ORDER : This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as teacher in terms of the Advertisement No.8/2015 as contained in annexure 5 since, she has secured 76.43 per cent in the teacher eligibility test and secured 10th position after counselling held on 14.09.2015. 2. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made an application in terms of the advertisement as contained in annexure 5 being Advertisement No.8/2015, by which, the applications have been invited for filling up of the post of teacher for Arts stream and the application is to be submitted along with the relevant documents to be sent through speed-post by 09.07.2015. The petitioner has submitted her application, calling upon to participate in the counselling and thereafter her merit has also been assessed but subsequent thereto, the petitioner’s candidature has not been considered on the ground that the petitioner is having no graduate degree along with the subject of Arts stream rather she is having graduate in commerce. The petitioner contention is that the advertisement although, does not contain any subject related to graduate in commerce but Mr. Sahani by referring to the terms and conditions of the advertisement as contained in Advertisement No.3(ii)(a), by which it is graduate and it is equivalent and 2 years diploma in primary education (whichever it can make an application and therefore since the petitioner is B.Com.). Hence, taking into consideration, this aspect of the matter, the petitioner is found to be graduate although, in commerce, has been considered but subsequent thereto, her candidature has not been considered merely on account of the fact that the petitioner is graduate in commerce, hence according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision of the examining body in not considering the candidature of the petitioner on this ground is contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement as contained in Advertisement No.3(ii)(a). He has further submitted by placing the communication issued under the signature of Director Higher Education dated 28.08.2018 addressed to Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, wherein, a suggestion has been given by getting the report from the different Universities to treat the Commerce graduate candidates equivalent to graduate in Social Science and therefore, he submits that since the State authorities is also considering to give parity to such candidates having graduate in commerce by treating as graduate in Arts and non-consideration of candidature of petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Director. 3. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the communication made by the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education dated 04.05.2011, wherein also the decision has been taken in the meeting held at Ministry of Human Resource Development Department to include B.Com. graduate in para 1, 2, and 3 of the aforesaid notification to appear in the TET examination and as such, it has been requested to make appropriate changes in the TET related criteria at your end. Mr. Sahani, has also relied upon an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.963 of 2017 along with other analogous cases, wherein, this Court in similar fact and circumstance has sought for instruction from the competent authority regarding their views, as to whether the B.Com graduate candidates can be appointed under the graduate Social Science stream. 4. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned S.C.-V and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned G.P.-IV have submitted that the petitioner has participated in terms of an advertisement containing certain terms and conditions to consider her candidature to be appointed as Primary Teacher in Social Science stream. 4. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned S.C.-V and Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned G.P.-IV have submitted that the petitioner has participated in terms of an advertisement containing certain terms and conditions to consider her candidature to be appointed as Primary Teacher in Social Science stream. It has been submitted that there is specific terms and conditions mentioned in advertisement as contained under condition no.5, which has been inserted in terms of the provision of the Jharkhand Primary School Teachers Appointment Rules, 2012(amended), wherein as per the provision of Rule 11 alongwith the notification no.1533 dated 31.07.2014, the minimum educational and training qualification for graduate trained teacher has been provided containing therein that graduate teacher for the Social Science stream is to be appointed from such candidates who are having the qualification in the Social Science subject, therefore, it has been submitted that the Social Science subject not pertains to the commerce faculty and hence, although candidature of petitioner was accepted but subsequent thereto, when it has came to the knowledge of the authority that the petitioner is having commerce in graduate qualification and therefore, her candidature has not been found to be in terms of the condition of advertisement as stipulated under condition no.5(k) and (kha). It has further been submitted by them that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in communication dated 28.08.2018 that even accepting the said opinion of the Director of Higher Education and if the graduate commerce students are being treated to be considered for appointment in graduate trained teacher in the Social Science subject then, also the same will not change the terms and conditions of the advertisement already advertised way back in 2015, it is for the reason that if any decision taken by any State authority with respect to allowing the candidature of a candidate, it will always goes to the future selection and not to the selection already been initiated. Further, it has been submitted that so far as the communication of the National Council for Teacher Education dated 04.05.2011, even accepting that request of the NCTE then also the same principal will be applicable because if the terms and conditions has already been advertised and the candidates have participated in the selection process, they cannot take any aid of any decision of the authority either NCTE or the State authority. It has further been submitted that if the petitioner is relying upon the communication dated 04.05.2011, which according to the petitioner is contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement then the petitioner ought to have assailed the terms and conditions of the advertisement saying therein that the aforesaid terms and conditions is contrary to the communication dated 04.05.2011 and as such at that moment the aforesaid clarification given by the NCTE dated 04.05.2011 will not be of any aid to the petitioner, since he has accepted the terms and conditions of the advertisement and subsequent thereto he wants to change the terms and conditions of the advertisement which is not permissible in the eye of law. 5. It has further been submitted that so far as the order dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.963 of 2017, the same is a clarification sought for by this Court from the State with respect to the fact that as to whether the commerce graduate candidates can be allowed to participate in the selection process in terms of the letters which have been referred and relied by Mr. Sahani, as stated hereinabove, the submission has been made that the said interim order is not binding upon this Court for the reason that the settled position cannot be unsettled for the position of law, which is already settled that if once the selection process is initiated with the specific terms and conditions in the advertisement, if any, condition is found to be modified that will not go to the date of the advertisement already notified, otherwise the candidates who have not made their application in terms of the advertisement, they would be deprived from an opportunity and thereby it will lead to violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India to provide equal opportunity to all the students to consider their candidature in the selection process. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, it is evident that the advertisement has been published for appointment of graduate trained teacher for Social Science subject. It is evident from the aforesaid advertisement as per the condition stipulated in column no.2 that the application is to be submitted by one or the other candidates by reflecting in bold letters, “Graduate Science Teacher, Science/Arts/Language Teacher”, which is applicable. 7. It is evident from the aforesaid advertisement as per the condition stipulated in column no.2 that the application is to be submitted by one or the other candidates by reflecting in bold letters, “Graduate Science Teacher, Science/Arts/Language Teacher”, which is applicable. 7. It is evident that the applications have been invited for assessing the candidature of one or the other candidates for their being appointed as Science graduate teacher as either in Science or Arts or Language Teacher. 8. It is further evident from the condition no.3(ii)(a) that the minimum educational qualification is to be possessed by one or the other candidates who are having graduate or it is equivalent or two years diploma in primary education, “whichever the name it is known or graduate with minimum 50 per cent marks or it is equivalent and one year diploma (B.Ed. in education)”. 9. It is further evident from condition no.5 which has been inserted on the basis of the provision of Rule 11 of Jharkhand Primary Education Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012(amended) and notification no.1533 dated 31.07.2014, wherein, the minimum qualification for the educational trained teacher has been provided as graduation in Science or Maths subject and the candidates who have fulfilled the other eligibility condition as per the provision of Jharkhand Primary Education Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012, such candidates would be appointed as teacher in graduate teacher(Science). 10. The condition no.5(k) and 5(kha) which stipulates for selection and engagement of the graduate trained, (Arts teachers), who are having post qualification in graduate in Social Science subject. 11. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid advertisement that the condition required to be considered for selection as graduate trained teacher in Arts will have to possess the graduate in Social Science subject. 12. The petitioner admittedly is not having the graduation in Social Science rather she is having graduation in commerce. She has made an application, her application has been accepted and thereafter she has been called upon to participate in the counselling but subsequent thereto her candidature has not found to be sustainable. For the reasons, she is not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the advertisement on having graduation in Social Science. She has made an application, her application has been accepted and thereafter she has been called upon to participate in the counselling but subsequent thereto her candidature has not found to be sustainable. For the reasons, she is not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the advertisement on having graduation in Social Science. The admitted position is that the petitioner has not challenged any terms and conditions of the advertisement rather she has participated and when her candidature has not been accepted even though she has been called upon to participate in the counselling, she has filed this writ petition. 13. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Government scheme is not to treat the graduate commerce candidates to be treated for their engagement as graduate trained teacher in Science and to substantiate his argument, he has relied upon the communication dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Director Higher Education and the communication dated 04.05.2011 issued by functionaries of the National Council of Teacher Education. These documents although, have not been filed by way of affidavit however the same has been taken on record without any objection of the other side to dispose of the writ petition since, the matter pertains to selection process. 14. These documents although, have not been filed by way of affidavit however the same has been taken on record without any objection of the other side to dispose of the writ petition since, the matter pertains to selection process. 14. It is not in dispute that the Government is taking such decision to treat the commerce candidates to be engaged as teacher in the Social Science which is evident from the communication dated 28.08.2018, even by the communication dated 04.05.2011 i.e., by the National Council for Teacher Education, which is the apex body to fix the eligibility criteria for appointment of teacher as per the Right to Education Act, 2009 but here the question is whether this Court setting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can change any terms and conditions of the advertisement which has already been notified inserting the eligibility criteria for the candidates, the answer would be in negative it is for the reasons that if the petitioner has already participated in the selection process, she will seize her right to seek a direction of a Court to alter any condition stipulated in the advertisement, if such alteration would be allowed to the petitioner, the question would be that why not to the other candidates who are in the commerce stream in the graduation level and if it would be done to the petitioner, it will certainly violates the fundamental right of the other candidates having commerce in graduation and wanting for chance of their consideration. 15. It is settled position of law that when an advertisement once issued by the competent authority inserting certain terms and conditions as per the provision made under Jharkhand Primary Education Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012, which is statutory provision on the basis of which the advertisement has been issued, the same cannot be altered that by a court of law sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Mr. 16. Mr. Shahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, has tried to impress this Court that as per the terms and conditions stipulated in Advertisement No.3(ii)(a), the petitioner since is a graduate even though in commerce faculty, as such, as per Advertisement No.3(ii)(a), she is eligible and for that reason, her application has been accepted for its consideration but this submission is not acceptable by this Court because there is another condition stipulated in condition no.5(k)(kha) which has been incorporated in terms of the provision of Jharkhand Primary Education Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2012 i.e., the statutory provision based upon which the selection process has been initiated and thereby leaving apart condition no.5(k)(kha) reading with condition no.3(ii)(a), would not be proper, hence, the same is not acceptable because the terms and conditions stipulated in condition no.3(ii)(a) is to be read out conjunctively with the condition no.5 and it cannot be segregated, for the reasons that the advertisement has been issued for filling up post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Social Science and it is admitted case of the petitioner that she is having no qualification for the graduation in Social Science subject rather she is having graduation with Commerce but she wants to take aid of the suggestion of the State Government, then again the question would be, can the aforesaid suggestion would be applicable that too with retrospective date, certainly not because of the settled position of law, once the game starts the rules of the game cannot be changed. 17. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonia Vrs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 627 , wherein at paragraph-10 by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of N.T. Devin Katti Vrs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157 , wherein it has been held that where selection has been initiated by issuing an advertisement inviting applications, selection should normally be regulated by the rule or order then prevalent and also when advertisement expressly states that the appointment shall be made in accordance with the existing rule or order, subsequent amendment in the existing rule or order will not affect the pending selection process unless contrary intention is expressly or impliedly indicated. 18. In the judgment rendered in the case of K. Manjusree Vrs. 18. In the judgment rendered in the case of K. Manjusree Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1470, wherein at paragraph-30, it has been held that the recruitment already initiated on the basis of the parameters/criteria fixed not changed. 19. In the judgment rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (1) Vrs. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association and Others, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 517 , wherein, at paragraph-33 , which is being quoted hereinbelow:- We, however, cannot hold that the subsequent decision of the Government thereby changing qualifying norms by reducing the minimum qualifying marks from 50 per cent to 35 per cent after the holding of the examination and at the time when the result of the examination was to be announced and thereby changing the said criteria at the verge of any towards the end of the game as justified, for we find the same as arbitrary and unjustified. This Court in Hemani Malhotra V. High Court of Delhi has held that in recruitment process changing rules of the game during selection process or when it is over are not permissible. 20. Thus, it is evident on the basis of the aforesaid settled position, wherein, it has been held that once the game starts the rules of the game cannot be changed. 21. Further, it needs to refer here that the candidate is participating in the selection process, such candidates supposed to fill up the application form is pursuant to the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement which is, strictly to be adhered to refer in this regard be made to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vrs. High Court of Delhi and Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3714 , wherein in at paragraph-13, which is being quoted hereinbelow:- Thus, law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as viva-voce. 22. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as viva-voce. 22. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement rather he has filed this writ petition to insert certain condition which has been suggested by the authority or the NCTE and as such, the same is not permissible on the basis of the principle laid in the judgment referred hereinabove. 23. So far as the reliance placed by Mr. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered by this Court in the case of W.P.(S) No.963 of 2017, it is an interim order passed by this Court seeking a clarification from the State Government, in my considered view, the same is not binding upon by this court, since this court is deciding on the basis of already settled position of law referred above.. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I found no merit in this case, accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. 25. The said documents has been taken on record without any objection of the other side, further office is directed to keep the same on record. Petition dismissed.