JUDGMENT : CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J. In the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court, the appellant is aggrieved by an order, dated 1.3.2013, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3163/2013, whereby a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed an application filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian, which had given rise to C.W.J.C. No. 3163/2013. 2. Before coming to the dispute involved in the present appeal, the relevant facts are required to be briefly noticed. For the purpose of selection of personnel for Probationary Officer/Management Trainee course in the Public Sector Banks, a Common Written Examination (CWE) is conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). The said examination is a prerequisite for selection to 19 participating Public Sector Banks including UCO Bank. The IBPS is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a Public Trust under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which has been authorized by the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) to hold the said Common Written Examination (CWE) for selection and appointment to the post of Probationary Officer/Management Trainee. Candidate, aspiring to join Public Sector Banks as Probationary Officer/Management Trainee, are essentially required to take the common written examination (CWE) held by the IBPS and those, who secure minimum qualifying marks in Common Written Examination (CWE), are given Score Cards. 3. Successful candidates in Common Written Examination (CWE), who have been issued Score Cards and who meet the stipulated eligibility criteria only can apply to any participating Banks quoting their Common Written Examination (CWE) scores. Each participating Bank (in the present case, UCO Bank) is required to individually shortlist candidates and carry out their own selection process, such as, Group Discussions and/or Interview, etc., for the final selection. 4. The appellant qualified in the said Common Written Examination (CWE) conducted by the IBPS. 5. The UCO Bank came out with an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment of 1100 Probationary Officers, in Junior Management Grade Scale-I (GMGS-I), in Generalist Cadre, on 7.2.2012. The controversy, in the present case, relates to eligibility criteria, as prescribed under Clause 2 of the said advertisement, with respect to minimum educational qualification, the relevant portion whereof reads thus: "Graduate in any discipline from a recognized University in pass course with 55% aggregate marks." (Emphasis is added) 6. The controversy, in the present case, relates to eligibility criteria, as prescribed under Clause 2 of the said advertisement, with respect to minimum educational qualification, the relevant portion whereof reads thus: "Graduate in any discipline from a recognized University in pass course with 55% aggregate marks." (Emphasis is added) 6. The appellant claims to have done her graduation in Sociology (Hons.) from Patna University and she is said to have scored 445 marks in Honours papers, which is 55.625%. She claims that having more than 55% of marks in Honours course at graduation level, she fulfills the minimum educational qualification as laid down in Clause 2 of the advertisement. 7. She has, however, been denied appointment on the ground that she has less than 55% marks, if her aggregate is taken into account considering her scores in other two pass course papers, i.e., History and Economics, at the graduation level. Her percentage of marks has been found to be 52.066% after including her score in subsidiary pass course and Honours papers. It is her case that the percentage of marks, at graduation level, ought to have been computed on the basis of her score in Honours papers and not in pass course papers. 8. Learned single Judge, having found no merit in the case, dismissed it by the order under appeal, dated 1.3.2013, in the light of another order passed by the learned single Judge on the same date in C.W.J.C. No. 3059/2013. 9. Mr. Bishwanath Upadhyay, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that once a joining letter was issued in favour of the appellant by UCO Bank after the appellant was allowed to participate in the process of selection, the respondents were estopped from declining to accept her joining. It is also his contention that no qualification, other than graduate pass, is prescribed for participating in the Common Written Examination (CWE) held by the IBPS and, therefore, the appellant's appointment could not have been refused on the ground that she did not have 55% of marks or more in aggregate in pass course. 10. Mr. It is also his contention that no qualification, other than graduate pass, is prescribed for participating in the Common Written Examination (CWE) held by the IBPS and, therefore, the appellant's appointment could not have been refused on the ground that she did not have 55% of marks or more in aggregate in pass course. 10. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Bank, on the other hand, has submitted that similar issue had arisen in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Allahabad Bank v. Manoj Kumar, in LPA No. 1187/2011, where the Division Bench of this Court has held in its judgment and order, dated 15.9.2011, that the terms of advertisement being unambiguous and clear laying down the requisite qualification, the Bank rightly took into account the aggregate marks obtained by the appellant at graduation level. 11. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondent Bank that it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications by UCO Bank that the graduate, in any discipline from a recognized University in "pass course" with 55% aggregate marks, would be the minimum educational qualification. Evidently, thus, only such persons, who held minimum 55% aggregate marks in pass course, were entitled to be considered for appointment. 12. In our view, the appellant cannot claim that since she had more than 55% marks in Honours course, she ought to have been appointed. We find from the advertisement that the Bank did not make any distinction in Honours subject and the subject of pass course for evaluating minimum percentage of marks in Clause 2 of the advertisement. 13. We do not find any merit in the submission advanced, on behalf of the appellant, that since no such condition was prescribed for appearing in Common Written Examination (CWE) held by the IBPS, no such condition ought to have been put in the advertisement issued by UCO Bank inviting applications. Learned Counsel for the Bank has rightly relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Allahabad Bank v. Manoj Kumar (supra), relevant portion of which reads thus: "We see no substance in the arguments advanced by Dr. Binay Kumar Singh. As we have recorded, the relevant term and condition of the advertisement is simple and unambiguous. Binay Kumar Singh. As we have recorded, the relevant term and condition of the advertisement is simple and unambiguous. The said term cannot be given any meaning other than the simple meaning that for computation of percentage, the marks secured in all papers attempted by the candidate must be considered. It is for the employer to decide the required qualification. If the Bank, as an employer, has not made any distinction between the honours degree and the other degree, the same cannot be read in the advertisement. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in holding that only marks obtained in the subjects which are offered in honours course should be considered for computation of percentage. The learned single Judge has also erred that the Bank having allowed the petitioner to take the competitive examination and having called the petitioner for interview, is estopped from declaring the petitioner ineligible for selection. Given the aforesaid pure and simple meaning to the terms of the advertisement, admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as Probationary Officer. The Bank cannot be compelled to consider the petitioner as eligible or qualified." 14. We have examined the Scheme for holding Common Written Examination (CWE) for recruitment of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees to 19 Public Sector Banks, which has been approved by 19 participating Public Sector Banks and the Managing Committee of the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) with the consent of the Government of India. It is easily discernible from the said Scheme that each participating Bank has liberty to individually shortlist the candidates and carry out their own selection process in final selection. It clearly mentions that each participating Bank is to individually issue a separate recruitment notification specifying their vacancies and stipulating eligibility criteria in terms of age, educational qualification (emphasis added), experience, minimum required level of IBPS score in each component, pass + total weighted score (if any) etc. 15. A candidate, on the basis of his scoreboard issued by the IBPS, cannot claim himself to be qualified, or otherwise entitled to, for appointment/recruitment in the participating Bank unless he/she satisfies the criteria laid down by the said Bank in the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Probationary Officers/ Management Trainees. 16. 15. A candidate, on the basis of his scoreboard issued by the IBPS, cannot claim himself to be qualified, or otherwise entitled to, for appointment/recruitment in the participating Bank unless he/she satisfies the criteria laid down by the said Bank in the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Probationary Officers/ Management Trainees. 16. Upon consideration of the materials on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that there is no legal or factual error in the judgment under appeal warranting our interference. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. The parties shall bear their own costs.