JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a writ petition seeking consideration of her candidature for the post of Assistant/Clerk in the High Court/Judicial Academy or in Civil Court/Family Court in the State of Jharkhand. Advertisement to that effect was issued on 11th February, 2016 and one of the eligibility criteria was that a candidate should be a graduate from a recognized university. The last date for receipt of the application was specified to be 31st March, 2016. Admitted position is that on the date the advertisement was issued or on the last date given in the advertisement for filing of applications, the writ petitioner was not a graduate. She had appeared in the third part graduation level examination which was held in the month of April, 2016 and result thereof was published on 13th June, 2016. 2. In this perspective, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding:- “From perusal of the advertisement, it is crystal clear that in column of eligibility criteria at serial No.1 it is clearly mentioned that one should be ‘Graduate from recognized University having knowledge of working on computers with sound knowledge of Typing in computer’. Therefore, I find no reason to change the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement bearing as Advertisement No.01/Acct./2016. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III & Class IV) Rules, 1998 in which Rule 9 talks of appointment to the post of Clerk Grade-III and Typist Grade-III, the minimum qualification shall be B.A., B.Sc and B.Com or equivalent degree of recognized University and as such, the requisite eligibility criteria was at the time of appointment and not at the time of submission of application form and the petitioner fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria at the time of appointment is not at all acceptable to this Court. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria at the time of appointment and her case ought to have been considered is not acceptable to this Court as:- 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. Illegal appointment cannot be promoted by this Court. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. There is no illegality or infirmity committed by the respondent. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.” 3. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India reported in (1993) 2 SCC 429 , Harpal Kaur Chahal Vs. Director, Punjab Instructions reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 706, Bhupinderpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC 262 , State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 and a decision of this Court delivered in W.P. (S) No.4355 of 2009 in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. decided on 28th March, 2012 in the judgment under appeal. 4. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned First Court as the appellant did not fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria on 31st March, 2016. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.