ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjoy Piparawall, Advocate assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate, counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 & 4. 3. Heard Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C. to S.C. V, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief at para-1 which reads as under:- (i) For a direction upon the respondent no.4 in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing part of the result of the High School Teachers’ Examination, 2008 whereby and whereunder the respondents Jharkhand Public Service Commission have published the result by illegally raising the cut off marks limit after commencement of the selection process, and (ii) For a direction upon the respondents and especially the respondent nos. 3 & 4 to adhere to the cut off limit of 35% for ST candidates as fixed and declared in the original advertisement no.12/2008 and thereby include the name of the petitioner as successful candidate in the High School Teachers’ Examination, 2008. (iii) For a direction for holding and declaring that the amending notification being Jharkhand Government Secondary School (Service Condition) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 contained in Notification No. 12/N.2-01/2008/1625 dated 14.06.08 has no application to the selection process commenced pursuant to advertisement no. 12/2008, and (iv) For quashing and setting aside the amendment advertisement whereby and whereunder the respondent nos.3 & 4, after commencement of the selection process has changed the criteria of selection. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:- (a) The petitioner belongs to Schedule Tribe category. (b) An advertisement was issued in the month of February, 2008 being Advertisement No.12/2008 wherein applications were invited for appointment to the post of teachers and the last date of application was 31.03.2008. (c) In the said advertisement there was a specific provisions that the minimum marks which a person is required to obtain in the examination for reserved category candidates was only 35. (d) Pursuant to this advertisement the petitioner duly applied. (e) In the meantime the notification being Jharkhand Government Secondary School (Service Condition) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 contained in Notification No. 12/N.2-01/2008/1625 dated 14.06.08 was issued wherein the cut off marks for the reserved category candidates was enhanced from 35% to 40%. (d) Pursuant to this advertisement the petitioner duly applied. (e) In the meantime the notification being Jharkhand Government Secondary School (Service Condition) (Amendment) Rules, 2008 contained in Notification No. 12/N.2-01/2008/1625 dated 14.06.08 was issued wherein the cut off marks for the reserved category candidates was enhanced from 35% to 40%. (f) Subsequently the earlier Advertisement No. 12/2008 was amended vide another advertisement published in the month of July, 2008 giving last date for application as 14.08.2008. By this advertisement the respondents enhanced the cut off marks from 35% to 40% in line with the notification dated 14.06.2008. (g) The petitioner has stated in para-28 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not knowing about this change or amendment in the advertisement and he in a bonafide manner appeared in the examination thinking that the cut off is 35%. (h) The petitioner submits that this particular amended advertisement was made pursuant to the amendment in rule vide Annexure-9 dated 14.06.2008. (i) The specific case of the petitioner is that once the advertisement has been issued the process of selection has been initiated, in the midst it is not permissible for the respondents to change the criteria as mentioned in the original advertisement. (j) Counsel for the petitioner submits that he appeared in the examination on 09.08.2009, the results were declared in the year 2010 and thereafter he was not declared successful. Upon not being declared unsuccessful he filed this writ petition in the year 2011 vide affidavit dated 15.04.2011 making the aforesaid prayers which includes challenge to the amended advertisement. (k) Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three judgments being:- (i) W.P.(C). No. 6091 of 2011 dated 28.03.2011. (ii) Judgment reported in (2011) 2 JCR 154 . (iii) Judgment reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669 . (l) Counsel for the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and by relying upon the other two judgments counsel for the petitioner submits that once the process of selection has begun the criteria cannot be changed in the midst of the selection process. (m) Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the operative portion of the judgment dated 28.03.2012 in W.P.(C). (m) Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the operative portion of the judgment dated 28.03.2012 in W.P.(C). No. 6091 of 2011 and has submitted that in the said case the advertisement was published on 14.03.2011 for admission to the Graduate Medical Courses in the Medical Colleges of the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the process of examination was started. The petitioners appeared in the said examination on 18.05.2011. The petitioners obtained qualifying marks. Thereafter, the State Government issued notification dated 21.09.2011 recalling the earlier provisions of exchange of seats. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the only distinguishing feature so far as the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 6091 of 2011 and the instant case is concerned, here the criteria in the advertisement was changed prior to petitioner’s appearance in the examination and in the said case the rules were changed after the examination was held. (n) The petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the original advertisement and also submits that fresh applications were invited pursuant to the subsequent advertisement. (o) So far as, the other judgment reported in (2011) 2 JCR 154 , is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has placed the judgment at length and has submitted that in the said case the matter related to appointment to the post of lady supervisor and the petitioner in the said case was denied the appointment on the ground that she was below the age of 18 years when she was appointed as Anganbari Sevika and this criteria was not reflecting in the original advertisement. 6. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate on the other hand submits that after the original advertisement was issued in the month of February, 2008 the rules were amended vide notification dated 14.6.2008 and in accordance with the rule the subsequent advertisement was issued in the month of July, 2008 only by way of amendment to the original advertisement and the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 has to be read with the original advertisement of the month of February, 2008 and it is to be noted that vide advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 a fresh cutoff date was given for making applications. This advertisement was in consonance with the amended rules which were amended in the month of June, 2008 and it cannot be said that the amended rule in June, 2008 has been given any retrospective effect as the advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008 has to be read with the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008. He also submits that after amendment in the advertisement was issued, the admit card was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner duly participated in the examination and after he was declared unsuccessful he has filed this writ petition in the year 2011 challenging the amendment in advertisement and has also prayed for consequent reliefs. Counsel for the respondents also submits that the advertisement was issued in the newspaper and it is not open to the petitioner to contend that it was not known to him. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 para-18 which was subsequently followed (2014) 16 SCC 187 para-14 to 17 to submit that a person after having participated in the examination process, it is not open for him to challenge the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 7. After hearing the counsels for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner and this writ petition is dismissed on following facts and reasons:- (a) The original advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008 was subsequently amended vide advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 which is apparent from the face of the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 and accordingly the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 has to be read with advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008. By the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 a fresh date for submission of application was also given. Since the advertisement itself was amended in the month of July, 2008, it cannot be said that the amended rules which were amended in the month of June 2008 were given retrospective effect. By the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 a fresh date for submission of application was also given. Since the advertisement itself was amended in the month of July, 2008, it cannot be said that the amended rules which were amended in the month of June 2008 were given retrospective effect. (b) The contention of the petitioner is that as earlier the advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008 was a fresh advertisement and the advertisement prior to February, 2008 was scraped and in this case the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 does not scrap the earlier advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008 and therefore the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 is to be treated as a fresh advertisement, is devoid of any merits and hence rejected. This is due to the reason that on the face of it, the advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 is in continuation to the advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008 and on the face of it, it is an amendment to the earlier advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008. (c) The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of this advertisement issued in the month of July, 2008 cannot be accepted particularly in view of the fact that this advertisement was issued by way of paper publication and it is a notice to the public at large and therefore it is not open to the petitioner to contend that he was not aware of the subsequent advertisement. (d) Moreover the petitioner was issued the admit card after the subsequent amended advertisement of July, 2008 and the petitioner duly participated in the examination and after having been declared unsuccessful the petitioner has challenged the advertisement itself in the year 2011 by filing the instant writ petition. (e) This court fully agree with the contention raised by the respondents that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the amended advertisement of July 2008 after having declared unsuccessful in the examination and the respondents have rightly relied upon the judgments reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100 , (2014) 16 SCC 187 . In (2007) 8 SCC 100 it has been held as under:- “18. In (2007) 8 SCC 100 it has been held as under:- “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. In (2014) 16 SCC 187 it has been held as under:- 14. The next submission which has been presented before us is that when the respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla. In the said case a three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realised that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court. 15. In this context, we may quote a passage from Madan Lal v. State of J&K with profit: (SCC p. 493, para 9) “9. … It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla15 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 16. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, the Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 149, para 34) “34. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, the Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 149, para 34) “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seems to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 17. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, the Court reiterated the principle that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.” (f) So far as, the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the facts in W.P.(C). No. 6091 of 2011 is totally distinct in as much as the notification was issued by the State Government after the entire examination process was over and after the petitioners of the said case had obtained the qualifying marks and in that case it was held that it was not open to change the qualifying marks or to change the rules by issuance of notification subsequent to the declaration of the results. (g) So far as the case reported in (2011) 2 JCR 154 is concerned the facts of the said case is totally different. The eligibility which was not mentioned in the advertisement was sought to be applied to the petitioner which was subsequently declared by this court as illegal. (h) There is no dispute in the proposition that process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement but in the instant case the subsequent advertisement in the month of July, 2008 was in continuation of the original advertisement issued in the month of February, 2008 which was by way of amendment to the original advertisement and the petitioner having not challenged the subsequent advertisement at an appropriate stage cannot be permitted to challenge the same after having participated in the selection process and having been declared unsuccessful. 8. In view of the aforesaid findings, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.