ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1107 of 2013 in and by which the Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the appellant - Zila Parishad to issue appointment to the first respondent. 3. The dispute relates to advertisement issued in the year 1995 by the appellant - Zila Parishad for appointment of Teacher Grade-III. The first respondent - Om Prakash applied for the said post and went through the process of selection and he obtained 76.68 marks in total. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 viz. Jagdish Chandra and Vidhotama Sharma obtained less marks viz., 74.84 and 74.44 respectively. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 who were having less marks than respondent no. 1 was given appointment by the Appellant - Zila Parishad. Being aggrieved, respondent no. 1 filed the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Court would not incline to interfere with the impugned order after seventeen years. The learned Single Judge also held that it cannot be said that respondent no.1 was deprived from his rightful claim of appointment. 4. Being aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed appeal before the Division Bench. By the impugned order dated 17.09.2015 the Division Bench allowed the appeal by holding that the Rules under which recruitment was made, nowhere restricted consideration of respondent no. 1 for appointment on the basis of place of degree certificate obtained from any state other than the State of Rajasthan. The Division Bench observed that only requirement was that such a degree must be recognized from the University or Board and, therefore, non consideration of the candidature of first respondent was not justified. On those findings, the Division Bench directed the appellant to consider the candidature of the first respondent for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III if he is otherwise found suitable on the date of consideration. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Zila Parishad is before us. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Zila Parishad is before us. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. The advertisement issued for appointment of Teacher Grade-III stipulated that the eligibility for the candidature of the Teacher Grade-III was that the degree must have been obtained from the recognized University or the Board from the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to the Circular issued by the Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj dated 22.12.1995 which, inter alia, stipulates that the degree obtained by correspondence from outside the State of Rajasthan is not recognized unless those colleges/universities are specifically recognized by the Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the advertisement contained same stipulation. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that first respondent has neither challenged the advertisement nor challenged the Circular dated 22.12.1995 issued by the Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj. Having participated in the selection process and when he is not selected, it is not open to respondent no. 1 to turn round and challenge the conditions stipulated in the advertisement itself. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has drawn our attention to certain appointments made by the Government of Rajasthan namely, Hemlata and Shri Dharmendra Parshad and others as Teacher Grade -III and submitted that in those cases State of Rajasthan recognized the degree obtained by those candidates and issued appointment orders and first respondent is similarly situated. 8. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that those appointments having been issued by the Education Department and such an order of appointment issued to those candidates was issued by the Education Department and the same is not binding upon the appellant as the appellant is governed by Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj. So far as recruitments by the appellant - Zila Parishad are concerned, they are governed by the Notification/Circular issued by the Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj which is competent to provide recognition or de-recogniztion equivalent to any certificate or degree. 9. So far as recruitments by the appellant - Zila Parishad are concerned, they are governed by the Notification/Circular issued by the Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj which is competent to provide recognition or de-recogniztion equivalent to any certificate or degree. 9. Admittedly the first respondent is possessing Basic Teaching Certificate obtained by correspondence course from the State of Madhya Pradesh and the same is not recognized by the Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj, State of Rajasthan and thus the first respondent was not having the requisite qualification for the post of Teacher Grade-III. 10. Keeping in view that the appellant is governed by Department of Rural Department and Panchayati Raj, the Division Bench was not right in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench fell in error in directing the appellant - Zila Parishad to consider the candidature of the first respondent and the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.