JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the part of the advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 and 06.09.2017 (Annexures-3 & 4), published by respondent-RIMS, Ranchi for appointment of Tutors in different Branches/ Department wherein the minimum educational qualification was post-graduate degree in concerned subject. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview for appointment to the post of Tutor in the Department of Oral & Maxilofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner has passed her Secondary School Examination in the year 2002 and thereafter took admission for the course of BDS and finally passed the same in the year 2012 and for which a passing certificate was awarded to her. Thereafter, the petitioner took admission in MDS (Master of Dental Sciences) at Awadh Dental College and Hospital, Jamshedpur and had passed the said examination on 24.07.2017 and a certificate to that effect was also issued in her favour. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before she could have declared passed in MDS Examination, 2017, the respondent-authorities have come-up with an advertisement on 28.03.2017 for appointment of Tutor in different Departments including four posts in the Department of Oral & Maxilofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology. As the petitioner was in final year of MDS Course, had applied for the post of Tutor under Oral & Maxilofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology. The application of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and she was called for the interview to be held on 06.09.2017 but before her appearance before the Interview Board, the respondents have informed the petitioner that inadvertently, the interview letter was issued in her favour and as such, the same has been recalled. Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. R.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that respondents cannot be allowed to differentiate the candidates who have passed the MDS Course and those who are appearing in the final year examination of the MDS Course for the purpose of appearing in the interview and as such, the petitioner is eligible for appearing in the interview. Mr. R.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that respondents cannot be allowed to differentiate the candidates who have passed the MDS Course and those who are appearing in the final year examination of the MDS Course for the purpose of appearing in the interview and as such, the petitioner is eligible for appearing in the interview. Learned counsel further argues that the conditions imposed by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to appear in interview on the date of interview itself, is not justified in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that except the RIMS, all other Hospitals are allowing the appearing candidates to participate in the recruitment process and have issued interview letters, which is also evident from the advertisement published by the Govt. of Delhi in different Hospitals under its jurisdiction. The present vacancy has been advertised initially in the year 2016 and then no advertisements were made and thereafter, the same vacancy was extended/ supplemented in the month of February, 2017. Learned counsel further argues that the act of respondents clearly postulates that the same was done to give favour to some of the selected candidates, who belongs from outside the State of Jharkhand. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed in case of Prakash Bhushan Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2018 (1) JLJR 285 , in which the Hon’ble Court was of the view that if the selection process is vitiated by glaring defects, the same can be challenged by the candidates even though they have participated in the process of selection. 5. Learned counsel further argues that since there is a clear stipulation in the RIMS Regulation, 2014 that appointment on Teaching post shall be made as per the terms and conditions of the AIIMS, New Delhi which allows appearing candidates to participate in selection process, therefore, if the respondent authority decides to change the criteria of selection process, there must be specific stipulation in the advertisement that candidates having no MDS Certificate on the last date of application will not be allowed to participate in the selection process. Hence, in absence of such specific stipulation in the advertisement it will be deemed that as per AIIMS Rule, appearing candidate will be allowed to participate in the selection process and therefore, acceptance of petitioner’s application and issuance of interview letter is fully justified and denying participating in selection process is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in complete derogation of the Regulation and therefore, for the end of justice, appropriate arrangements may be made so that petitioner at least face interview to prove herself before the Interview Board and on the basis of marks obtained by her, a final merit list may be published. 6. Learned counsel further argues that the State Govt. in exercise of the power conferred under Section 32 of the RIMS Act, 2002 framed RIMS Regulation, 2014 according to which recruitment of Teaching Cadre shall be as per the terms and conditions of AIIMS, New Delhi and as per the AIIMS Recruitment Rules for recruitment to the post of Senior Resident/Tutor, advertisement was published (Annexure-7) for which the date of interview for different specialty was fixed from 19th to 23rd December, 2017 with clear stipulation that the candidates who have acquired qualifying degree on or before 31.01.2018 are eligible for selection to those posts. It is further argued that as per RIMS Regulation, 2014 recruitment to the post of Senior Resident/ Tutor has to be done as per the terms and conditions of AIIMS, New Delhi and in AIIMS, appearing candidates are allowed to participate in the recruitment process and therefore, the condition imposed in the advertisement dated 28.03.2017 that the candidates must have post degree certificate at the time of making application is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in complete derogation of its own Regulations. Assailing the advertisement it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that advertisement is against their own regulation and ought to have been published with a specific stipulation giving opportunity to the appearing candidates as per the terms and conditions of AIIMS, New Delhi, as stipulated in the RIMS Regulations. Learned counsel lastly submits that still one post is vacant and has not been filled-up and the petitioner belongs to the same category. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Dr. Learned counsel lastly submits that still one post is vacant and has not been filled-up and the petitioner belongs to the same category. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that AIIMS Rules are not binding on RIMS. The AIIMS Rules has come-out with its own regulations which are not binding and any appointment has to be done in view of the advertisement and as per the regulations of the RIMS. Dr. Singh further argues that as the UGS rules are guidelines to the Universities and not mandatory and it is the University’s Rules which are prevalent, similar, is the case here, where in case of appointment in RIMS, the AIIMS Rules are just guidelines on which the RIMS Rules have been formulated. Since, petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualification at the time of filling-up the form as per the advertisement, rightly the case of the petitioner was rejected, which is fully justified 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualifications at the time of filling-up the form, rightly her case was not considered and as such, there is no any illegality or infirmity in rejection of her candidature. The appointments are to be considered as per the advertisement and RIMS Regulation. The RIMS Regulation nowhere talks of appearing candidates. May be the regulations of AIIMS also allows the appearing candidates but no such specific stipulations have been made in the RIMS Regulations. Admittedly, the appointments in the RIMS are guided by the RIMS Regulations and not by the AIIMS Regulations. The AIIMS Regulations can be a guideline and not a mandatory requirement. Since the process of appointment is already over, the case of the petitioner cannot be entertained. As the petitioner has acquired the requisite qualification of MDS as on date, her case may be considered as and when fresh advertisements are issued. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that still vacancy exist and case of the petitioner can be considered, is not acceptable to this Court on the ground that future vacancies cannot be filled-up without any separate and distinct public advertisement. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that still vacancy exist and case of the petitioner can be considered, is not acceptable to this Court on the ground that future vacancies cannot be filled-up without any separate and distinct public advertisement. Left-out candidates of the earlier advertisement may be in waiting list but cannot be given any benefits in any future vacancies. The left-out candidates, who are ineligible for the earlier advertisement should apply as and when second advertisement comes. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. B. Valluvan & Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 , has held that, “Even in the advertisement it was not indicated that a select list would be prepared for filling up future vacancies. The Selection Committee, having been appointed only for recommending the names of suitable candidates, who were fit to be appointed, could not have embarked upon the question as regards likelihood of future vacancy”. Same view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 386 and further in case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777 . 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I do not find any illegality or any infirmity in non-consideration of the case of the petitioner. 11. Resultantly, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and as such, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and hence, dismissed.