JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J:- This appeal arises from a judgement and order dated January 14, 2011 passed in W.P. No.4304 (W) of 2010, by which an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed. 2. This case has a chequered history. This is a fourth round of litigation before this Court. 3. An advertisement was published on October 11, 2006 inviting applications from the intending candidates for the post of 2nd Auxiliary Nurse and Mid-wife in a primary health sub-centre. The said advertisement envisaged that the candidate should be in the age group of 25 to 35 years and must be a resident of the said sub-centre for which such advertisement was made. Apart from other conditions, the candidates must have academic qualification of Madhyamik pass and should annex a document relating to their age as well as the academic qualification and mark-sheet, voter identity card or the ration card in support of their residential proof along with the application. The last date of submitting the said application was fixed on November 3, 2006. 4. It appears that apart from the petitioner and the private respondent, some other candidates, also, made applications in pursuance of the said advertisement. 5. The selection committee found that the application filed by the writ petitioner was in order and the applications filed by the other candidates, including the private respondent, who admittedly did not annex either the voter identity card or the ration card in support of her residential proof along with the said application were liable to be rejected, which was accordingly done. 6. However, an objection was made by the private respondent before the appropriate authority against rejection of her application on the ground of non-submission of the voter identity card or the ration card to prove her residential status. Initially, the authority held that the selection committee could not have rejected the said application and directed appointment of the writ petitioner to the aforesaid post. 7. Initially, the authority held that the selection committee could not have rejected the said application and directed appointment of the writ petitioner to the aforesaid post. 7. The said order was assailed before this Court, being the first round of litigation, which was disposed of by directing the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, to look into the grievances of the writ petitioner and to take a final decision in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the private respondent. 8. In compliance of the said order the matter was taken up again by the District Magistrate and, ultimately, it was found that the selection committee rightly rejected the application of the private respondent as it did not contain either the voter identity card or the ration card. 9. This time the private respondent approached this Court by filing a writ petition assailing the said order. 10. In the said writ petition this Court found that the report of the Block Development officer were not considered by the District Magistrate in its true and proper perspective and, therefore, the direction was made upon the said authority to re-consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid reports. 11. The matter was thereafter reconsidered, and the said authority, however, found that the application of the private respondent could not be dismissed or rejected by the authorities concerned. 12. The petitioner assailed the said order before this Court being the third round of litigation. This Court held that the course of action adopted by the District Magistrate in directing the Block Development Officer to take a decision after convening a meeting of the Block Level Screening Committee was contrary to the earlier order dated May 4, 2009 passed by this Court in an earlier writ petition and, therefore, directed the District Magistrate to consider the issue in the light of the observations and directions made by this Court. 13. This time the District Magistrate found that the private respondent, though not submitted the documents in respect of her residential status, but at the time of considering the objection substantially placed the relevant document evidencing her residential status of such sub-centre which could be termed as substantial compliance of the necessary conditions put in the said advertisement. 13. This time the District Magistrate found that the private respondent, though not submitted the documents in respect of her residential status, but at the time of considering the objection substantially placed the relevant document evidencing her residential status of such sub-centre which could be termed as substantial compliance of the necessary conditions put in the said advertisement. It was, further, held that the private respondent having secured more marks in the Madhyamik Examination should be appointed to the said post. 14. Assailing the aforesaid order this application being W.P. No. 4304 (W) of 2010 was filed before this Court. By the impugned order it is held that necessary conditions incorporated in the advertisement must be complied with as any default or infraction therefrom would result into the dismissal or rejection of the said application. Admittedly, the appellant did not submit either her voter identity card or the ration card at the time of filing her application before the concerned authority. 15. Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, strenuously submits that the voter identity card was issued by the authority a day before the last date of submission of her application, which could not reach to his client because of the time taken during transit as such the voter identity card could not be annexed along with the said application. He, however, submits that a notice relating to taking of photograph for the purpose of the said voter identity card was annexed along with the said application, which could be treated as a substantial compliance of the necessary conditions imposed in the said advertisement. 16. He, however, submits that the authority should not have rejected her candidature solely on such technical ground when there was no dispute as to her residential status. In support of the aforesaid contentions he placed reliance upon judgments of the apex court in case of Kanshi Ram Verma v. Municipal Committee, Mansa, reported in (1981)2 SCC p.70, Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 , a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Mousumi Das Maity v. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (2009) 2 WBLR (Cal) 165 and an unreported judgment in case of Smt. Srabanti Naskar (Mondal) v. State and others (FMA 970 of 2011 decided on August 9, 2011). 17. 17. Per contra, Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee (III), learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that if there is a mandatory condition imposed in the advertisement, non-compliance thereof would entail the dismissal of the said application, which has been rightly done by the authorities. Lastly, he submits that submission of voter identity card or the ration card was mandatory, which has admittedly not been complied with by the appellant, and, therefore, her candidature was rejected by the appropriate authority. 18. Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, learned advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 submits that the conditions embodied in the said advertisement are imperative and needs compliance thereof. In absence of any power to relax such conditions, the same cannot be relaxed by the concerned authorities and should be adhered to with full force and rigour. It is submitted that subsequent acquisition of the qualification would not cure the fatal defect and reliance is placed upon a judgment of the apex court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Misra, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4411 . 19. Having considered the respective submission it is undisputed that the appellant did not submit her voter identity card or the ration card at the time of offering her candidature in pursuance of the said advertisement dated October 11, 2006. 20. It is revealed therefrom that certain conditions were attached relating to the eligibility of the candidates; one of the condition, which is relevant, for the present purposes, is that the applicant must annex a voter identity card or the ration card along with the application to prove her residential status. 21. We could not decipher from the perusal of the said advertisement that relaxation of these conditions could be made by the authorities. Therefore, in absence of any such power, the authorities cannot relax such condition as has been held by the apex court in case of Vijay Kumar Misra (supra) in these words, “It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post.” 22. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post.” 22. There is no dispute that if the things are required to be done in a particular manner it should be done in such a manner only as any deviation or noncompliance or infraction would entail the rejection of the application. 23. According to the appellant if there is substantial compliance of the necessary condition, as has been held in case of Kanshi Ram Verma (supra), the authorities should not have rejected the said application. On perusal of the said judgment it appears that the apex court was considering a matter relating to the termination of service of an employee, who was appointed upon satisfaction of an authority as to the necessary compliance for such appointment. In such perspective it was held that the High Court omitted to consider that the municipal committee was initially satisfied that the appellant had materially complied with the requirement for employment and had actually been employed. In the aforesaid report it is not evident that there existed mandatory requirements for such employment. Furthermore, the authority was satisfied about the compliance of the requirement, which cannot be faulted with in absence of any counter evidence. The labour court being the fact-finding authority, also, found that there was a necessary compliance of the requirement by the said employee. 24. The appellant is very much vocal by placing a strong reliance on a judgment of the apex court rendered in Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) in contending that non-submission of the certificate along with an application cannot be proved to be fatal. 25. In the given case, a post was reserved for a scheduled caste candidate. There was no dispute as to the caste of the applicant therein as she acquired such status by birth. The point was raised that the caste certificate, which she produced at the time of the admission, is not issued by the competent authority. While the matter was pending for consideration, by this time she was admitted in the college and was pursuing her studies. The point was raised that the caste certificate, which she produced at the time of the admission, is not issued by the competent authority. While the matter was pending for consideration, by this time she was admitted in the college and was pursuing her studies. It was held that the said candidate rightly made an application before the competent officer within whose jurisdiction her father lived and upon refusal to submit the certificate an appeal having filed was pending. Therefore, the facts, which emanate from the aforesaid decision, could not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. In the present case, there is a mandatory condition of submission of her voter identity card or the ration card for residential status, which should accompany an application to be submitted by the intending candidates. There is no power for relaxation of such conditions incorporated in the said advertisement. Admittedly, the appellant did not submit those documents along with the said application. 27. Had it been a case that the candidate must be a permanent resident of the locality for being eligible to offer his candidature for the post without being further required to corroborate the status by submission of the necessary documents, the position would have been different. When the authority have put an imperative condition for submission of the voter identity card or the ration card along with the said application, those conditions should be strictly complied with and adhered to. 28. The Division Bench in case of Smt. Mousumi Das Maity (Supra) was considering the matter where the appellant was married on October 9, 2006 and applied for the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Mid-wife on November 24, 2006 disclosing his permanent residence as her husband’s house. She submitted the ration card and the voter identity card along with the application which shows her residential address of parental house. A point was raised that whether she could be treated as the permanent residence of her matrimonial house after her marriage or remained the residence of the parental house. It further appears that before the submission of an application, the ration card of the appellant was also transferred to her matrimonial place. A point was raised that whether she could be treated as the permanent residence of her matrimonial house after her marriage or remained the residence of the parental house. It further appears that before the submission of an application, the ration card of the appellant was also transferred to her matrimonial place. In the backdrop of such perspective, it was held that the authorities could not have held that she is not the permanent residence of her matrimonial place as under the Hindu Ritual and Rites, the girl losses his identity with her father's family and also the gotra and becomes a part and parcel of the husband’s family by adopting his gotra. The aforesaid judgment has no manner of application in the presence facts and circumstances, inasmuch as, the appellant neither submitted the voter identity card nor ration card along with the application which is one of the mandatory condition incorporated in the advertisement. 29. The unreported judgment which has been relied on by Mr. Ghosh is based on the ratio decided by the apex court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra). As we have already indicated above, that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not want to deal with the said unreported judgment in detail. 30. Since the Hon’ble Single Judge has found that the non-compliance of those imperative conditions would entail the dismissal of the said application of the private respondent, we do not want to interfere with the aforesaid findings arrived at by the Hon’ble Single Bench. 31. We, thus, do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. Mukherjee, J. I agree. Later – After the delivery of the judgement, Mr. Ghosh prays for stay of operation of this order. We do not find any cogent ground for the same and hence is declined. Tandon, J. Mukherjee, J.