JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as Asha Sathi for Sindhekela sector. 2. The brief fact of the case is that in pursuance of an advertisement dated 04.12.2012 for the post of Asha Sathi for Sindhekela sector, the petitioner applied for the same post by furnishing the required documents like residential certificate, mark sheet of H.S.C. examination published in the internet with an undertaking to furnish the original hard copy at the time of scrutiny, as the same has not reached the petitioner till the time of application. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the application having been submitted properly along with all relevant documents, three selected candidates, who were engaged as Asha Sathi except the petitioner and one Rina Tandi, opposite party no.4, was engaged for Sindhekela sector, though she was not selected, as her incentive was less. 4. Being aggrieved with the illegal action of opposite party no.3, the petitioner appealed before the Chief District Medical Officer, Bolangir by filing representation, when it was not disposed of, she preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7759 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 7.5.2014 with a direction to take decision on the petitioner’s representation. The Chief District Medical Officer, Bolangir has rejected the representation vide order dated 12.06.2014 on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the original certificate in time. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that when the petitioner has submitted her certificate in support of passing secondary examination downloaded from the internet, rejection is arbitrary and illegal in view of the provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000 wherein it is provided that the document, if downloaded from the internet, has been said to be valid document. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.1 through the Assistant Manager, ASHA, NHM, Office of the C.D.M.O.-cum-District Mission Director, Bolangir wherein ground has been taken that pursuant to the advertisement, since the documents have not been annexed in support of the educational qualification, her candidature was rejected on the ground of specific condition mentioned in the notice inviting application wherein with the clear-cut stipulation that applications not having with required documents will be rejected by the committee. The authorities, after taking into consideration specific condition mentioned in the advertisement and considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted her application not along with H.S.C. mark sheet rather, one downloaded mark sheet has been submitted which was issued on 14.12.2012 by National Institute of Open Schooling, Government of India whereas the last date of receipt of application was 13.12.2012. The authorities, after going through the downloaded copy of the mark sheet, has found that she had submitted application on 12.12.2012 and the result of her Tenth Examination passed mark sheet is 14.12.2012 and as such, the selection committee has came to conclusion that under no circumstance, one can submit educational mark sheet before declaration of the results, taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the candidature of the petitioner has not found to be fit, accordingly rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that it is evident from the application filed by the petitioner dated 12.12.2012 that she has submitted Tenth Examination passed mark sheet published in the internet with an undertaking to submit the same at the time of selection. He further submits that the advertisement does not contain any condition that any candidate is to be given any extension of time for the purpose of submission of the certificate as required by the advertisement, to others and if this practice would be adopted, the specific condition mentioned in the advertisement would be said to be not followed by the selection committee and in that situation, the selection process will be said to suffer from unfairness and non-transparency. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the downloaded copy of the certificate is to be accepted by the authorities, there is no dispute about the fact, but the question is that when the downloaded copy of the certificate has been issued on 12.12.2012, but the result has been published on 14.12.2012. As such, the same creates doubts for the reason that the downloaded copy of the mark sheet in the internet would only be published after publication of the result. As such, the same creates doubts for the reason that the downloaded copy of the mark sheet in the internet would only be published after publication of the result. Here in this case, the authorities have came to conclusion that the tenth class result was published on 14.12.2012, but it has come in website prior to the publication of the result and accordingly, submitted by the petitioner along with her application on 12.12.2011 and on this very ground, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has given much emphasis to the provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Under the said Act, it is provided that the transactions carried out by means of electronic data are legally recognized. It is not in dispute that the provision of Information Technology Act is to be followed but after going through the contention of the parties, the candidature of the petitioner has not been rejected on that ground rather, it has been rejected on the grounds as discussed herein below. 10. Here in the instant case, the fact is not of accepting the downloaded mark sheet by the selection committee rather, the record suggest that the petitioner has submitted her application form along with the H.S.C. mark sheet downloaded from the internet on 12.12.2012 with an undertaking before the authorities to allow her to produce original mark sheet at the time of scrutiny of the original certificate while the last date of submission of form was on 13.12.2012. The authorities has given its reason for non-accepting the downloaded mark sheet, since they have observed by going through the mark sheet that her Tenth Examination passed mark sheet is dated 14.12.2012, then how the mark sheet has been downloaded in the website on 12.12.2012 and as such, they have came to the conclusion that the application is not along with the relevant documents as required as per the notice inviting the application. The authorities have further came to the conclusion while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, since the last date of submission of application form was on 13.12.2012 along with all relevant documents but the result of Tenth Examination which was published on 14.12.2012, as such, submission of the downloaded copy of the mark sheet along with her application on 12.12.2012 is not found to be accepted and accordingly, rejected it in terms of the condition mentioned in the advertisement to the effect that the application not having the required documents and incomplete application will be rejected by the committee. 11. It is settled that when there is any stipulation made in the advertisement, it has strictly to be adhered to. In the instant case, the other candidates have submitted the application forms along with the relevant documents and they have found to be eligible in the selection process. So far the case of the petitioner, she has not submitted her mark sheet as has been submitted by the other candidates, which has been found to be irregular. 12. The question is that when the other candidates submitted their application forms in accordance with the conditions of advertisement, why the petitioner will be given premium, if the application submitted by her is not as per the conditions of the advertisement. If the candidature of the petitioner would have been accepted on the ground of an undertaking given by her to produce the original certificate at the time of scrutiny of the original certificate, it would amount to give premium to the petitioner, which cannot be said to be the fair and transparent. Moreover, the other selected candidates, if found to be eligible in all respect, why they will be ignored in order to consider the candidature of the petitioner, even though she has got more point than the other candidates. 13. It is settled that mere securing more points or more marks cannot make any candidate eligible to be selected rather, the foremost point is the eligibility and if the candidate is not eligible, his/her right for engagement will not be there. 14. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason mentioned hereinabove, has found that the selection committee has not erred in taking the decision. 15. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.