JUDGMENT L.K. Mohapatra; ACJ. This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.743 of 2010. Respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal were the petitioners in the writ petition and present appellants were respondents 14 and 19 respectively in the writ petition. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the writ petition is that in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India, Manipur Health Service Rules 1982 (herein after called the ‘Rules’) had been framed in the year 1982. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides for different grades such as Grade-I, II, III, IV & V. Rule 7 of the said Rules provides for mode of recruitment. It is provided under Rule 7 Sub-rule (1)(a) that direct recruitment to any grade of the service including specialist post in the grade shall be made on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission (for short ‘MPSC’). The requisite qualification for direct recruitment to various grades of the service are specified in Schedule-II of the Rules amended in 1991. Under the amended Rules, the earlier grades were amended and classified as specialist grade, grade-I, II, III & IV and MHS Grade-V. Rule 16 of the said Rules empowers the Governor of Manipur to relax any provision of the said Rules in consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission to such extent as may be necessary to ensure satisfactory working of the Rules or to make any inequitable result but there is a rider to the extent that the power of relaxation shall not be exercised so as to relax the essential qualification prescribed for appointment by any of the methods specified in the Rules. 3. The Manipur Public Service Commission issued an advertisement bearing No.7 dated 12.10.2006 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to 26 posts of Medical Officers in Grade-IV of the Manipur Health Service. The essential qualifications prescribed under the advertisement are the essential qualifications for appointment by direct recruitment to MHS Grade-IV as mentioned in Schedule-II of 1982 Rules. The closing date for issue and receipt of the application forms, determination of age and completion of rotating internship was 15.11.2006. 4. In supersession of the advertisement 12.10.2006, MPSC issued another advertisement dated 12.2.2010 for recruitment of 401 MHS Grade-IV (Medical Officer) Officers. The closing date for issue and receipt of the application forms, determination of age and completion of rotating internship was 15.11.2006. 4. In supersession of the advertisement 12.10.2006, MPSC issued another advertisement dated 12.2.2010 for recruitment of 401 MHS Grade-IV (Medical Officer) Officers. The essential qualifications for appointment to the said MHS Grade-IV post mentioned in the said advertisement dated 12.2.2010 are the same essential qualifications prescribed for MHS Grade-IV mentioned in Schedule-II of the 1982 Rules. However, the closing date, issue and receipt of the application forms, determination of age and completion of rotating internship was 31.3.2010. It was further provided in the said advertisement dated 12.2.2010 that those applicants who had submitted their applications in response to the advertisement No.7 dated 12.10.2006 were not required to apply again if their forms had not been rejected for lack of essential qualifications. 5. In partial modification of the above advertisement, another advertisement was issued on 27.3.2010. In the modified advertisement, it was provided that the candidates who were yet to complete the compulsory rotating internship were also eligible for admission to the examination but appointment orders in respect of selected candidates can only be issued after completion of the compulsory rotating internship. The last date for submission of application was extended up to 15.4.2010. This modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 was the subject matter of challenge in the writ application. 6. The Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) filed counter affidavit stating therein that the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 was issued in pursuance of the direction of the State Government under the letter of the Dy. Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) dated 26.3.2010 directing the MPSC to allow the Doctors undergoing “Internship” to appear in the Manipur Health Service recruitment examination subject to the condition that the selected candidates will be appointed only after completion of Internship. It was also contended in the said counter affidavit that if the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the said advertisement dated 27.3.2010, they should have challenged the said modified advertisement immediately. After appearing in the recruitment test held for 401 posts of MHS Grade-IV they cannot now turn around to challenge the said advertisement. It was also contended in the said counter affidavit that if the writ petitioners were aggrieved by the said advertisement dated 27.3.2010, they should have challenged the said modified advertisement immediately. After appearing in the recruitment test held for 401 posts of MHS Grade-IV they cannot now turn around to challenge the said advertisement. 6.1 The State respondents also filed a separate counter affidavit stating therein that it is the accepted norm all over the country and as per the Medical Council of India Rules that those Doctors who are undergoing internship are allowed to appear in recruitment test such as Combined Medical Service Examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. A representation dated 25.3.2009 was submitted by the All Manipur Intern Doctors’ Association to the Government for allowing those who were undergoing internship to appear in the said examination and the Government accepted the request and informed the MPSC that Doctors undergoing internship should also be allowed to appear in the recruitment examination subject to the condition that those who are selected for appointment shall be given appointment only after completion of internship. The present appellants and another also filed a counter affidavit objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioners having appeared in the examination cannot now turn round and question the selection. 7. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order came to a conclusion that by way of modified advertisement the essential qualification for appearing in the examination could not have been relaxed and the State Government could not have allowed the Doctors undergoing internship to appear in the examination before completion of the internship. Holding thus the learned Single Judge set aside the selection of all private respondents therein except respondents 7 and 34 who had completed internship by the time of submission of applications. 8. Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment and order solely on one ground. It was contended by Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the writ petitioners were aware of the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 but never challenged the same and participated in the recruitment test. 8. Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment and order solely on one ground. It was contended by Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the writ petitioners were aware of the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 but never challenged the same and participated in the recruitment test. Only when they found that they have not been selected in the recruitment test this writ application was filed at their instance challenging the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010, which is not permissible under the law. According to Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants once the writ petitioners took the recruitment test without objecting to the relaxation granted under modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010, it is no more option for them to turn round and challenge the said advertisement. 8.1. Shri Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the MPSC as well as Shri S. Nepolean Singh, learned State counsel appearing for State respondents supported the submissions made by Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 9. Shri A. Bimal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners who are principal respondents in this writ appeal drew attention of the Court to the relevant Rules and submitted that the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 was in contravention of the Rules and therefore no such relaxation can be granted to the Doctors who are undergoing internship for the purpose of appearing in the recruitment test. It was, further, contended by Shri A. Bimal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that when the advertisement dated 27.3.2010 is in contravention of the Rules, the same can be challenged at any stage and it was not necessary for the writ petitioners to challenge the same before the recruitment test was conducted. 10. On detailed scrutiny of the documents attached to the writ petition and in this writ appeal, we find that MPSC issued an advertisement on 12.10.2006 inviting application for appointment to 26 posts of Medical Officer in MHS Grade-IV. The essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement are quoted below: “ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS: i) Possession of a recognized Medical qualification included in the First or Second Schedule or Part-II of the Third Schedule (other than Licentiate qualification) to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement are quoted below: “ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS: i) Possession of a recognized Medical qualification included in the First or Second Schedule or Part-II of the Third Schedule (other than Licentiate qualification) to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Holders of educational qualifications included in Part-II of the Third Schedule should fulfil the condition as stipulated in Sub- Section (3) of Section 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. ii) Completion of Compulsory Rotating Internship.” The closing date for receipt of application form, determining of age and completion of rotating internship was 15.11.2006. It appears that no further action was taken by MPSC on the basis of the said advertisement dated 12.10.2006. Again, on 12.2.2010, another advertisement was issued by MPSC superseding the earlier one inviting applications for appointment to 401 posts of Medical Officer in MHS Grade-IV. The essential qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement are quoted below: “ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS: i) Possession of a recognized Medical qualification included in the First or Second Schedule or Part-II of the Third Schedule (other than Licentiate qualification) to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Holders of educational qualifications included in Part-II of the Third Schedule should fulfil the condition as stipulated in Sub- Section (3) of Section 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. ii) Completion of Compulsory Rotating Internship.” The last date for receipt of application forms, determining of age and essential qualifications was 31.3.2010. In partial modification of the said advertisement dated 12.2.2010, another advertisement was issued on 27.3.2010. The essential qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement dated 12.2.2010 were modified and last date for receipt of application forms, determining of age and essential qualifications was 15.4.2010. The relaxed essential qualification as prescribed in the advertisement dated 27.3.2010 is quoted below: “A candidate who has yet to complete the compulsory rotating internship is also educationally eligible for admission to the examination but on selection he/she will be appointed only after he/she has completed the compulsory rotating internship.” The first question for consideration is whether the Rules permit such relaxation as prescribed in the advertisement dated 27.3.2010. 11. The Manipur Health Service Rules, 1982 came into force in the year 1982. An amendment was made to the said Rules in the year 1991 and gazette nonfiction was published on 12.7.2011. Rule 16 of the 1982 Rules is quoted below: “16. 11. The Manipur Health Service Rules, 1982 came into force in the year 1982. An amendment was made to the said Rules in the year 1991 and gazette nonfiction was published on 12.7.2011. Rule 16 of the 1982 Rules is quoted below: “16. Relaxation:- The Governor may, in consultation with Commission, relax any provision of these Rules to such extent as may be necessary to ensure satisfactory working of these Rules or to remove any inequitable results. Provided that the power shall not be exercised so as to relax essential qualifications prescribed for appointment by any of the methods specified in these rules (including promotion) or the provisions regarding pension and age of retirement. As is evident from the said Rules, the Governor may in consultation with the Commission relax any provision of the Rules to such extent as may be necessary to ensure satisfactory working of the Rules or to remove any inequitable results. The proviso to the said Rules, however, prescribes that the said power of relaxation shall not be exercised so as to relax essential qualifications prescribed for appointment by any of the methods specified in the Rules (including promotion) or the provisions regarding pension and age of retirement. 12. Rule 7 of the 1982 Rules provides for method of recruitment. Undisputedly, the post of Medical Officer is in Grade-IV of Manipur Health Services. On perusal of the 1982 Rules, before amendment, it appears that there were five grades, i.e. Grade-I, II, III, IV & V. By way of amendment in July, 1991, Grade IV and Grade V were merged into one Grade, i.e. Grade-IV. In the 1982 Rules for appointment to Grade V post, a candidate is required to have Medical qualifications included in the First or Second Schedule or Part-II of the Third Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and should have also completed the compulsory rotating internship. By way of amendment in July 1991, the said educational qualifications and requirement of completion of internship had not been changed. Therefore, after merger of Grade-IV and Grade-V into one Grade, i.e. Grade-IV, the qualifications prescribed in Schedule-II of the 1982 Rules in respect of Grade-V remained the same. Therefore, in order to submit an application for recruitment to the post of Medical Officer in Manipur Health Service Grade-IV, a candidate was required to complete the compulsory rotating internship. Therefore, after merger of Grade-IV and Grade-V into one Grade, i.e. Grade-IV, the qualifications prescribed in Schedule-II of the 1982 Rules in respect of Grade-V remained the same. Therefore, in order to submit an application for recruitment to the post of Medical Officer in Manipur Health Service Grade-IV, a candidate was required to complete the compulsory rotating internship. Therefore, in view of the proviso to Rule 16, the power of relaxation can not be exercised so as to relax essential qualifications prescribed for appointment by any of the methods specified in the Rules. We are, therefore, of the view that the advertisement dated 27.3.2010 was in contravention of Rule 16 of the 1982 Rules. In this connection, a submission was made by Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that such relaxation had been granted subject to the condition that the appointment order would be issued only after completion of the internship. Therefore, in fact although a Doctor while doing internship is selected to the post, he cannot get appointment so long as he does not complete the internship. According to Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the relaxation has not affected the writ petitioners. We are unable to accept the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants considering the fact that if the Rules prohibited exercise of power of relaxation in relation to educational qualifications, no such relaxation can be granted by exercising powers under Rule 16 of Rules of 1982. Had the essential qualifications required for appointment to the said post not been relaxed, the appellants could not have appeared in the test and therefore their selection for appointment to Medical Officer would not arise. 13. The second question raised before the Single Judge and in this appeal is that the writ petitioners having appeared in the examination now cannot turn round to challenge the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 granting relaxation in respect of educational qualification. In this connection, reliance is made on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) –Vs – Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706. In this connection, reliance is made on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) –Vs – Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706. In the said case, it was held by the Apex Court that where the material date for determining is the last date for receipt of the applications, a candidate not possessing the requisite qualification on that day, although acquiring the same by the date of selection, is nonetheless is ineligible. Therefore, appointment of such a candidate is illegal. In the case of Rajkumar & Ors –Vs – Shakti Raj & Ors. reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527 , the question of locus standi to challenge the selection was considered. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Apex Court rendered the following findings: “16. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is stopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” 14. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” 14. In view of the above two decisions and having held that the modified advertisement dated 27.3.2010 relaxing essential qualifications is in contravention of Rule 16 of the 1982 Rules, we find no justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.