JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 10.10.2008 by which the respondents-authorities rejected the representation of the petitioner and for direction upon the respondents-authorities to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner on any post of IVth Grade. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that in pursuance to advertisement published in Prabhat Khabar dated 21.12.2005 for appointment on the post of IVth Grade, the petitioner applied for and participated in the examination conducted by the respondents, wherein he was declared successful. Thereafter, he was directed to appear physically on 20.10.2006 before the respondent no. 4-the Deputy Commissioner (Establishment), East Singhbhum for verification of documents and accordingly, he appeared on the date fixed for verification of documents. But, all of a sudden, the respondents-authorities informed the petitioner vide memo dated 29.06.2007 that he could not be appointed as he is having the qualification of B.Sc., but as letter of Personal Administrative Reforms Department the prescribed minimum qualification is 8th and maximum qualification is matriculation. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5873 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2008 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. In compliance of order dated 27.08.2008, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, which was rejected vide order dated 10.10.2008, which is impugned in this case. 3. Heard Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. C. Prabha, learned S.C. IV for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some candidates having qualification of B.A degree have been given appointment but the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that fixing a higher qualification has time and again been deprecated by the Hon'ble Courts and is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Even otherwise also, the Personal, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 19.07.2007 amended the minimum qualification from 'eight class pass and matriculation or below that” to “eight pass”; hence denial of appointment of the petitioner on the ground of minimum qualification is malafide attitude of the respondent-authority only to deprive the petitoner from getting his rightful claim. 5. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the advertisement in question was published on 21.12.2005 and the letter dated 19.07.2007 was issued much after that prescribing the educational qualification of Class IV staff, hence no relief can be sought on the basis of anterior notification and furthermore, it is settled principle that 'rules of game cannot be changed when game is over. So far claim of parity is concerned, it has been submitted that as per letter dated 25.04.1997 of the State of Bihar and letter dated 06.09.2006 of the Personal, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, some candidates were appointed under consideration who were working in daily wages and this Hon'ble Court was also pleased to direct to give preference to daily wagers in W.P. (S) No. 2190 of 2005; hence, the petitioner cannot derive benefit of parity with those candidates. 6. Before adverting to the merit of the case, it would be apposite to quote the relevant portion of advertisement describing “educational qualification”: ^^2- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk &v"Ve oxZ ds mij ,oa izosf'kdk ;k muls uhps gksxh A 7. From plain reading of clause (2) of the above advertisement, it is amply clear that petitioner having qualification of B.Sc was never eligible to be considered for the post in question. From the averments available on record, it further appears that at no point of time before applying or even after applying the petitioner has challenged that clause describing “educational qualification”; hence, it remains in tact against the petitioner. So far derivation of benefit of letter dated 19.07.2007 issued by Personal, Administrative Reform and Raj Bhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, is concerned, admittedly the same was issued on later date and till then selection process was over. So far question of parity is concerned, the respondent in impugned order dated 10.10.2008 has elaborately dealt with and the same has been reiterated in counter affidavit filed by the respondents-State, hence, on the count of parity no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 10.10.2008 needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.