45 years in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This concession will be subject to the useful condition that the direct recruitment post in Group ‘C’ posts are in the same line for allied cadres and a relationship could be established that service rendered in the posts will be useful for efficient discharge of the duties in the other categories of posts.” A perusal of the aforesaid circular would indicate that the departmental candidates could be allowed to compete alongwith the candidate from the open market upto the age of 40 years for Group ‘C’ posts in the case of General candidates. Based on the said circular, respondent no.2 who is a departmental candidate, working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector, was allowed to compete with the candidates from the open market on the post of Sanitary Inspector. There is no quarrel that the age of the respondent no.2 was less than 40 years. On the basis of this circular, respondent no.2 appeared in the selection process and was selected by the Selection Committee and, thereafter, was issued an appointment letter. The only controversy which narrows down now is, whether the relaxation given to a departmental candidate was required to be spelt out and indicated in the advertisement or not? Admittedly, the advertisement does not mention about the departmental candidates applying or the circular relating to relaxation of age. The only controversy which narrows down now is, whether the relaxation given to a departmental candidate was required to be spelt out and indicated in the advertisement or not? Admittedly, the advertisement does not mention about the departmental candidates applying or the circular relating to relaxation of age. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such non-disclosure was fatal and since the age relaxation of a departmental candidate was not mentioned in the advertisement, no departmental candidate above the age of 25 years could apply and departmental candidate would be treated at par with the candidates from the open market. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems attractive in the first flush, but on a closer scrutiny, the submission cannot be sustained. The terms and conditions or the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement are required to be made known to the public, who are applying for the post. Such qualifications are not required to be indicated in the advertisement for the departmental candidates since the departmental candidates are covered by their own rules and regulations which are not required to be spelt out, though, in the interest of justice, a mention should also be made in the advertisement that the departmental candidate could also apply so that the candidates from the open market are made aware of this fact. But, non-disclosure of this fact does not make it fatal nor does it exclude the departmental candidates from not applying as per their Regulations. In the light of the aforesaid, the respondent no.2 applied as a departmental candidate as per the circular. The application of respondent no.2 was valid and the appointment made was not in violation of the advertisement. No right of the petitioner has been violated. In the light of the aforesaid, the court does not find any error in the appointment of respondent no.2 on the post of Sanitary Inspector. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.