ORDER Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 30.09.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3302 of 2009, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, an advertisement was issued vide Advertisement No. 01/2004 inviting application for appointment on the post of constable, pursuant to which the appellant participated in the selection process by appearing in the written examination and though, he obtained 80 % marks in General Studies Paper, he was not selected as he was declared fail in the Regional Language Paper. In these facts, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 3302 of 2009. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised three-fold contentions namely;–– (i) There was no mandatory requirement under Clause 8 (kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 for qualifying in the Regional Language Test. It is only reflected in the said Clause that the persons having knowledge of the regional language would be given preference in appointment, (ii) Circular dated 12.11.2001 governing the selection process in Advertisement No. 01/2004 does not indicate that there would be an examination in regional language and a candidate for being appointed on the post of constable must qualify the Regional Language Test, and (iii) The Circular dated 12.11.2001 could not have been superseded with retrospective effect so as to bring in an additional condition of qualifying the Regional Language Test. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.-V appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has submitted that in Clause 8(kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 as well as in para 7 of the Circular dated 12.11.2001, it is clearly mentioned that a candidate is required to pass the written examination. Since, the appellant failed in the Regional Language Test, he was not considered for appointment on the post of constable. Attributing delay and latches on the part of appellant, it is submitted that although the advertisement was published in the year, 2004 and in the mean-time as many as 3 merit lists were published, the appellant approached the Writ Court only in the year, 2009 after the 3rd merit list was published on 16.02.2009. Attributing delay and latches on the part of appellant, it is submitted that although the advertisement was published in the year, 2004 and in the mean-time as many as 3 merit lists were published, the appellant approached the Writ Court only in the year, 2009 after the 3rd merit list was published on 16.02.2009. The learned counsel has raised a serious objection as to maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that once the appellant participated in the selection process and failed, it was not open to him to challenge the selection process. He has also relied on decision rendered in “Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and Others” reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 and in “K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and Others”, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 . 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record of the case. 6. Clause 8 of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 is extracted below:–– (8) “Written Examination. (a) Written examination shall be taken of candidates successful in physical test and measurement. Educational qualification for all candidates shall be minimum seventh passed or above. 100 marks for written examination of class seven level shall be taken in the test. It shall be necessary to pass in it (test). But this test shall be only qualifying in nature and marks obtained in it shall not be taken into account while preparing the merit list. (b) Priority in the appointment shall be given to those candidates who are conversant with prevalent local/regional languages in the concerned district, against district level vacancies. Appointment shall be given to those candidates who are conversant with prevalent local languages in the state of Jharkhand, against state level vacancies. It shall be compulsory to obtain minimum 30 (thirty ) percent marks to the candidates belonging to Schedule Caste and Tribe and minimum 40 (forty) percent marks to all other candidates for being qualify (being passed) in written examination.” 7. The above Clause 8 clearly provides that the candidates who have qualified in the Physical Test were required to appear in the written test. The written test comprising 100 marks was qualifying only and marks obtained in the written test was not to be added while preparing the merit list. The above Clause 8 clearly provides that the candidates who have qualified in the Physical Test were required to appear in the written test. The written test comprising 100 marks was qualifying only and marks obtained in the written test was not to be added while preparing the merit list. However, it has been made clear that a candidate was required to pass the Written Test and for that cut-off mark of 30 % for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 40 % for other candidates was fixed. Similarly, para 7 of the Circular dated 12.11.2001 makes it mandatory for a candidate to pass the written test. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Answer Sheets for General Knowledge Paper as well as Regional Language Paper which has been brought on record by the appellant in the memo of appeal and submitted that it is clearly mentioned in both the papers that qualifying marks would be 40% and thus contended that it has been specifically brought to the notice of the candidates appearing in the examination that it was mandatory for the candidates to pass both the papers though, both papers were qualifying only. 9. It is not in dispute that Written Examination was to be conducted and the qualifying marks is also mentioned in the advertisement itself. The advertisement as well as the Circular dated 12.11.2001 clearly provide that it was mandatory for a candidate to qualify in the written test. Since the marks obtained in the Written Test was not to be considered while preparing the merit list, it is apparent that qualifying in the written test was mandatory otherwise holding the Written Test would not have served any purpose. Accordingly, we find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the additional condition of obtaining qualifying marks which was not mentioned in the Advertisement No. 01/2004 has been added and made mandatory. 10. From a bare reading of Clause 8 of the Advertisement No. 01/2004, we do not find that it would amount to changing the condition in paragraph no. 7 of Circular dated 12.11.2001 from a retrospective date. Clause 8 (kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 is in consonance with the Circular dated 12.11.2001. The Judgment in “A.A. Calton Vs. 10. From a bare reading of Clause 8 of the Advertisement No. 01/2004, we do not find that it would amount to changing the condition in paragraph no. 7 of Circular dated 12.11.2001 from a retrospective date. Clause 8 (kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 is in consonance with the Circular dated 12.11.2001. The Judgment in “A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and another” reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 1143 and in “P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others” reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC 405, referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, are not relevant for the issue involved in the present appeal. The issue which was involved in the cases before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the amended rules would be made applicable to the selection process already commenced and whether the rules which were amended subsequently invalidate selection already made, whereas in the present case, there is no amendment made in the Circular dated 12.11.2001. 11. We are also unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Clause 8 (kha) of the Advertisement No. 01/2004 only indicates that preference would be given to a candidate having knowledge in the regional language and it is nowhere provided either in the Advertisement or in the Circular dated 12.11.2001 that it is mandatory for a candidate to pass the Regional Language Test. It is clearly mentioned in the Advertisement as well in the Circular that Written Test would be conducted and the candidates were required to pass the Written Test. What would be the nature of the test was for the respondents to decide and the respondents for appointment on the post of constable decided to hold Written Test in General Knowledge and Regional Language. Since, it was decided by the respondents to hold a test in the regional language by way of clarification it was mentioned in the advertisement itself that persons having knowledge in the regional language would be given preference. The procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be said to be wholly fortuitous. 12. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the information provided to the appellant through R.T.I. and the facts brought by the respondents themselves during the writ proceeding, would clearly indicate that there was no requirement for a candidate to qualify in the Regional Language Test. 12. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the information provided to the appellant through R.T.I. and the facts brought by the respondents themselves during the writ proceeding, would clearly indicate that there was no requirement for a candidate to qualify in the Regional Language Test. Relying on the 3rd Merit List which was published on 16.02.2009, it is submitted that atleast two persons namely, Md. Sirajuddin and Md. Jawed who have not appeared in the Written Test at all, have been selected. 13. It appears that the appellant approached the Writ Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for his appointment as police constable. The specific case pleaded by the appellant was that another person with height 174.5 c.m. was appointed as constable whereas, the appellant having 177 c.m. height in O.B.C.-I Category was wrongly not selected. It further appears that on 27.08.2013, when the writ petition came to be listed for the first time under the category “Admission”, a plea was raised on behalf of the appellant that though terms of advertisement did not stipulate for minimum qualifying mark in regional language, respondents denied the appointment to the appellant on the post of constable on the ground that he did not qualify in Regional Language Test and therefore, the respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit. 14. Thus, we find that such contention was not raised by the appellant when the writ petition was filed. After the master chart was produced by the respondents by filing a supplementary counter-affidavit, the appellant raised such a plea. There is no material on record which would indicate that Md. Sirajuddin and Md. Jawed whose names appeared in the 3rd Merit List were finally selected and appointed on the post of constable. It is well-settled that the pleading in writ petition must be clear and by filing the supplementary affidavit a party to the proceeding cannot be permitted to add and enlarge the scope of the writ petition. Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and in the present case we find that though, the advertisement was issued in the year, 2004, the appellant approached this Court only in the year, 2009, after the 3rd Merit List was published on 16.02.2009. It is more then 10 years after the advertisement was issued. By now the selection process also must have been concluded and appointments made. It is more then 10 years after the advertisement was issued. By now the selection process also must have been concluded and appointments made. The learned Single Judge has taken note of Annexure-14 which was brought on record by the appellant in the writ proceeding by filing rejoinder affidavit dated 06.12.2012 from which it appeared that separate examination for regional language was held for the candidates and qualifying marks was prescribed for different categories of candidates. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ proceeding indicating that the appellant failed to obtain minimum qualifying mark in the Regional Language Paper and therefore, he was declared failed and consequently his case was not considered for appointment on the post of constable. In the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 30.09.2013. We find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference with order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal fails and it is dismissed.