JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the decision making process undertaken by the respondent no. 2 pursuant to Advertisement No. 7581, dated 7th November, 2015, so far as it relates to appointment on the post of Lecturer under the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology to the extent respondent no. 4 has been declared as a successful candidate, especially in view of the fact that the respondent no. 4 has been wrongly awarded the highest marks contrary to the norms specified by the respondent no. 2 itself. Further prayer has been made to quash the letter of appointment/offer of appointment issued in favour of respondent no. 4 by the respondent no. 2 on the post of Lecturer and to grant appointment to the petitioner in the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology under the Dental Institute of the RIMS pursuant to the Advertisement No. 7581, dated 7.11.2015 in view of the fact that petitioner is the most eligible candidate as per the norms prescribed by the respondent no. 2. 3. The facts of the case giving rise to this application is that an advertisement being Advertisement No. 7581, dated 7.11.2015 had been published in the Website inviting applications along with complete Bio-data for filling up the post under different departments of Dental Institute of the respondent-RIMS. The qualification for the post of Lecturer had been prescribed as "MDS in concerned subject with 3 years' teaching experience as Tutor/Senior Resident in concerned subject". The candidates were also required to submit details of the papers published by the candidates in State, National and International Journals. Further, in the Advertisement, vide Clause-18, it was clearly provided, inter alia, that "the age and experience of the candidate shall be counted as on 30.11.2015". Petitioner as well as other candidates applied for the same and were called for interview. Pursuant to the Interview Letter dated 14.3.2016, petitioner was directed to be present for interview on 1.4.2016 along with the documentary evidences in support of his qualification, experience and research works etc. During the course of interview, it was informed to the candidates that the marks would be allotted for the academic qualification of the candidates, being 70 points out of the total 100 marks and 30 marks would be awarded for the interview. During the course of interview, it was informed to the candidates that the marks would be allotted for the academic qualification of the candidates, being 70 points out of the total 100 marks and 30 marks would be awarded for the interview. The candidates were further informed that the candidates would be allotted marks in the following manner: (i) Maximum 25 points/marks on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in BDS Examination; (ii) Maximum 10 points/marks for having Degree of MDS in concerned specialty subject; (iii) It was pointed out that 2 points/ marks would be deducted for such candidates who have failed in MDS examination; (iv) Maximum 15 points/marks would be awarded for Articles/journals published during the qualifying period. Each publication made in International Journal was to carry 4 points/marks, whereas publications made in National Journals were to carry 3 points/marks. After the interview, the results were published vide Memo No. 10370, dated 18.8.2016 wherein' Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma (Respondent No. 4) had been shown to be selected for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology. No information was given by the respondents-RIMS about the mode and manner in which marks were awarded to the petitioner and/or respondent no. 4 and other candidates and even details of the marks awarded to the petitioner and other candidates were not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under RTI Act, 2005 on 25.8.2016 asking about the marks/points obtained by the candidates who had appeared for interview. The information asked for by the petitioner was not supplied to him and under the said circumstances, petitioner preferred First Appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter, partial information was provided to him in the form of tabular sheet containing marks obtained by each candidate. From the information furnished by the respondents, the petitioner could come to know that he was awarded 49.05 whereas respondent no. 4 was awarded 49.85 marks out of 70 marks. However, petitioner was awarded only 15 marks in interview whereas respondent no. 4 was awarded 21 marks out of 30 marks. When petitioner again sought for information under RTI regarding segregated marks given to each candidates for academics, it was transpired that respondent no. 4 was awarded 8 marks out of maximum 15 marks for publication. 4. However, petitioner was awarded only 15 marks in interview whereas respondent no. 4 was awarded 21 marks out of 30 marks. When petitioner again sought for information under RTI regarding segregated marks given to each candidates for academics, it was transpired that respondent no. 4 was awarded 8 marks out of maximum 15 marks for publication. 4. Petitioner is aggrieved by the deliberate manipulation on the part of respondents-RIMS to favour respondent no. 4 as he was given high marks in the interview. The research articles of the respondent no. 4 had been published on 31.3.2016 and 30.3.2016 i.e. beyond the cut-off date and as such, the same could not be the ground for awarding higher marks to the respondent no. 4. As case of the petitioner was not considered and respondent no. 4 was illegally and arbitrarily considered and letter of appointment was offered, petitioner has knocked door of this Court challenging the appointment of respondent No.4. 5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that in spite of the fact that the Articles prepared by the respondent no. 4 had been published in the Journals after the qualifying date i.e. 30.11.2015, the said Articles had been considered at the time of Interview and 8 marks had been awarded to the respondent no. 4 on the basis of said publications, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the process adopted by the respondents themselves. In course of his arguments, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia drew attention of this Court towards Clause-18 of the Advertisement which clearly provides that "the age and experience of the candidate shall be counted as on 30.11.2015" and as such, the qualifying period under the Advertisement was prescribed as 30.11.2015 and any experience or qualification beyond the period 30.11.2015, is nullity. Learned counsel submitted that no appointment can be given de hors the rules. Learned counsel submitted that any qualification, publication or degree obtained beyond the cut-off date, which in the instant case is 30.11.2015, is nullity and should not have been considered. Learned counsel further submitted that even interpolations and/or overwriting has been made in the marks awarded to one or the other candidates. There is absolutely no reason as to why there would be overwriting in the mark-sheet of one or the other candidates. The process of selection adopted by the respondent no. Learned counsel further submitted that even interpolations and/or overwriting has been made in the marks awarded to one or the other candidates. There is absolutely no reason as to why there would be overwriting in the mark-sheet of one or the other candidates. The process of selection adopted by the respondent no. 2 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that from the information supplied under RTI, it would be evident that in the application form of the respondent no. 4, he had not mentioned about any of the papers published in international journal and as such, the same should not have been considered at the time of interview. Since the respondent no. 4 had been awarded 8 marks in respect of its alleged two international publications which were published in international journals on 31.3.2016 and 30.3.2016 and the articles were submitted by the respondent no. 4 at the time of interview i.e. on 1.4.2016, the same should not have been considered by the Interview Board and thereby, the petitioner could have been selected on the post of Lecturer under the Department of Periodontology & Oral Implantology. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the additional 8 marks in respect of alleged international publication, admittedly made after the cutoff date, totally changed the scenario and respondent no. 4 has been illegally appointed, which is not tenable in the eye of law and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia has placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and further argued that the Selection Committee cannot go beyond. the advertisement and in the instant case, the Selection Committee had crossed the jurisdiction by giving go-by to the cut-off date and the advertisement by accepting the extra qualification/publications in course of interview. It has further been argued that the rules of game could not be changed when the game is over. In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. Gaqodia relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. reported in JT 2009(S) SC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the "Selection Committee cannot go beyond advertisement". In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. Gaqodia relies on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. reported in JT 2009(S) SC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the "Selection Committee cannot go beyond advertisement". Learned counsel has further relied in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 1470 and in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. reported in (2013)4 SCC 540 . Mr. Gadodia emphatically argued that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily taken into consideration those publications of the respondent no. 4 which had not been disclosed at the time of filling up the application form. Learned counsel further submitted that these publications, even if of great importance, had not been published before the cut-off date and as such, the publications or qualifications beyond the qualifying period, cannot be considered. Mr. Gadodia has further relied in the case of Yogesh Kumar and Others vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Others reported in (2003)3 SCC 548 and submitted that recruitment to public services should be made strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and recruitment rules. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Learned counsel further relied in the case of Bishnu Biswas and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2014)5 SCC 774 [: 2014(2) JLJR (SC)276]. 6. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the RIMS argues that in the advertisement, as per Rules, the minimum eligibility was fixed as "MDS and teaching experience of 3 years". Mr. Rajesh Kumar further argued that presentation, publication, acceptance of publication and other materials which were not submitted with the application form, was accepted on the date of interview and after scrutiny, the marks had been allotted for the same to the eligible candidates according to their performance, expertise, qualification, publications etc. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had also not submitted copies of publications etc. with the application form and had submitted the same on the date and time of interview. Copies of publications of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had also not submitted copies of publications etc. with the application form and had submitted the same on the date and time of interview. Copies of publications of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 were duly accepted on the date of interview and after scrutiny, marks were accordingly awarded to them. It is evident from the facts that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and no relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in considering appointment of respondent no. 4 which has been done as per the advertisement and in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sinha argued that the rules are not on record. Mr. Sinha submitted that 30.11.2015 is the cut-off date for the purpose of experience and age. Paper publication is not the qualification rather it is the suitability and it cannot be termed as eligibility criteria. Paper publications are sine-qua-non as far as eligibility/suitability criteria are concerned. Mr. Sinha further argued that contention of the petitioner is completely misconceived and not well founded. Paper publication cannot be said to be part of the experience. Experience only refers to the teaching experience. In absence of any stipulation in the advertisement that the paper publications after 30.11.2015 would not be considered, it was totally open to the Selection Committee to consider the same and consequently allot marks over the same. Mr. Sinha drew attention of this Court towards award of marks to the respondent no. 4 for paper publication, as argued by the petitioner that the same amounts to changing of rule of game after the game had begun. The said principles of law is not applicable in the instant case. It cannot be said to be a straightjacket formulae but has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of: (i) Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India-(2013)14 SCC 623 [: 2013(3) JLJR (SC)559] [Para-13]; (ii) University Grants Commission vs. Neha Anil Bobde (2013)10 SCC 519 [:2014(1) JLJR (SC)512] [Paras-25-31]; (iii) Ritesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-(201 0) 10 SCC 677 [Para26]. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of: (i) Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India-(2013)14 SCC 623 [: 2013(3) JLJR (SC)559] [Para-13]; (ii) University Grants Commission vs. Neha Anil Bobde (2013)10 SCC 519 [:2014(1) JLJR (SC)512] [Paras-25-31]; (iii) Ritesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh-(201 0) 10 SCC 677 [Para26]. Learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in appointment of respondent no. 4 as he has been appointed in accordance with law and he has been found to be most suitable candidate for appointment after scrutiny of papers, considering experience, publication of journals and other things. Since respondent no. 4 was found to be most suitable candidate, he has been appointed and as such, instant writ petition merits dismissal. Petitioner after being unsuccessful has approached this Court on false and frivolous grounds, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the records as well as the Judgments relied upon by the parties. The issue to be decided in the instant case is; "WHETHER THE ACCEPTANCE AND CONSIDERATION OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION AT THE TIME OF INTERVIEW CAN BE ALLOWED OR NOT?" As per Clause-18, experience means only teaching experience and paper publication cannot be considered to be the teaching experience and any paper publication at the time of interview as extra qualification, was rightly accepted by the Selection Committee. I do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by the respondents in acceptance of those paper publications at the time of interview and awarding marks on that. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ritesh Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677 , para-26 has held that- "26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right merely errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the Court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner." In the case of Naushan Anwar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2014)11 SCC 203 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that- “. .. ... such being the case, the normal rule that candidates must satisfy the conditions of eligibility on the date of the applications will have to be applied liberally so as to prevent injustice to candidates who possessed the requisite degree qualification but such qualification required recognition by another statutory authority which came during the selection process but was effective from a date earlier than the date on which the applications were made." In Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India-(2013)14 SCC 623 [: 2013(3) JLJR (SC)559] [Para-13] it has been held that- "... ... ... In the absence of any rule on this aspect in the first instance, this does not amount to changing the "rules of the game". The High Court has rightly held that it is not a situation where securing of minimum marks was introduced which was not stipulated in the advertisement, standard was fixed for the purpose of selection. Therefore, it is not a case of changing the rules of the game. On the contrary, in the instant case a decision is taken to give appointment to only those who fulfilled the benchmark prescribed. Therefore, it is not a case of changing the rules of the game. On the contrary, in the instant case a decision is taken to give appointment to only those who fulfilled the benchmark prescribed. The fixation of such benchmark is permissible in law." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of University Grants Commission and Another vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), reported in (2013)10 SCC 519 [:2014(1) JLJR (SC)512] has held at para-31- "31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysare vs. C.D. Gavinda Raa, Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities and Colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is required in the instant writ petition. There is no illegality or infirmity committed by the respondents in appointment of respondent no. 4. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is required in the instant writ petition. There is no illegality or infirmity committed by the respondents in appointment of respondent no. 4. The entire selection and appointment process, as it appears from the records, has been done after following the settled principles of law, rules, guidelines as envisaged in the advertisement. There is neither departure from the rules, as alleged by the petitioner nor any change of rule and as such, it cannot be inferred that the respondent no. 4 had been appointed de hors the rules. It was open to the respondents to consider case of candidates regarding paper publication at the time of interview. It is not a case that after the interview was over, paper publication (international publication) was taken into consideration by the Board and as such, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the articles of respondent no. 4 were published in the Journal after the qualifying date and were considered at the time of interview and marks were awarded on the basis of said publication is not acceptable by this Court. In absence of any stipulation regarding cut-off date in the advertisement, it can be comfortably said that 30.11.2015 is not the cut-off date for the purpose of paper publication and any reliance on such cut-off date, cannot be considered. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the process of selection regarding the consideration of international paper publication at the time of interview. It has been held in catena of decisions that even at the time of interview the papers can be considered and suitable marks may be awarded. There is no violation of any statutory provisions and as such, no interference is required in the instant writ petition. 11. In view of aforesaid, this writ petition merits dismissal. There shall be no order as to costs.