JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2018 passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No.16 of 2016 by which prayer for quashing of the appointment of respondent no.12-Md. Nafil Ahhmad was dismissed. 3. The short fact of the case is that Secretary of Madarsa Sulaimania, Koila Bazar, Rajmahal, Sahebganj invited applications for the post of Moulvi in which sixteen applicants had applied. Out of sixteen applicants, fourteen applicants had participated in the written examination and 13 applicants had appeared before the Interview Board. The written test was of 80 marks and 20 marks was fixed for the interview. On the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination as well as in the interview, the result was declared in which respondent no.12-Md. Nafil Ahhmad secured highest marks and was declared successful and appointment letter was issued in his favour. The appellant was one of the candidates who had participated in the written examination as well as faced Interview Board but was not selected for the said post. Being aggrieved by the issuance of appointment letter to respondent no.12, the appellant has firstly approached the Jharkhand Education Tribunal and challenged the appointment of respondent no.12 on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the law. 4. On consideration of the material, the Tribunal passed order on 15th January, 2018 dismissing the petition of appellant and found that no illegalities/irregularities have been committed in filling up the post of Moulvi and found that appointment of respondent no.12 is in consonance with law and thereby held that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. The appellant has approached this Court challenging the order dated 15th January, 2018 passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No.16 of 2016 mainly on two grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Moulvi was not published as per the guidelines of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Moulvi was not published as per the guidelines of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. According to the guidelines, 21 days’ notice must have been given to the applicants for submitting the application for the post but the same was not followed as the advertisement appeared in a local Hindi newspaper namely ‘Prabhat Khabar’ on 28th January, 2015 and the last date for filling up the application was 31st January, 2015. Learned counsel further submitted that only three days were granted to the applicants to submit their applications which is beyond the guidelines of the Jharkhand Academic Council. Learned counsel also submitted that minimum qualification for the said post was Moulvi and maximum qualification was Aalim/Fazil but the degree obtained from the University would not be valid for the said post. In spite of that the selected candidate-respondent no.12 was having University degree and therefore his selection was not proper. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the appointment of respondent no.12 on the ground that the marks awarded in the written examination was not proper and there was some glaring irregularity in evaluating the answer sheets of the written examination of the candidates, therefore, the marks obtained by the respondent no.12 was higher than the rest of the candidates. 8. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5 as well as Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 submitted that the advertisement for the post of Moulvi in the Madarsa Sulemania, Rajmahal, Sahebganj was firstly published in a Urdu newspaper which was named and styled as ‘Rojana Faruque Tanzim’ on 9th January, 2015 and last date of submission of application was 31st January, 2015, therefore, sufficient time was allowed to the candidates to apply for the post of Moulvi. She further submitted that altogether, sixteen candidates had applied for the said post and this appellant had also applied and was one of the candidates who had appeared in the written examination and had also faced the Interview Board. She further submitted that altogether, sixteen candidates had applied for the said post and this appellant had also applied and was one of the candidates who had appeared in the written examination and had also faced the Interview Board. She also submitted that the Tribunal has also considered this aspect of the matter that initially the advertisement was published in Urdu newspaper ‘Rojana Faruque Tanzim’ and to give wide circulation, the notice was repeated and was published in the daily Hindi newspaper ‘Prabhat Khabar’ on 28th January, 2015 with a view that maximum candidates should know about the filling up of the post. This advertisement in the ‘Prabhat Khabar’ was a repeat advertisement and the Tribunal has also held that proper time was given to the candidates for applying the post. The Tribunal held that “we are of the considered view that adequate time has been allowed to the eligible applicants to apply for the post advertised.” 9. Learned counsel further submitted that qualification of respondent no.12 having University degree was not considered as he was having the minimum qualification of Moulvi, so the required minimum qualification was fulfilled by the respondent no.12. Learned counsel also submitted that in the counter affidavit at page 27 she has attached the tabulation statements of the candidates from which it would appear that the appellant- Maskura Khatun was having degree of Fazil (Urdu) as well as B.T. and has obtained 26 marks in written examination and 08 marks in oral examination, totaling 34 marks whereas respondent no.12 Md. Nafil Ahmad was having qualification of Moulvi (M.A.) as well as B.Ed who had obtained 69 marks in written examination and 15 marks in oral examination, totaling 84 marks and, therefore, he was declared first position. In this situation, it would appear that the appellant has scored lesser marks than the respondent no.12, who has been selected for the post of Moulvi. Learned counsel also submitted that after appearing in the written examination and after facing the Interview Board when the result was declared, then appellant cannot raise all these points at this stage. Lastly learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that on the direction of the Jharkhand Academic Council an inquiry was conducted by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj, who after inquiry submitted its report through letter no. Lastly learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that on the direction of the Jharkhand Academic Council an inquiry was conducted by the District Education Officer, Sahebganj, who after inquiry submitted its report through letter no. 955 dated 21st June, 2016 which is attached as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit from which it would also appear that father of appellant has stated that her daughter Maskura Khatun had submitted her application. During inquiry it was found that the advertisement was published in Urdu newspaper ‘Rojana Faruque Tanzim’ and in Hindi newspaper ‘Prabhat Khabar’ against which 16 applicants had applied and 14 applicants had appeared before the Interview Board. The Inquiry Officer did not find any irregularity in the selection process. This inquiry report has also been considered by the learned Tribunal. 10. Considering the above submissions of the parties as well as the materials placed before this Court, it appears that Tribunal has also considered and discussed these points while passing the impugned order. The advertisement was not only published in Urdu newspaper but it was repeated in a Hindi newspaper just to give wide circulation and to the knowledge of all the eligible candidates. It further appears that 16 candidates including the appellant had applied in response to the advertisement for appointment to the post of Moulvi and after participation in the written examination as well as after facing the Interview Board the marks obtained by all the 14 candidates which has been attached with the counter affidavit at page 27 reveals the marks obtained in written test as well as in the oral examination and on the basis of the marks obtained, the result was published, therefore, the Tribunal has also held that the appointment of respondent no.12 is in consonance with the established procedure. It further appears that the respondent no.12 was having the minimum qualification of Moulvi which was the requirement for the post and no paper has been brought to the notice of the Court that his degree of University was considered any time during the selection process for the post of Moulvi. It further appears that the respondent no.12 was having the minimum qualification of Moulvi which was the requirement for the post and no paper has been brought to the notice of the Court that his degree of University was considered any time during the selection process for the post of Moulvi. These points were well discussed by the Tribunal and even considering the inquiry report the Tribunal has held that no irregularity in the selection process could be found, therefore, in this situation, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 15th January, 2018 passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No.16 of 2016. 11. In this circumstances, instant appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, however, the parties shall bear their own cost. 12. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned.