JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers :- "(i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.4.2018 (Annexure-9) and (ii). Further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned condition mentioned in the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 (Annexure-14) by which the ineligible candidates passed B.Ed after declaration of result of REET-2017 and further pleased to (iii) direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to exclude the ineligible participating candidates from the select list with the B.Ed degree acquired by them after declaration of result of REET-2017 i.e. after 31.7.2018 and (iv) further pleased to held that all those candidates are ineligible and are not entitled to get appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III level II who have passed their Bachelor of Education after declaration of result of Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) 2017 i.e. after 31.7.2018 and (v) further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of Teacher Gr.III level II Science and Maths, if they are found suitable in the merit with all consequential benefits w.e.f. the date when other candidates have been given appointment and (vi) further pleased to grant other relief and cost of the petition." 2. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.4.2018 (Annx.9) passed by the respondents wherein it has been averred as under :- jktLFkku izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ 2016 ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk fo'ks"k vihy la[;k 511@2018 rFkk 578@2018 es fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ij vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk Jh jkts'k iaokj }kjk nh xbZ fof/kd jk; rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa fopkjk/khu ;kfpdk la[;k 2902@2018 eatw nsoh o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; es Jh ,l ds xqIrk vfrfjDr egkf/koDrk }kjk nh xbZ jk; ds vuqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk flfoy ;kfpdk la[;k 9684@2018 vk'kh"k dqekj cuke ljdkj esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; fnukad 03-10-2017 dh ikyuk ds vuqlj.k esa lHkh fu;qfDr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds }kjk jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk mRrh.kZ fd;s tkus ds ckn iz'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk ch ,M@ch ,l Vh lh mRrh.kZ dh gS] ,sls leLr vH;FkhZ jktLFkku izkFkfed ,oa mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ 2016 ds rgr vU; ik=rk, iwjh djus ij r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid in ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik= gS 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have illegally included the persons who have not cleared the exam according to the terms and conditions of REET examination and further submits that the respondents have included the candidates who have participated in the selection process contrary to the declaration made in the REET examination. 4. Counsel further submits that the order dated 11.4.2018 has been wrongly issued by the respondents contrary to the rules and regulations issued by the NCTE in this regard. 5. Counsel further submits that in the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 issued by the respondents more particularly the Condition No.9.6 is illegal and prayed for quashing of the same, though no specific prayer has been made by the petitioners in the writ petition in this regard. 6. The condition No.9.6 of the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 is as under :- 9-6 vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu izLrqr djus dh vafre fnukWd rd lHkh U;wure ;ksX;rka,¼'kS{kf.kd] iz'kS{kf.kd ,oa jktLFkku v/;kid ik=rk ijh{kk vkfn½ vftZr djuk vfuok;Z gSA vkosnu dh vafre frfFk ds i'pkr vftZr fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ekU; ugha gksxhA ,sls vH;FkhZ vik= gksxsA 7. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the order dated 11.4.2018 (Annexure-9) has been issued by the respondents in compliance of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in the matter of Ashish Kumar Vs. State, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9684/2017, decided on 3.10.2017 wherein it has been held as under: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the stand of the respondents is not only illegal but also contrary to the condition of the advertisement and circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government. A perusal of the condition No.6.8 of the advertisement, the eligibility condition of RTET examination and so also the circular dated 23.03.2011 issued by the State Government leaves no room for ambiguity that a person can very well clear Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test (RTET) before completion of his/his Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) Course. In view of the above, rejection of petitioner's candidature (Annex.12) is illegal, for which it is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today. The petition stands allowed." 8. In view of the above, rejection of petitioner's candidature (Annex.12) is illegal, for which it is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today. The petition stands allowed." 8. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the judgment passed in the matter of Ashish Kumar was further challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench, Principal Seat at Jodhpur, by way of D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.511/2018, State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashish Kumar which was dismissed vide order dated 7.3.2018 which reads as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Issue decided by the learned Single Judge is whether a person can attain the qualification of RTET before obtaining the qualification of a Basic School Teacher Certificate Course. Confronted with the pleadings in the writ appeal regarding acquisition of qualification before the date prescribed as the last date as per the advertisement, learned counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that there is a mis-directed approach in drafting the pleadings in the writ appeal for the reason this issue does not arise. 3. On the issue of obtaining Basic School Teacher Certificate after clearing Rajasthan Teachers' Eligibility Test, we find that learned Single Judge has referred to the advertisement and has found that there is no prohibition for a person to obtain RTET certificate before clearing the Basic School Teacher Certificate Course. 4. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed." 9. Counsel for the respondents further submits that although during arguments counsel for petitioners has submitted that the Condition No.9.6 of the advertisement dated 31.7.2018 is bad in the eye of the law but no specific prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of the same. 10. Counsel for the respondents further submits that once the petitioners have participated in the selection process in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31.7.2018, the, petitioners are estopped from challenging the same. 11. Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are making selections strictly in accordance with the terms and condition stipulated in the advertisement. 12. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 454 : "14. 11. Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are making selections strictly in accordance with the terms and condition stipulated in the advertisement. 12. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 454 : "14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra. 15. In G. Sarana V. University of Lucknow, a similar question came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Anthropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC p.591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ...It seems clear that the Appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.' 16. In Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J&K, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that:(SCC p. 493, para 9) "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the Petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being Respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The Petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents concerned. Thus the Petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the Petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a Petitioner." 17. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: "16. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." 18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and Ors. v. Anil Joshi, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the Respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the Respondents." 13. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the order dated 11.4.2018 (Annexure-9) has been issued by the respondents in compliance of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashish Kumar, secondly, once the petitioners have participated in the selection process, in my considered view, the petitioners are estopped to challenge the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the method of selection. Thirdly, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 14. Constitution of India in such matter. 15. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.