ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper in Bihar Military Police-4, Dumraon (Buxar), in the light of letter dated 25.11.2011 issued by the Commandant, Bihar Military Police-4 ( hereinafter referred to as BMP-4), whereby the petitioner was communicated that he had been selected for the post of Sweeper, pursuant to an Advertisement No. 01 of 2011. 2. Petitioner’s case is that pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 dated 29.7.2011 inviting applications for appointment against various Class IV posts, including the post of Sweeper in BMP-4, Dumraon (Buxar), he had submitted his application on 05.08.2011. The said advertisement has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this application, from which it appears that 20th August, 2011 was the last date for submission of the application. The petitioner accordingly applied for the post of Sweeper on 05.08.2011 and he was issued Roll Number-21001 for the purpose of selection pursuant to the said advertisement. The case of the petitioner is that after he submitted his application, written examination was conducted on 16.10.2011, wherein he appeared and was declared successful. The result of the written examination was published by a fresh notice, which is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Further case of the petitioner is that he was made to undergo the second and third stages of tests which he successfully cleared and he was finally declared successful for the post of Sweeper as published in the press notice as contained in Annexure-4 for the post of Sweeper. Subsequently by letter dated 25.11.2011 it was communicated by the Commandant, BMP-4 that he had been selected for the post and he should appear in his office for processing his appointment. 3. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that on 25.11.2011 itself he appeared before the Commandant, BMP-4 for verification of his certificates but he was refused appointment on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of minimum age as prescribed in the advertisement. 4. From the advertisement it would appear that the eligibility criterion for age was fixed as 18 years to 37 years as on 1.1.2011. 4. From the advertisement it would appear that the eligibility criterion for age was fixed as 18 years to 37 years as on 1.1.2011. The reading of the advertisement makes it clear that a candidate must have attained the age of 18 years as on 1.1.2011 to qualify for consideration of appointment against the posts advertised by Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that as on 1.1.2011 the petitioner was below 18 years of age. He however, contends that as on the date of advertisement dated 29.7.2011 he was 18 years nine months and 16 days and therefore, his case should have been considered and the appointment should not have been refused on the ground that he had not attained 18 years of age as on the cut off date i.e. 1.1.2011. He further submits that once he was allowed to undergo the process of selection up to the interview and after having been declared successful, his appointment should not have been refused on very technical ground that as on the date prescribed in the advertisement he did not fulfill the age criteria. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that as per the terms of the advertisement the petitioner did not possess the requisite eligibility of age and was therefore not even fit to be considered for appointment for the post advertised by Advertisement No. 01 of 2011. 7. In my opinion, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment pursuant to Advertisement dated 29.7.2011 as he did not fulfill the minimum criteria for age as prescribed in the advertisement. Merely on the ground that he was not given opportunity to participate in the process of selection and he was in fact selected, no direction can be issued for his appointment as admittedly he did not possess the qualification in terms of the advertisement. 8. This has to be kept in mind that many persons aspiring for the posts advertised by Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 might not have applied for want of such qualification. The petitioner cannot derive any advantage of submitting his application against the post advertised, though not fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria of age. 9. 8. This has to be kept in mind that many persons aspiring for the posts advertised by Advertisement No. 01 of 2011 might not have applied for want of such qualification. The petitioner cannot derive any advantage of submitting his application against the post advertised, though not fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria of age. 9. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and the Apex Court that the terms of advertisement has to be strictly followed and uniformly applied. There cannot be any relaxation in the eligibility criteria on the ground that an individual was allowed to participate in the process of selection without fulfilling the eligibility condition. 10. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.