ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Punjab National Bank, whereby his appointment to the post of Armed Guard, inspite of his selection for the post has been refused on the ground that he did not fulfill the educational qualification as laid down in the advertisement inviting application for such post. Educational qualification, as per the said advertisement, which is Annexure-C to supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents Bank is “passed in 10th standard or its equivalent and not studied beyond 12th standard with basic reading/writing knowledge of English. 2. There are certain facts which are not in dispute. The selection for the post of Security Guard was initiated with a communication to the Director General (re-settlement), Zila Sainik Board, Ara, (Bhojpur) dated 08.11.2011. The said communication contains, inter-alia, the eligibility criteria and the process of selection. The selection is based on interview. It is not the case of either side that the said recruitment was open to public, rather it was confined to the ex-servicemen. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 19.10.1987 in Indian Army and he retired after completing 22 years of service on 01.11.2009 as Hawildar. Petitioner’s case is that he hold Madhyama certificate issued by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, which is equivalent to Matriculation. Reliance has been placed in this regard upon Annexure-6 issued by the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, as well as a resolution of the Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar taken on 11.01.1999. The grievance of the petitioner is that after his selection, appointment letter was issued on 20.04.2012 but subsequently he was not permitted to join and by the impugned letter dated 14.07.2012, it has been communicated that the petitioner has been declared disqualified for selection as the Madhyama examination conducted by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board is not recognized by Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending therein that had the petitioner passed the Matriculation examination from one of the Boards recognized by the council of Boards of Schools Education in India, he could have been appointed on the basis of equivalence of qualification as per the advertisement/letter dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure-C). 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending therein that had the petitioner passed the Matriculation examination from one of the Boards recognized by the council of Boards of Schools Education in India, he could have been appointed on the basis of equivalence of qualification as per the advertisement/letter dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure-C). It has been contended in the counter affidavit that the Madhyama examination held by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board is not recognized by the Councils of Boards of School Education in India and, therefore, Madhyama certificate held by the petitioner cannot be treated to be equivalent as per the said advertisement dated 08.1.2011. 5. From the communication dated 08.11.2011 addressed to the Director General (Re-settlement), Zila Sainik Board, Ara, Bhojpur, it appears that it is not mentioned in the said advertisement that the certificate of equivalent educational qualification, as mentioned in its advertisement should have been issued by one of the Boards recognized by the council of Boards of School Education in India. It has not been disputed by the respondents that Madhyama has been treated to be equivalent to Matriculation by the State Government of Bihar. Reliance has, however, been placed by the order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 06.01.2012 passed in LPA no.1271 of 2010 so as to contend that this Court refused to interfere in the matter as the certificate of Madhyama was found not to be recognized by the Union of India in respect of selection to the post of Constable. 6. The terms of advertisement and eligibility criteria, as prescribed in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not clear from the said order. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the Bank that the petitioner misled selection Board by writing his qualification as “Matric” in his application and treating him to be a Matric he was allowed to participate in the process of selection and, accordingly, the appointment letter was issued. Only in course of verification of the documents it was learnt that he did not have the 10th certificate or any certificate equivalent to it issued by one of the Boards recognized by the Council of Boards of School Education in India. Learned counsel for the Bank also submits that the petitioner has not passed 10th examination or any examination equivalent to it. 7. Learned counsel for the Bank also submits that the petitioner has not passed 10th examination or any examination equivalent to it. 7. Having heard rival submissions on behalf of the parties and having perused the advertisement I come to a conclusion that it was not specific in the advertisement itself that certificate of 10th Examination or equivalent qualification as required therein must have been issued by one of the Boards recognized by the Council of Boards of School Education in India. It is not the case that the Board had issued certificate of Madhyama in favour of the petitioner has no recognition and it has been recognized by the State of Bihar as a qualification equivalent to Matric. It is not in dispute that Matriculation certificate is equivalent to 10th certificate. 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not have been denied his appointment on such ground. The plea that because the Banks are run under the control of the Government of India and, therefore, Government of India Circular are only binding on the Bank for the purpose of education and for the reason the decision of the State Government of Bihar recognizing Madhyama as equivalent to Matriculation is not binding upon the Bank, is not acceptable to the Court. It is open to an employer to lay down eligibility condition and qualification. The matter would have been entirely different had it been mentioned in the advertisement itself that the candidates having certificate of 10th examination or equivalent issued by Boards recognized by the Council of Boards School Education in India or Government of India only will be considered, the matter would have been different. In my opinion, the employer cannot go beyond the terms of advertisement and is bound by the terms of advertisement. 9. In view of the above, the impugned letter dated 14.07.2012 passed by the then Manager, Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Department Section, Circle Office, Ara is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case again treating the qualification of the petitioner of Madhyama as equivalent to Matriculation, such certificate having been issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and recognized as equivalent to Matriculation by the Government of Bihar. 10. This application is allowed accordingly.