JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J - This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein direction has been sought for upon the opposite parties to strike down the word "visiting" from the appointment order under Annexure-1 or in alternative to direct the opposite parties to select the petitioner and issue engagement order pursuant to the selection process under Annexure-10. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he, being eligible to hold the post of Assistant Professor, has made an application in terms of the advertisement published by the Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar in which he had participated for regular appointment, but he has been appointed as "Visiting" at the level of Assistant Professor in the School of Earth, Ocean & Climate Science of the Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar and as such, according to the petitioner, the authorities have committed illegality in appointing him as Visiting Faculty in place of regular incumbent as Assistant Professor. According to the petitioner, he has filled up his application form in pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-4 which has been issued for filling up the regular vacancies and as such, no stretch of imagination he can be appointed as Visiting Faculty. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the terms of appointment on various grounds i.e. according to him, terms and conditions of the advertisement has been changed which cannot be allowed to be done once the selection process has been started. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case by submitting that even though he has accepted the terms of appointment that will not cease him to assail the said order because of the settled position of law there cannot be estoppel against the law and here in the instant case, the appointment is to be made strictly in terms of the recruitment rule wherein the provision has been made under the Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961 and statute governing the field wherein under the Statute no.12 the process of appointment has been given whereby and whereunder the selection committee is supposed to make appointment on regular basis which is to be filled up by virtue of issuance of an advertisement and the appointment on contract basis is altogether a separate process as provided under the Statute No.17. According to the petitioner, since open advertisement has been published, it will be an appointment under the provision of the Statute No.12 and hence, if any decision has been taken by the authority in course of selection process after issuance the advertisement for filling up the post on regular basis and it cannot be deviated and if deviated, it will be said to be contrary to the statutory provision and in that pretext, the aggrieved party cannot be precluded from challenging the action of the authority. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, (1986) 3 SCC 156 ; Raj Kumar and Others v. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527 , Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai, (1982) 1 SCC 223 ; Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of U.P. and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 172 . The other ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, having no option at the time of selection, has accepted the offer of appointment and subsequent thereto he has challenged the same on the ground of arbitrariness of the opposite parties since they have acted contrary to the settled position of law by changing the terms and conditions of the advertisement which they cannot do. In view of the principle laid down that once the process of selection begins, the rules of terms cannot be allowed to be changed. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 . In view of the principle laid down that once the process of selection begins, the rules of terms cannot be allowed to be changed. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 . The ground has been taken that the opposite parties have come out with the plea in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not been found suitable and competent for the said position as per the opinion of the Selection Committee and as such, he has not been taken into regular engagement, but however, considering the urgency, he has been appointed purely on contract basis for a period of one year which they cannot do, but the authority, without any jurisdiction, has compelled the petitioner to discharge his duty as a Visiting Faculty which is against the terms of advertisement as also the statutory rule. Learned counsel petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that there is discrepancy made in the para-10 of the counter affidavit and para-4 of the affidavit filed by the opposite parties by way of an objection to the miscellaneous application, since at para-10 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has been found to unsuitable and as such, his name does not find place in the recommendation paper submitted by the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor, but thereafter on the same day, the Selection Committee unanimously decided to have a second sitting and select few candidates on purely temporary basis to meet the demand of teaching while at paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the opposite parties by way of an objection to the miscellaneous application wherein it has been stated by opposite parties that amongst the candidates appeared for the interview, the petitioner was not found suitable for the position by the selection committee. However, IITs across the country can appoint Faculty at any given time on purely temporary basis to meet the demands of Teaching on specialized subjects. Thus, in such a category, the petitioner was offered Visiting Faculty (on contract) position on temporary basis for one year. The petitioner joined the Institute on 12.3.2014 accepting the offer of temporary position for one year. Thus, in such a category, the petitioner was offered Visiting Faculty (on contract) position on temporary basis for one year. The petitioner joined the Institute on 12.3.2014 accepting the offer of temporary position for one year. According to the petitioner, in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit, the statement has been made to the effect that the petitioner has not been found to be suitable, but the said stipulation has not been made at paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the opposite parties by way of an objection to the miscellaneous application and as such, there is no contradiction which is nothing but a false affidavit to mislead this Court and on this ground alone, the writ petition is fit to be allowed. He has also submitted that the petitioner might take the plea of alternative remedy, since under the statue there is arbitration clause under the provision of Section-30 of the Notification dated 29th June, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education), Government of India, but on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, this Court is not precluded from exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of its power of judicial review and to support his contention, he has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 697 . 3. Opposite parties have appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit inter alia it has been stated therein that the selection process has been initiated in terms of the Statute No.12 of the Indian Institutes of Technology, Kharagpur which confers power of appointment by constituting a Selection Committee for filling up post under the Institute by advertisement or by way of promotion from amongst the members of the staff of the institute. In the case of post of Assistant Professor, the Selection Committee shall consist of the Director being the Chairman and the two nominees of the Board, one being an expert but other than a member of the Board, one expert nominated by the Senate and head of the department, if the post for which selection is being made is lower in status than that occupied by the Head of Department. In view thereof, advertisement under Annexure-4 to the writ petition inviting applications for filling up of the different posts. One of the posts is the Assistant Professor, for which, at least 3 years teaching/research/professional experience excluding, however, the experience gained while pursuing Ph.D. Candidates should have demonstrated research capabilities in terms of publications in reputed journals and conference proceedings. Eligible candidates with less than 3 years experience, as mentioned above, may be considered for Assistant Professor Position on contract. Such candidates may apply to the position of Assistant Professor in the online portal. The petitioner, who at the time of making application was in Norway and as such, as instructed in the advertisement, has submitted application through online i.e. through Skype. He was called upon to participate in the selection process which was conducted on 30th November, 2013 through video conference (skype) . The petitioner was found not suitable/competent for the said position and was accordingly rejected by the Selection Committee. Hence, the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the Selection Committee for the position of Assistant Professor, since there was extreme urgency of the faculty member in the subject in question, on the very same day, the Selection Committee unanimously decided to have a second sitting and select few candidates on purely temporary basis to meet the demands of teaching. Accordingly, two candidates including the petitioner who appeared through Skype interview were recommended by the Selection Committee to be appointed as Visiting Faculty (on contract) in the School of Earth, Ocean and Climate Sciences (SEOCS) and as per the norms of IIT, the name of the petitioner was forwarded for approval to the Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar and consequently, his name was approved by the Board of Governors for the position of Visiting Faculty on contract basis for a period of one year. 4. Mr. Millan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar submits that the offer of appointment contains the condition that the appointment will be effective from the date of the joining, communicate the acceptance to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter and join the Institute on or before 28th February, 2014. The offer is for a period of one year. The offer is for a period of one year. The terms and conditions governing the appointment have been given in Annexure-I to the said letter which contains the condition of duration of appointment which is for a period of one year. The appointment may be terminated any time by one month's notice on either side. The petitioner has accepted the offer of appointment by showing his willingness to report duty on 12.03.2014. Accordingly, he has reported on 12.3.2014 and his joining was accepted, as would be evident from Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner started discharging his duty and he has been given extension twice, but third time it was refused reason being that the contract period is not to be extended more than for a period of three years as per the Office Order No.130/2016 dated 31st August, 2016 under Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner thereafter invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by making prayer to strike down the words "visiting faculty" from the appointment letter dated 8.1.2014. Mr. Kanungo, further submits that the petitioner has entered into a contract by accepting the terms and conditions of the said contract which was issued in the shape of offer of appointment dated 8.1.2014 and once it has been accepted, the same cannot be rewritten by the court of law by striking it down after accepting it for substantial period. To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. v. S. Sindhu, (2006) 5 SCC 258 . His further contention is that the petitioner once accepted the offer of appointment, he will be ceased to challenge the same since he was knowing about the facts, condition mentioned in the offer of appointment and shown his willingness and accepted the same. Hence, once accepted, he is ceased to challenge the terms of appointment. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 ; and Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bewa and Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 484 . To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swaranakar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 ; and Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bewa and Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 484 . Further ground has been taken by him that the petitioner was declared to be unsuccessful on the day of the interview for regular appointment which he has not challenged rather when he was offered the assignment of Visiting Faculty, he has accepted the same and as such, once he has not challenged the selection process in which he was declared to be incompetent and unsuitable, he will be ceased to question the decision of the selection committee by making a prayer to strike down the words "visiting faculty" from the offer of appointment and if it will be allowed to the petitioner which amounts ultimately to interfering with the decision of the selection committee which should not be done by the court of law for the reason that the decision taken by the expert committee should not be interfered with by the court of law to strengthen his argument, he has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Basuvaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 372 . So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that there is discrepancy in between the statement made by the opposite parties at paragraph-10 to the counter affidavit vis-?-vis paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the opposite parties by way of an objection to the miscellaneous application. It has been submitted by Mr. So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that there is discrepancy in between the statement made by the opposite parties at paragraph-10 to the counter affidavit vis-?-vis paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed by the opposite parties by way of an objection to the miscellaneous application. It has been submitted by Mr. Kanungo that the objection of the miscellaneous application cannot be said to be the counter affidavit rather it is only by way of controverting statement made in the miscellaneous application and as such, the concise statement has been given, it does not mean that whatever has been stated by the opposite parties at paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit will be of no value rather it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection process and that is the reason he has been inducted as a Visiting Faculty otherwise he would have challenge the same at the threshold, but instead of doing so, he has accepted the offer of appointment of Visiting Faculty. He has also taken the ground of availability of alternative remedy of the clause of arbitration and as such, he has submits that this writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, appreciated their arguments, gone through the relevant documents as has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the parties and from its perusal, it is evident that the IIT, Bhubaneswar is the creation of the statute which was created by the Notification issued on 29th June, 2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section-1 of the Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Central Government has established the Indian Institute of Technology at Bhubaneswar. 6. The object of the institute to provide expertees in the technical education across the country and for that purpose various Indian Institute of Technology has been created from time to time and under that series, the Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar has also been established by virtue of the Institute of Technology (Amendment) Act, 2012. The institute in question is governed by the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 which also contains the provision of appointment under Statute No.12 as contained under the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur effective from 6th November, 1962 for the opposite party-Institute herein also. The appointment is to be made by virtue of an advertisement. The institute in question is governed by the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 which also contains the provision of appointment under Statute No.12 as contained under the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur effective from 6th November, 1962 for the opposite party-Institute herein also. The appointment is to be made by virtue of an advertisement. For better appreciation, the Statute No.12 is being referred herein below:- "12. Appointments (1) All posts at the Institute shall normally be filled by advertisement, but the Board shall have the power to decide, on the recommendations of the Director that a particular post be filled by invitation or by promotion from amongst the members of the staff of the Institute. (2) While making appointments, the Institute shall make necessary provision for the reservation of posts in favour of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in accordance with the decisions of the Board. (3) Selection Committees for filling posts under the Institute (other than the posts on contract basis) by advertisement or by promotion from amongst the members of staff of the Institute shall be constituted in the manner laid down below namely: (a) In the case of posts of Deputy Director and Professor, the Selection Committee shall consist of: (i) Director - Chairman (ii) One nominee of the Visitor - Member (iii) Two nominees of the Board, one being an expert but other than a member of the Board - Members (iv) One expert nominated by the Senate other than a member of the Senate - Member (b) In the case of posts of Assistant Professor, Senior Scientific Officer and Lecturer, the Selection Committee shall consist of: (4) In the absence of Director, any member of the staff of the Institute who is appointed to perform the current duties of the Director shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committees in the place of the Director. (5) In the absence of the Deputy Director, the Director may nominate any member of the staff of the Institute to work on the Selection Committee in his place. (6) Where a post is to be filled on contract basis or by invitation, the Chairman may, at his discretion, constitute such adhoc Selection Committees, as circumstances of each case may require. (6) Where a post is to be filled on contract basis or by invitation, the Chairman may, at his discretion, constitute such adhoc Selection Committees, as circumstances of each case may require. (7) Where a post is to be filled by promotion from amongst the members of the Institute or temporarily for a period not exceeding twelve months, the Board shall lay down the procedure to be followed. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Statutes, the Board shall have the power to make appointments of persons trained under "approved" programmes in such manner as it may deem appropriate. The Board will maintain a schedule of such "approved" programmes. (10) The Selection Committee shall examine the credentials of all persons who have applied and may also consider other suitable names suggested, if any, by a member of the Selection Committee or brought otherwise to the notice of the Committee. The Selection Committee may interview any of the candidates as it thinks fit and shall at the discretion of its Chairman cause a written test or tests to be held among all or some of the candidates as the Chairman may think fit, and shall make its recommendations to the Board or the Director as the case may be, the names of the selected candidates being arranged in order of merit. (14) Candidates selected for interview for a post under the Institute may be paid such traveling allowances as may be determined by the Board from time to time in this behalf. (15) All appointments made at the Institute shall be reported to the Board at its next meeting." 7. It is evident from the provision as quoted hereinabove that the post is to be filled up by way of Selection Committee, since we are concerned herein with the post of Assistant Professor and as such, this Court is dealing with the Selection Committee which is to be constituted for selecting the Assistant Professor which consist of a committee known as Selection Committee presided over by the Chairman and the two nominees of the Board, one being an expert but other than a member of the Board, one expert nominated by the Senate and head of the department, if the post for which selection is being made is lower in status than that occupied by the Head of Department. In terms of the said provision, an advertisement was published by the opposite party-Institute inviting applications for Faculty Position which includes the Faculty of Assistant Professor. The advertisement has been made as rolling advertisement. The petitioner, in terms of the said advertisement, has submitted his application through online and after scrutiny of his candidature, he was asked to participate in the Interview Board through video conference (Skype) on 30.11.2013, but he has not been found suitable/competent for the said post. Accordingly, rejected by the Selection Committee and as such, his name was not recommended by the committee for the position of Assistant Professor. It is to note here that to this effect, specific statement has been made at paragraph-10 to the counter affidavit that the petitioner while filing response by giving specific reference to the statement made at paragraph-10 has not controverted regarding contention raised by the opposite parties that the petitioner has found to be not suitable/competent for the said position. Further statement has been made at paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit that on the same date, the selection committee unanimously decided to have a second sitting and select few candidates on purely temporary basis to meet the demand of teaching. This part of the statement made therein has not been controverted in the rejoinder affidavit, as would be evident from the parawise reply filed by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. The Selection Committee on the basis of their subsequent decision which they have taken on 30.11.2013 for selecting the petitioner as a Visiting Faculty for a period of one year on contract basis and as such, the offer was made to the petitioner by issuing the offer of appointment dated 8.1.2014 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition which the petitioner has accepted by giving his joining on 12.3.2014, as would be evident from A/2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. It is evident from the offer of appointment that the communication has been made to the petitioner regarding the decision taken by the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Institute, who have approved his appointment to the post of Visiting Faculty at the level of Assistant Professor in the School of Earth, Ocean & Climate Science of the Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar. The offer is for a period of one year. The offer is for a period of one year. The terms and conditions governing the appointment have been stipulated in Annexure-1 which contains the condition of duration of appointment which is for a period of one year. The appointment may be terminated any time by one month's notice on either side. The petitioner, after accepting it, has started discharging his duty and also submitted application for extension of the contract period and it was extended twice i.e. one on 8.1.2015 and another on 8.1.2016. It is evident from the Office Order No.130/2016 dated 31st August, 2016 under Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit that the tenure of the Visiting Faculty will be for a period up to a maximum of three years with annual review. Accordingly, the competent authority, was having no option, to extend the period of contract beyond the period of two years. However, the petitioner has made an application for its extension vide his application dated 1.3.2016 which has annexed under Annexure-8 to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has fully agreed with the terms and conditions of the appointment and in pursuant thereto, he has also sought for extension which was granted up to a maximum period of three years and lastly he has sought for the extension, but the same was refused and thereafter, he has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition praying therein to strike down the words "visiting faculty" from the offer of appointment dated 8.1.2014. 8. The following issues are before this Court for determination:- (i) Whether on the ground of alternative remedy the writ petition is maintainable? (ii) Whether the terms and conditions of the appointment once accepted by the petitioner can he be allowed to be challenged? (iii) Whether the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any constitutional court can rewrite the terms of contract? (iv) Whether once the petitioner has been declared to be incompetent/ unsuccessful being not suitable for the selection can he be allowed to be continued by taking him in the regular establishment and to select the petitioner on contract can be said to be without jurisdiction? (v) Whether once the selection process begins, the rules of selection can be changed? 9. (v) Whether once the selection process begins, the rules of selection can be changed? 9. This Court, after appreciating the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, based upon the authoritative pronouncements of Hon'ble the Apex Court, is answering the issues formulated as hereinabove. Issue No.(i) The question of alternative remedy has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties by referring to the provision of Section 30 of the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 while reverting the said ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in case of availability of alternative remedy, the writ court can interfere by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred Article 226 of the Constitution of India and moreover, the petitioner has raised the question of jurisdiction and as such, the writ petition is maintainable. This Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties in this regard, is of the view that the power conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the basic structure of the Constitution and the power of judicial review is a basic and essential future of the Constitution and it cannot be abrogated without affecting the basic structure of the Constitution of India, but if any constitutional amendment made by Parliament takes away from the High Court the power of judicial review in any particular area and vests it in any other institutional mechanism or authority, it would not be violative of the basic structure of doctrine, so long as the essential condition is fulfilled, namely, that the alternative institutional mechanism or authority set up by the parliamentary amendment is no less effective than the High Court. This view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 124 , but this issue has been consider again by the 7 Judges Bench in the case of L. Chanra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 by taking contrary view from the ratio laid down in the case of S. Sampath Kumar, it has been held on the issue whether the power of judicial review vested in the High Court and Supreme Court under Article 226 and 227 and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and it has been held therein that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the power conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. Thus, it is evident that on the ground of alternative remedy, the power of judicial review cannot be said to be not exercised by the High Court. It is also legal proposition that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is having its discretionary power and if the issue regarding jurisdiction or violation of statutory rule or fundamental right is being invoked the writ court even though the alternative remedy is available can exercise its jurisdiction. Reference may be made in this regard to the judgment in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . In the instant case, since the petitioner has raised an issue of jurisdiction of the Selection Committee and as such, without entertaining the writ petition, this issue cannot be answered. Hence, relying upon the aforesaid position of law, the instant writ petition is held to be maintainable. Since according to the petitioner, the Selection Committee has invited applications for regular appointment, but contrary to the advertisement issued has gone for contractual engagement. Thus, it is contrary to the provision as contained in Statue No.12 of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Since according to the petitioner, the Selection Committee has invited applications for regular appointment, but contrary to the advertisement issued has gone for contractual engagement. Thus, it is contrary to the provision as contained in Statue No.12 of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. This Court, after appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in order to adjudicate this issue as to whether the action of the Selection Committee is without jurisdiction or not, thinks it proper to held herein that the writ petition is maintainable and accordingly the plea taken by the opposite parties that on the ground of availability of forum of arbitration under Section-30 of the Notification dated 29th June, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education), Government of India, the writ will not lie and is hereby rejected. In view thereof, the Issue No.(i) is answered in favour of the petitioner. Issue No.(ii) Whether the terms and conditions of the appointment once accepted by the petitioner can he be allowed to be challenged? Rival submissions have been made on behalf of the parties by relying upon the relevant judgments. This Court, after appreciating their rival submission and the judgments relied upon by them, is of the view that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in this respect is the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited . The said judgment is in the light of the bargaining power of workmen and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, dealing with such situation, has laid down the proposition at paragraph-100, has taken into consideration the public interest at large and if any terms of the contract in between the corporation and its officers which affects large number of persons, then in that respect, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that if any terms of contract is opposed to public policy, it is void under Section-30 of the Indian Contract Act. The judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kumar has been pronounced in a given fact of the said case that the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para-6 of 1970 Notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court by taking the factual aspect of the said case has been pleased to hold that the question of estoppel will not be applicable, if there is glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. The judgment rendered in the case of Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta wherein the ratio has been laid down at paragraph-22 that estoppel deals with questions of facts and not of rights. A man is not estopped from asserting a right which he had said that he will not assert. It is also a well-known principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute. The other judgment rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta wherein it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court regarding the principle of estoppel, but on the fact that the candidates had no occasion to protest against the criterion adopted by the State Government and in that situation it was held that the plea of promissory estoppel will not be applicable. The opposite parties has relied upon the judgment in this respect in the case of Punjab and Sind Bank wherein it has been laid down that once the employees accepted the conditions under the scheme cannot approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to withdraw. The judgment rendered in the case of Bank of India wherein it has been laid down at paragraph-117 that one who knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance. In a case which fall in consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Niwas, (1997) AIR(Supreme Court) 2349 at paragraph-4 wherein the incumbent, after accepting the order of punishment, has joined the post and thereafter he has challenged the order of punishment. In a case which fall in consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Krishan Niwas, (1997) AIR(Supreme Court) 2349 at paragraph-4 wherein the incumbent, after accepting the order of punishment, has joined the post and thereafter he has challenged the order of punishment. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that by his conduct he has accepted the correctness of the order and then acted upon it. Under these circumstances, the Civil Court would not have gone into the merits and decided the matter against the appellants. It is also need to refer herein the ratio of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case Municipal Council, Samrala v. Sukhwinder Kaur, (2006) 6 SCC 516 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the appointments were temporary ones. She was aware that her services could be terminated without notice. She accepted the terms and conditions of the said offers of appointments without any demur. Although there was no fixed period of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned and thus, no question of its renewal on its expiry, but there existed a stipulation in the contract that the Executive Officer has the power to dismiss her without issuing any notice and since she has accepted, the same which the incumbent cannot challenge. After going through the judgments relied upon on behalf of the leaned counsel appearing for the parties and coming across with the factual aspect, in my considered view, the petitioner was knowing very well with the terms and conditions of the appointment which was for a period of one year on contract basis and as such, he once accepted the terms and conditions cannot come forward to challenge after substantial period and as such, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, rather in my considered view, the factual aspect involved in this case is governed with the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. In view thereof, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner with respect to this issue is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the Issue No.(ii) is answered against the petitioner. In view thereof, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner with respect to this issue is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the Issue No.(ii) is answered against the petitioner. Issue No.(iii) The issue is that as to whether the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can rewrite the terms of contract? It is settled that the contract is in between the parties with their mutual settlement. It is upto the party to accept it or not to accept it. In case of acceptance, it is binding upon both the parties and in case of disagreement, it will not be given effect to and once the party is accepted it, he cannot come forward to challenge it, since his demand is not being meted out and as such, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by seeking a direction to rewrite the terms of contract. In this regard, the reliance which has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India is governed the field wherein at paragraph-8, it has been laid down that the courts and Tribunals cannot rewrite contracts and direct payment contrary to the terms of the contract, that too to the defaulting party. This Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the judgments relied upon them, is of the view that the petitioner, when found to be unsuccessful to the selection process, has accepted the offer of appointment as Visiting Faculty and to that effect he has been given the offer of appointment along with the terms and conditions apprising him specifically that the appointment is contractual. He, after accepting it consciously, has discharged his duty. He, after accepting it consciously, has discharged his duty. Hence, the terms and conditions given in the offer of appointment is binding upon the parties, since it is the settled position of law that when the appointment is on contract, the service rule applicable for the employees working under the establishment on regular basis will not be applicable rather the same will be governed on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment and once the terms and conditions made in the offer of appointment has been accepted it binds the parties and as such, seeking a direction from this Court to delete the words "visiting faculty" from the offer of appointment amounts to rewriting the contract by seeking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but according to my considered view, after going through the judgments relied upon by the parties, I am of the view that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case rather it is judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India wherein at paragraph-8, it has been laid down that the courts and Tribunals cannot rewrite contracts and direct payment contrary to the terms of the contract, that too to the defaulting party. However, the factual aspect of this case is different to that of the factual aspect governing the field in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India, but the facts remains that the petitioner had entered into a contract by accepting the offer of appointment and after accepting and getting the extension twice, last one on his request, he cannot seek a direction from this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to delete the word "visiting" from the offer of appointment. According to my considered view, the provision as contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to exercising the power, if there is any legal vested right and if the same has been infringed. But getting the contract as per the offer of appointment as Visiting Faculty, now praying to strike down the word "visiting" from the offer of appointment cannot be said to be the legal vested right of the petitioner. But getting the contract as per the offer of appointment as Visiting Faculty, now praying to strike down the word "visiting" from the offer of appointment cannot be said to be the legal vested right of the petitioner. Hence, this Court refrains itself from exercising its jurisdiction to extend the relief to the petitioner by striking down the word "visiting" from the offer of appointment. Accordingly, Issue No.(iii) is answered against the petitioner. Issue No.(iv) The petitioner has been found to be unsuccessful and to that effect the specific stand has been taken by the opposite parties at para10 of the counter affidavit. For ready reference, the said paragraph is being referred herein below:- "That in reply to para-1 of the Writ Application it is most respectfully submitted that allegation made by the petitioner is false and baseless. The petitioner appeared for an interview on 30th November, 2013 through video conference (skype) for the selection of Assistant Professor Position along with other candidates. Amongst the candidates who appeared for the interview the petitioner was found not suitable/competent for the said position and was accordingly rejected by the selection committee, the name of the petitioner does not find place in the recommendation paper submitted by the selection committee for the position of Assistant Professor. Thereafter on the very same day the selection committee unanimously decided to have a second sitting and select few candidates on purely temporary basics to meet the demands of teaching. Accordingly, two candidates including the petitioner who appeared through Skype interview were recommended by the selection committee to be appointed as visiting faculty (on contract) in the School of Earth, Ocean and Climate Sciences (SEOCS) and as per the norms of IIT the name of the petitioner was forwarded for approval to the Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhubaneswar (Opposite party no.2) and consequently, his name was approved by the Board of Governors for the position of visiting faculty on contract basics for a period of one year. The above action of the institution cannot be termed as illegal and arbitrary. The documents pertaining to selection and recommendation are confidential documents, and the answering Opp. Parties craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to provide the same at the time of hearing." The response has been filed to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, but no rebuttal reply has been given to that effect. The documents pertaining to selection and recommendation are confidential documents, and the answering Opp. Parties craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to provide the same at the time of hearing." The response has been filed to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, but no rebuttal reply has been given to that effect. It is evident from the statement made at para-10 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was declared to be unsuccessful in course of scrutiny of his candidature by the Selection Committee which was constituted in terms of the Statute No.12. The petitioner has been apprised with respect to the result, but in the second half he was offered with the offer of appointment of Visiting Faculty and thereafter, due communication was made seeking his willingness which he has accepted ad thereafter, he has given his joining to render his service as a Visiting Faculty. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, in course of argument, has produced the original record pertaining to the selection process containing the Interview Performance Evaluation and this Court, after going through it, has found that the petitioner has secured 85 marks out of 100 and two selected candidates, namely, Dr. Dibakar Ghosal and Dr. Indra Sekhar Sen have got 90 and 95 marks respectively. The Selection Committee has assessed the performance of all the candidates consist of five members. This Court for ready reference is reflecting the marks obtained by the petitioner along with other candidates herein below:- Name Marks (Out of 100) Dr. Kavita Tripathy Absent Dr. Dibakar Ghosal 90 Dr. Saroj Kumar Mondal 45 Dr. Himanshu Mittal 40 Dr. Indra Sekhar Sen 95 Dr. Nishi Rani Absent Dr. Shailesh Agarwal Absent Dr. Ankur Roy 40 Dr. Abhishek Kumar Rai 85 Dr. Sanghamitra Ghosh 85 The petitioner as well as one Dr. Sanghamitra Ghosh who has got 85 has not found to be meritorious and suitable in comparison to that of candidates of Dr. Dibakar Ghosal and Dr. Indra Sekhar Sen and accordingly they have been declared to be unsuccessful in the selection process. The petitioner has raised the question that he cannot be held to be an unsuccessful candidate. Sanghamitra Ghosh who has got 85 has not found to be meritorious and suitable in comparison to that of candidates of Dr. Dibakar Ghosal and Dr. Indra Sekhar Sen and accordingly they have been declared to be unsuccessful in the selection process. The petitioner has raised the question that he cannot be held to be an unsuccessful candidate. It is not in dispute, so far as legal position is concerned, the jurisdiction of the court of law as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of UPSC v. K. Rajaiah and Others, (2005) 10 SCC 15 ; Union of India and Another v. A.K. Narula, (2007) 11 SCC 10 ; M.V. Thimmaiah and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 119 ; and Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10854 of 2014 wherein it has repeatedly observed and concluded that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an appellate authority or an umpire to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like a Court of Appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only, and the courts rarely sits as a Court of Appeal to examine the selection of a candidate; nor is it the business of the Court to examine each candidate and record its opinion. Since the Selection Committee is manned by experts in the field, the court to trust their assessment unless it is actuated with malice or bristles with mala fides or arbitrariness. In view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the Selection Committee has assessed the candidature of one or other candidates including the petitioner. They, while assessing the inquiry report, has found that the petitioner along with one Dr. Sanghamitra Ghosh have obtained 85 marks each while selected candidates have got 90 and 95 respectively and accordingly, both of them have been selected. Hence, this Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an Appellate Authority. Furthermore, the candidates cannot take a calculate chance and appear at the interview, then only after the result of the interview not selected. Hence, this Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an Appellate Authority. Furthermore, the candidates cannot take a calculate chance and appear at the interview, then only after the result of the interview not selected. He cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, (1986) AIR(Supreme Court) 1043; Madan Lal and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1995) AIR(Supreme Court) 1088; and Dr. Basuvaiah. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has sought for a direction to strike down the word "Visiting" from the offer of appointment. If this Court strike down the word "Visiting" from the offer of appointment which would mean interfering with the decision of the Selection Committee which, in view of the settled position of law as discussed above, will not be proper to do by exercising the power of appeal sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise the same will amounts to interfering with the decision of the expert body. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner became declared to be incompetent/unsuccessful cannot be allowed to be continued in service as regular Faculty Member. So far the issue of jurisdiction as has been raised, it cannot be said that the appointing authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in selecting the petitioner on contract although the petitioner had participated in selection process for regular appointment, but became unsuccessful thereafter he has not questioned it rather he has willingly accepted the offer i.e. appointment on contract basis and continued in service. The decision of Selection Committee in declaring the petitioner cannot be termed as without jurisdiction, but simultaneously engaging the petitioner on contract basis can also not to be termed as the action beyond jurisdiction reason being that when the authority has called upon the candidates to participate in the selection and on merit in comparison with the candidature of other candidates. When the Selection Committee has thought it not proper to select the petitioner on regular basis as per the advertisement, they could go for selection in view of the provision of Statute No.17 of the Act, 1962 which contains provision for contractual appointment but the authority had taken decision to select from the same list of the candidates, who have declared to be unsuccessful. It is for time saving and due to public interest, to provide teaching staffs in the subject. Hence it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner, if aggrieved, ought to have challenged the said action at appropriate time. Accordingly, the Issue No.(iv) is answered against the petitioner. Issue No.(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the advertisement has been issued in terms of the provision of Statue No.12 of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur which provides for appointment in the regular manner while Statute No.17 provides for appointment on contract basis. The advertisement has been issued under Annexure-1 to fill up the regular post in which the petitioner had participated, but after conclusion of the same, the petitioner has been appointed as the Visiting Faculty, which according to him, is the change of selection process which cannot be allowed to be done. He has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree . While, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Institute submits that there is question of change any rule of advertisement and in terms of Statute No.12, there is no deviation from any terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner had participated in the selection process, but he has not been found to be successful and he has become incompetent to get his engagement in the regular capacity as per the guideline in the subject in question. The petitioner had participated in the selection process, but he has not been found to be successful and he has become incompetent to get his engagement in the regular capacity as per the guideline in the subject in question. Hence, he has been offered with the appointment as Visiting Faculty which he has accepted and not only accepted rather the contract was extended twice, as would be evident from order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure-6), 2.1.2015 (Annexure-7) and third time on the application of the petitioner vide application dated 9.3.2016 (Annexure-8) which so fortify the fact that during entire service terms, the petitioner was not at all aggrieved with his engagement, rather he thereafter also submitted application requesting the authority to extend the period further, but not agreed by the authorities, as would be evident from the letter of the petitioner under Annexure-8 annexed to the additional affidavit filed by the opposite parties. This clearly suggests that when the contract period has not been extended, the instant writ petition has been filed and as such, in this pretext, it cannot be said that there is change of any rule. This Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, is of the view that the admitted position in this case is that the selection has been initiated for fulfilling the post of Assistant Professor in the subject in question in which the petitioner along with the others had participated, but by virtue of the decision of the Selection Committee, he has been declared to be unsuccessful being incompetent and as such, he has not been recommended. The petitioner has not challenged his non-selection/nonrecommendation on any ground whatsoever rather when he has been offered the assignment by way of Visiting Faculty, he has accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment and started discharging his duty. He has got extension twice. The petitioner has not challenged his non-selection/nonrecommendation on any ground whatsoever rather when he has been offered the assignment by way of Visiting Faculty, he has accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment and started discharging his duty. He has got extension twice. The question of change of terms of advertisement does not arise here because none of the condition of the advertisement has been changed rather it is a case where the petitioner has participated in terms of the selection process issued by way of advertisement in Annexur-1 and after scrutiny of his candidature, he has found to be not upto mark to be selected on regular basis as Assistant Professor since he has been found to be incompetent and not recommended and as such, it is a case of nonselection. Hence, it cannot be said that the rule of selection has been changed as has been contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, in my considered view, the contention and ground raised by the petitioner in this regard is not fit to be accepted. Accordingly, the Issue No.(v) is answered against the petitioner. 10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim order dated 15.12.2016 stands vacated. Final Result : Dismissed