ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for Class-VI to VIII in the Non-Para/Female-Unreserved (Language) category inasmuch as the petitioner has obtained 65.06 marks and several other candidates, who have secured less marks than the petitioner, have been appointed to the said post. Further prayer has been made for issuance of letter of appointment to the petitioner, which has been withheld by the respondents on ground that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of the State of Jharkhand. It has also been prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 4 may be directed to keep one post vacant under the category to which the petitioner belongs. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an advertisement was issued by the office of respondent No. 4, District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers for Class-VI to VIII. The petitioner being eligible in all respects, had applied for the same and upon her application being found to be in order, the petitioner was called for counseling. The date of counseling was fixed as 09.12.2015 as would be evident from the notice dated 07.12.2015. A provisional merit list was also issued on 07.12.2015, in which the name of the petitioner found place at Sl. No. 8. A declaration was sought from the petitioner, in response to which she appeared on the date of counseling and furnished the required declaration on that very date itself. After conducting the counseling of the petitioner and examining the certificates submitted by her, the office of the District Superintendent of Education, clearly said that this petitioner will not be offered letter of appointment, in view of the fact that she did not produce the residential certificate of State of Jharkhand showing that she or her ancestors were the residents of the State of Jharkhand from the year 1932. It is the case of the petitioner that her father was employed in Bokaro Steel Plant in the year 1973 and retired from the post of Dy. General Manager in the year 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that her father was employed in Bokaro Steel Plant in the year 1973 and retired from the post of Dy. General Manager in the year 2010. The father of the petitioner has been residing in Jharkhand along with his entire family members from the date of his appointment and the petitioner had completed her schooling from Bokaro and passed her matriculation in the year 1989. Thereafter, she passed the intermediate examination from Bokaro Steel City Inter College, Bokaro in the year 1991 and completed her graduation from Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (U.P.). Petitioner has also completed B.Ed. Course in the year 2009 from Shri Ram Krishna Paramhans Teacher Training College, Bokaro and has cleared the Jharkhand Teachers’ Eligibility Test for Class-VI to VIII. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though she has been granted the residential certificate but for education purpose only. However, the respondents have not considered the aforesaid facts and has denied the appointment to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation before the respondent No. 4 on 05.04.2016, but no decision has been taken on her pending representation. Hence, this writ application has been filed by the petitioner for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that several other candidates who have obtained less marks than the petitioner were considered for appointment but the petitioner has been denied the similar treatment on the ground that she has not produced the residential certificate showing her to be the resident of Jharkhand since 1932. The aforesaid action of the respondents is neither sustainable in law nor on facts, since the petitioner is not claiming reservation either in the category of ST/SC or in Other Backward Class. The petitioner is a female candidate belonging to unreserved category and hence, she has the right to get appointment to the post of Trained Teacher in the category of unreserved (female) in view of the fact that she has obtained more marks than the candidates appointed in her category. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the action of the respondents in the present case is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court on 13.10.2017 in W.P.(S). Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the action of the respondents in the present case is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court on 13.10.2017 in W.P.(S). No. 5147 of 2010 (Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors.) and also to the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 6887 of 2017 (Shikha Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner appeared in the counseling but failed to produce the required residential certificate and as such, her candidature was not approved by the District Education Establishment Committee, Ramgarh and due to this reason, no letter of appointment was offered to her. Learned counsel further argues that as per the direction issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, the Sub-divisional Officer is the only competent authority to issue the residential certificate but contrary to that, the petitioner had enclosed a separation order issued by the Senior Manager (Personnel), SAIL on 04.11.2010 that her father is going to retire on 31.12.2010 and the said order/letter cannot be treated as residential certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer. As the petitioner did not submit the residential certificate issued by the competent authority at the time of counseling, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Assistant Teacher. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, as per the advertisement, as annexed in Annexure-10 page 52 of the writ petition, there was a requirement of residential certificate duly issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub-divisional Officer and above for the purpose of getting employment. However, the petitioner failed to submit the required certificate. Admittedly, as per the advertisement, as annexed in Annexure-10 page 52 of the writ petition, there was a requirement of residential certificate duly issued by the competent authority i.e. Sub-divisional Officer and above for the purpose of getting employment. However, the petitioner failed to submit the required certificate. It is one thing to say that father of the petitioner was continuously working in the State of Jharkhand and thereafter superannuated in the year 2010 and petitioner has also obtained her educational qualifications from the State of Jharkhand itself. But admittedly, the required certificate as per the advertisement was never submitted by the petitioner before the respondent-authorities. Further, the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable in the instant case, as it is a specific case in which the petitioner has not complied the terms and conditions as mentioned in the advertisement and it has been held in catena of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by different High Courts that no relaxation can be given in the terms and conditions of the advertisement in which the petitioner is seeking employment. 7. In the instant case, the following issues fell for consideration by this Court:- (I) Whether any challenge has been thrown to the Advertisement? (II) Whether the petitioner once submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the respondents by appearing in the selection process and accepting the terms and conditions of the advertisement, can challenge the selection process, though it has not been challenged in the instant case? (III) Whether the terms of the advertisement has to be strictly followed as per the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by this Court? 8. From the averments made in the writ petition and from perusal of the documents brought on record, it transpires that petitioner submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the respondents and appeared in the selection process accepting the terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner has not challenged the advertisement and even if it would have been challenged, the same cannot be accepted, as she herself has accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement and subsequently challenging the same is not permissible in the eyes of law. The petitioner has not challenged the advertisement and even if it would have been challenged, the same cannot be accepted, as she herself has accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement and subsequently challenging the same is not permissible in the eyes of law. Though it has been held by this Court that residence and domicile cannot come in the way of employment but it is settled principles of law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 , that the terms of the advertisement cannot be relaxed or cannot be given a go-bye. The selection has to be made strictly as per the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioner was duty bound to submit the required residential certificate, which she failed to do so. Even if the petitioner has secured more marks than the last selected candidate, she could not have been appointed as she failed to fulfill the requirements of the advertisement. No appointments can be made dehors the rules. Even if it is accepted that she fulfills the required residential status by virtue of her father being employed in the SAIL since 1973 but as she has not submitted the requisite residential certificate issued by the competent-authority, rightly her case was not considered by the respondent-authorities. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 has held as under:- ‘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.’ The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 26 in case of Ritesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677 , 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. 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. 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 equitably 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.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 14 in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 has held, as under:- 14. “A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the Court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through Court.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has held:- There could be a large number of candidates, who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58 has held:- There could be a large number of candidates, who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the petitioner would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error has been committed by the respondents in not considering case of petitioner for her appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher for Class-VI to VIII in the Non-Para/Female-Unreserved (Language) category and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.