JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexures P/1 and P/9 and further prayed for deleting the name of respondent No. 3 from the seniority list. It is further prayed that the petitioner be permitted to join on the post of question w.e.f. 10.10.2014. The cost of the litigation is also prayed for. 2. As per office note dated 7.4.2014, the respondent No. 3 is treated as served. 3. This matter was argued at length by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed written submissions also on the same grounds on which oral submissions were advanced. 4. The relevant facts for determination of the question involved in this case are that the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and other candidates submitted their candidature for the post of Guest Faculty (Sanskrit). The parties in the present case applied for the said post in Government Govind College, Seondha (Datia). Shri Mishra submits that the candidates, who passed 55 per cent marks in Sanskrit are eligible for consideration. The petitioner has five years experience to teach Graduate level classes. She has Ph.D. in Sanskrit, M.A. in Sanskrit Literature with 57 per cent marks, B.A. (Sanskrit Literature) in second division. The documents are filed as Annexure P-17. It is contended that respondent No. 3 is having following qualification:- The documents relating to respondent No. 3 are filed as Annexure P-19. It is contended that respondent No. 3 has passed the said examination from U.P.Sanskrit Education Board and Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya, Banaras. These examinations are not recognised by Madhya Pradesh Higher Education Department, Bhopal in its advertisement. 5. Shri Mishra contended that respondent No. 3 does not have essential qualification as per the advertisement. He submitted that respondent No. 3's candidature is submitted in a wrong subject and, therefore, his application is liable to be rejected in view of his own declaration mentioned in para 9 of written submissions. To elaborate, it is contended that as per Higher Education Department Circular dated 5.8.2014, the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Colleges are different than the qualifications prescribed in other general colleges. To elaborate, it is contended that as per Higher Education Department Circular dated 5.8.2014, the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Colleges are different than the qualifications prescribed in other general colleges. The qualification of respondent No. 3 is related to "Prachya Sanskrit" and, therefore, he is not eligible for a general post in the respondent- college, which is not a Sanskrit College. It is contended that the merit list for Prachya Sanskrit is separately prepared. In para 13 of the written submissions, the petitioner has narrated the dates and stages in which selection was conducted. It is contended that one Ms. Sandhya Dabre was selected and her name was there in the merit list but she did not join Seondha College. Second stage selection was conducted between 19.9.2014 to 7.10.2014. In this merit list, the name of respondent No. 3 was there but he did not join. In view of circular dated 30.9.2014, the name of respondent No. 3 should have been brought down because he did not join the post in question within the stipulated time. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 was favoured and was given back-door entry. In support of aforesaid submissions, clause 12 of circular dated 12.8.2014 is relied upon. Lastly, it is contended that the respondents have wrongly relied on Annexure R-1 which relates with examinations conducted by A.P. Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa. 6. Prayer is opposed by Shri Pravin Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate. He relied on various paragraphs of the return. 7. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute between the parties that eligibility conditions are prescribed for the purpose of guest faculty in circular dated 5.8.2014 (Annexure P/2). For the post of Lecturer, the qualification is prescribed as under:- Clause 3.4 deals with the eligibility of guest faculty in Sanskrit Colleges. 9. Learned counsel for the parties during the course of argument fairly stated that the post in question in other than Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya will be governed by eligibility conditions mentioned in clause 3.1.3 aforesaid. 10. The bone of contention of Shri I.K. Mishra is that the respondent No. 3 does not have qualification in Sanskrit. He has qualification in Prachya Sanskrit. However, a plain reading of clause 3.1.3 makes it clear that it does not distinguish between any subject like Sanskrit or Prachya Sanskrit. 10. The bone of contention of Shri I.K. Mishra is that the respondent No. 3 does not have qualification in Sanskrit. He has qualification in Prachya Sanskrit. However, a plain reading of clause 3.1.3 makes it clear that it does not distinguish between any subject like Sanskrit or Prachya Sanskrit. Unless the rule or advertisement makes it clear that the post in question was a specified post earmarked for a particular specialised subject, the aforesaid distinction is of no help to the petitioner. In other words, unless the rules or advertisement makes it clear that the post advertised was only for normal subject of Sanskrit and it makes it clear that the persons with 'Prachya Sanskrit' are deprived, the right of consideration of respondent No. 3 cannot be denied. So far circular dated 22.8.2007 is concerned, it at best makes it clear that in general colleges, the posts are of Sanskrit subject are there whereas in Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, the posts are of Prachya Sanskrit subject, which includes Vaidya, Jyotish, Grammer and Sanskrit Literature. It nowhere prescribes that a person having qualification in Prachya Sanskrit is debarred to submit his candidature for other than Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya. On perusal of the qualification certificate submitted by the respondent No. 3, it is clear that he is qualified candidate and possess Post-Graduation degree from Kashi Hindu Vishwavidyalaya. Admittedly, he has secured more marks than the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 secured 102.8 marks and is at serial No. 16 of the list whereas the petitioner is at No. 21 with 97 per cent marks. As per circular dated 21.9.1989, Annexure R/1, the Government has treated certain examinations conducted by Rewa Vishwavidyalaya as equivalent to certain examinations mentioned in first column of the said letter. 11. During the course of argument, Shri Mishra could not show any document to establish that the educational qualification from Banaras/UP is not valid in Madhya Pradesh. Thus, I am unable to hold that the respondent No. 3 was not eligible for consideration for the post in question. It is for the candidate to decide against which post he intends to submit his candidature. It was open for respondent No. 3 to submit his candidature for Sanskrit College also if he had qualification for the same. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise objection that he should have filed candidature for Sanskrit College only. It is for the candidate to decide against which post he intends to submit his candidature. It was open for respondent No. 3 to submit his candidature for Sanskrit College also if he had qualification for the same. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise objection that he should have filed candidature for Sanskrit College only. The petitioner is unable to show that respondent No. 3 was not eligible for the post in question. 12. So far the question of late joining of respondent No. 3 is concerned, in para 5.1 of the reply, the State made it clear that in second stage counselling, information could not be delivered to respondent No. 3. It was belatedly delivered and, therefore, he was permitted to join lateron. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to rebut the same. The petitioner has not filed any appointment order of respondent No. 3 etc. to show that he was required to join within a stipulated time and if he did not join, what will be the effect of it as per condition of the appointment order. Thus, on this ground also no interference can be made. 13. As analyzed above, I find no reason to interfere in the matter. Petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.