Navin Sinha, J. – We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and the respondent University. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.8 to 11 despite valid service of notice. The Bihar College Service Commission is stated to have been wound up subsequently. The notice issued to it has thus been returned unserved. We are informed that the functions of the Commission have subsequently by amendment been vested in the University. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the Order dated 13.7.2010, dismissing C.W.J.C. No.3982/97. Mandamus had been sought to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on the first post of Lecturer in Commerce at the Dr. Prabhunath Singh Degree College, Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the College) on the plea that he was working since 1982. Releif had also been sought to annul the appointment of Respondent no.11. 3. The Writ Court held that under Section-57(A) of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), any appointment in an affiliated college could be made only on the recommendation of the College Service Commission. The College was granted affiliation for the first time on 19.2.1988. Any service rendered prior to affiliation was rightly not taken into consideration by the Commission. The petitioner had submitted his candidature before the Commission for the first post of Lecturer in Commerce on two occasions vide advertisement No.972/89 and 604/94. He was called for interview but was declared unsuccessful on both occasions. If the petitioner was unsuccessful on basis of inter se evaluation of merit, and no challenge was laid out to the manner of selection relief could not be granted on the expectation that he had a right to be recommended in view of his earlier appointment and experience. There was no concept of an automatic absorption after affiliation. The writ petition was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the first post of Lecturer in Commerce at the erstwhile private College was created in 1979. The Appellant was initially appointed temporarily on 5.11.1982. An advertisement dated 9.11.1985 was published for the post. The eligibility for the post was 52.5% in post-graduation. The petitioner possessed 53.3% and was permanently appointed on 25.11.1985. Relying on a government instruction dated 30.1.1979, it was submitted that the first post of Lecturer in Commerce automatically stood sanctioned no sooner that affiliation was granted on 19.2.1988. An advertisement dated 9.11.1985 was published for the post. The eligibility for the post was 52.5% in post-graduation. The petitioner possessed 53.3% and was permanently appointed on 25.11.1985. Relying on a government instruction dated 30.1.1979, it was submitted that the first post of Lecturer in Commerce automatically stood sanctioned no sooner that affiliation was granted on 19.2.1988. The appellant therefore had a right to be appointed substantively as he fulfilled the eligibility requirement as existing. The enhancement of the eligibility requirement to 55% brought in by amendment of the Statute on 9.9.1988 was subsequent. It could not be given retrospective effect but was prospective in its operation. The Chairman of the Commission, as reported in a Hindi daily published on 23.3.1992 had stated that the new eligibility shall not be applicable to appointees before amendment and whose candidature would be considered under the old eligibility. Consequently, the petitioner never applied in response to the advertisement of 1994 by the Commission. The college suo motu forwarded his name. The petitioner participated in the selection process on the assurance of the Commission that the new Statute shall not apply to him. But for the same, the petitioner would certainly have raised his claim for consideration under the earlier Statute. Once the petitioner was called and allowed participation at the interview, the respondents are now precluded from raising issues of his ineligibility under the new Statute. It was lastly submitted that by virtue of the interim order granted in the writ petition and appeal, the Appellant has now continued for long years and his case is required to be considered sympathetically. 5. Reliance has been placed on (1990)1 SCC 411 (P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka), 1991 (1) P.L.J.R. 6 (Prem Darshan Singh ‘Diwakar’ and (2005) 9 SCC 129 (State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya N.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh). 6. Learned counsel for the University submitted that if the Appellant had any supposed claim under the government instruction dated 30.1.1979 from the date of affiliation, it was for him to have raised the issue at the appropriate time. He did not do so at any stage. On the contrary he participated twice to be considered unsuccessfully, under two separate advertisements in 1989 and 1994. He cannot be permitted to go back to events prior to the same and is estopped from doing so. Service prior to affiliation could not be taken into consideration. He did not do so at any stage. On the contrary he participated twice to be considered unsuccessfully, under two separate advertisements in 1989 and 1994. He cannot be permitted to go back to events prior to the same and is estopped from doing so. Service prior to affiliation could not be taken into consideration. It was lastly submitted that if the law did not favour the appellant, sympathy cannot be a ground to grant relief contrary to the law even if he has continued for long years. Reliance is placed on 1986 Suppl. SCC 285 (Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla), (1996) 2 SCC 563 (Firdosh Fatima vs. Firdosh Begum), (1995) 3 SCC 486 (Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir) and 2001 (2) P.L.J.R. 817 (Dr. Sheo Narain Yadav vs State of Bihar). 7. On consideration of the materials and submissions made, and the discussion hereinafter we find no reason to interfere with the Order in Appeal. 8. The appellant was appointed first in a private college. The appointment after affiliation had to be in accordance with the Statutes. If the appellant had any supposed claim under government instruction dated 30.1.1979 he was required to raise the same immediately after affiliation on 19.2.1988. It does not appear that any such claim was raised by him at any time earlier. On the contrary, the claim has been raised first only after he has been unsuccessful twice in the fresh selection process after voluntary participation. The Statute was amended on 9.9.1988 requiring a minimum of 55% marks. The advertisements were subsequent in 1989 and 1994. Any right of consideration which may have accrued prior to the same but did not fructify by actual consideration, lost its relevance. 9. The writ petition and the Appeal are both silent on his participation in 1989. It amounts to intentional withholding of a necessary facts and the advantage of having obtained interim orders. The observations in (2012) 6 SCC 430 ) (A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam) are apposite holding : – “43.1. It is the bounden duty of the court to uphold the truth and do justice. 43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. 43.3. It is the bounden duty of the court to uphold the truth and do justice. 43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. 43.3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful. 43.4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice. 43.5. It is the bounden obligation of the court to neutralise any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process.” 10. Once the Appellant participated in the selection process, it is impermissible for him to raise issues prior to the same, by approbate and reprobate. Reliance was appropriately placed by the University on Madan Lal Khurana (supra) : – “9……The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 11. The aforesaid proposition is too well settled by now and we need not burden the present judgment with further precedents. 12. The consideration had to be in accordance with the Statute as it stood on the date of advertisement and not earlier. In absence of any clause for relaxation the Appellant was ineligible. The fact that he may have been called for interview does not preclude the respondents from either rejecting his candidature on merits or ineligibility. There could be no estoppel against the Statute. Repelling a similar submission in (1990) 3 SCC 655 (Distt. Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi) it was observed : – “4…… It is common knowledge that sometimes either by mistake or otherwise the notes put up before the Selection Committee contain erroneous data prepared by the office, and sometimes the Selection Committee proceeds on the basis that all those who appear before it, are otherwise qualified. However, the second stage at which the documents are scrutinised is when the higher authorities go through them at the time the candidate concerned approaches them for resuming (sic assuming) duties along with the original certificates. It is at that stage that the mistake was discovered in the present case and the respondent was not permitted to resume her duties. We see nothing wrong in this action.” 13. In (2008) 9 SCC 403 ( T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu) it was held : – “12. It is at that stage that the mistake was discovered in the present case and the respondent was not permitted to resume her duties. We see nothing wrong in this action.” 13. In (2008) 9 SCC 403 ( T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu) it was held : – “12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light.” 14. If the Statute unambiguously provided for an eligibility of 55%, any supposed belief of the appellant with regard to his eligibility notwithstanding the same based on a Newspaper publication, and in absence of any relaxation clause in the Statute, is of no avail. A Newspaper publication is no evidence, much less a cause of action as held in (1988) 3 SCC 319 (Lakshmi Raj Shetti vs. State of Tamil Nadu): – “25…….We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 26. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported……” The importance of having quality teachers with high standards of academic excellence in institutions of higher education hardly needs emphasis. While school education instills basic ground work qualities, higher education brings finesse to knowledge and personality and prepares for adult life. While school education instills basic ground work qualities, higher education brings finesse to knowledge and personality and prepares for adult life. The qualification required for such teachers is a matter of subjective assessment by the University. In (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty) emphasising the need for appointment of quality teachers in institutions of higher education it was observed : – “29. Education is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young persons in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff. Therefore, unless they themselves possess good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/enhanced.” 15. Reliance by the Appellant on (Mahendran) (supra) is misplaced. It relates to an advertisement issued before the amendment of the Rules, holding of interviews and finalisation of the select list and amendment of the Rules during the process. The ratio laid down is the right to consideration in accordance with the Rules as existed on the date of the advertisement. In (Diwakar) (supra) the facts were entirely different with regard to eligibility prescribed under the Constitution for appointment as a District Judge applicable on the date of commencement of selection process as also on date of appointment. Likewise (Bihar Rajya Mahasang) (supra) related to a case of absorption pursuant to declaration as a Constituent College after earlier affiliation. 16. We find no merit in the appeal and reject the same.