JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner has, by way of this writ petition, sought to quash appointment of opposite party No. 4 as Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS) and issue direction to opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to appoint him as GRS of Tulasipur Gram Panchayat as per the merit list in Annexure-7. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner, after passing HSC examination in the year 1996, took admission in +2 Science and passed in the year 1998 having secured 494 marks. On 30.12.2007, the Government of Orissa in Panchayatiraj Department published an advertisement in Annexure-3 inviting applications from desirous candidates for appointment to the post of Grama Rozgar Sevak (GRS) with remuneration of Rs. 2000/- per month under the National Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act and NIREG Scheme. Subsequently, a revised notification/guidelines was issued for appointment of GRS on 23.04.2008 in Annexure-4, which was obtained by the petitioner from the office of the DRDA, Pun under RTI Act. Pursuant to advertisement in Annexure-3, the petitioner submitted his application for engagement as GRS in respect of Tulasipur Gram Panchayat. Since no information was received about the result of the selection, the petitioner time and again enquired from the office of the DRDA, Puri and finally learnt that opposite party No. 3 has engaged a less meritorious candidate as GRS under Tulasipur G.P. Thereafter, the petitioner received information under the RTI Act that his position was at serial No. 2 and that the candidate at serial No. 1 has forgone his engagement as GRS. Thus, he being the next candidate in the merit list deserves to be appointed as GRS in Tulasipur G.P. When the petitioner is waiting for his engagement, he came to know that opposite party No. 4., who was at serial No. 8 in the merit list, has been engaged as GRS in Tulasipur G.P. by opposite party No. 3. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to advertisement in Annexure-3, the petitioner submitted his application for engagement as GRS, so far it relates to Puri district, under National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act and NREG Scheme. Hence, this application. 3. Mr. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to advertisement in Annexure-3, the petitioner submitted his application for engagement as GRS, so far it relates to Puri district, under National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act and NREG Scheme. Thereafter, a merit list was prepared by the authority, and as such though the petitioner secured higher percentage marks he has not been given engagement, but the person securing less percentage of marks than the petitioner, namely, opposite party No. 4, whose name finds place at serial No. 8 in the merit list, has been engaged as GRS by the authority. It is further contended that though the petitioner satisfied all the requirements, as per the advertisement issued by the authority, along with the qualification of computer application, he was not selected. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application and sought for interference of this Court. 4. Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner, having not satisfied the requirement of clause-4 of the eligibility criteria in pursuance of the advertisement in Annexure-3, by which it has been stated that the candidates must have acquired computer qualification from IGNOU or any other university, was not selected even though he secured higher percentage of marks academically. More so, the advertisement clearly indicates that desirous candidates so, far it relates to Cuttack, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Purr, Khurda and Nayagarh, have to make applications in between 01.01.2008 and 15.01.2008. Therefore," the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Annexure-4 stating that the petitioner has satisfied all the requirements therein and was entitled to get engagement order, is not applicable to the petitioner, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not an applicant for the period from 25.04.2008 to 09.05.2008. Further, the relaxation, so far it relates' to Puri district, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been indicated anywhere. Consequentially, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit, as has been claimed in the writ petition, and the same should be dismissed. 5. Mr. Further, the relaxation, so far it relates' to Puri district, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been indicated anywhere. Consequentially, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit, as has been claimed in the writ petition, and the same should be dismissed. 5. Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4 contended that opposite party No. 4 having been satisfied the conditions stipulated in the advertisement in Annexure-3 and possessed computer qualification from a recognized university, i.e., from the Utkal University, she was selected and duly engaged by the authority though academically opposite party No. 4 has secured less marks than the petitioner, as is revealed from Annexure-7 Since as per the advertisement, opposite party No. 4 satisfied all the requirements, she got engagement order in her favour. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 6. This Court heard Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. G.N. Rout, learned Addl Standing Counsel for State opposite parties No. 1 to 3; and Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4; and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 7. In the instant case, the admitted facts are that Government of Odisha in Panchayatiraj Department issued an advertisement in Annexure-3 for engagement of Gram Rojgar Sevak in respect of Cuttack, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Khurda and Nayagarh district under National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act and NREG Scheme. 7. In the instant case, the admitted facts are that Government of Odisha in Panchayatiraj Department issued an advertisement in Annexure-3 for engagement of Gram Rojgar Sevak in respect of Cuttack, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Puri, Khurda and Nayagarh district under National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act and NREG Scheme. In the said advertisement, the following were the eligibility criteria:- (1) the candidate who would apply for the post must be a resident of the very same Gram Panchayat; (2) the age of the candidate should not be less than 18 years and above 40 years as on 01.01.2008; (3) the candidate must have passed +2/intermediate examination; and (4) the candidate must have acquired computer qualification in the following manner: Under DOEACC­AICTE Under IGNOU Under University Foundation course basis computer literary “O” Level Certificate in computer/certificate of participation Advance Diploma in computer “A” Level PGDCA DCA/PGDCA Master Computer Application “B” Level MCA MCA It was also specified in the advertisement that the candidate, satisfying all the requirements and securing higher marks in +2/intermediate examination, would be given engagement as GRS and the marks secured in computer examination would not be taken into consideration. As such, with the above eligibility criteria, applications were invited from the interested candidates with the stipulation that the same should be submitted in the office of the concerned District Rural Development Agency or sent by registered post with A.D. in between 01.01.2008 and 15.01.2008 and that the applications received after the cut-off date, would not be accepted. The petitioner, having satisfied the requirements, as stated in the eligibility criteria of the advertisement, applied for the said post and, as such, the petitioner possessed the Diploma in Computer Application certificate from a private institution, namely, Kalinga Institute of Hardware and Software Technology (KIHST), Bhubaneswar. Similarly, opposite party No. 4 also having satisfied the requirement by possessing computer application certificate from Utkal University, applied for the said post. A merit list was prepared by the authority, so far it relates to Tulasipur Gram Panchayat where there were 13 applicants. In the same, the petitioner's name finds place at serial No. 2, whereas name of opposite party No. 4 finds place at serial No. 8. Admittedly, opposite party No. 4 secured 375 marks in +2 examination,' whereas petitioner secured 494 marks which is higher than the marks secured by opposite party No. 4. In the same, the petitioner's name finds place at serial No. 2, whereas name of opposite party No. 4 finds place at serial No. 8. Admittedly, opposite party No. 4 secured 375 marks in +2 examination,' whereas petitioner secured 494 marks which is higher than the marks secured by opposite party No. 4. But so far as acquiring computer qualification is concerned, the petitioner has acquired such qualification from Kalinga Institute of Hardware and Software Technology (KIHST), Bhubaneswar, which is a private institution, whereas opposite party No. 4 acquired such qualification from Utkal University. Therefore, as per the advertisement, since opposite party No. 4 acquired computer qualification from the Utkal University and the petitioner acquired the same from a private institution, i.e., KIHST, his case has not been taken into consideration by the authority for engagement. 8. In Subhash Chan Jain v. Delhi electric Supply Undertaking, AIR 1981 SC 75 : 1979 (3) SCC 786 , the apex Court held that when a qualification has been prescribed for a post, that cannot be obliterated by posting those who do not have that qualification as against those who have that qualification. 9. In Madan Mohan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (3) SCC 724 : AIR 2008 SC 1657 , the apex Court held that once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which was laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made subsequently. 10. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court mentioned (supra) if the advertisement has fixed the eligibility criteria, the same has to be adhered to and the selection should be done in terms of conditions stipulated in the advertisement itself. If the selection has been done by following the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, that cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or unreasonable so as to give interference of this Court. Therefore, the selection of opposite party No. 4 having been done in consonance with the terms of the illegibility criteria/conditions stipulated in the advertisement issued, thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority concerned. 11. Mr. Therefore, the selection of opposite party No. 4 having been done in consonance with the terms of the illegibility criteria/conditions stipulated in the advertisement issued, thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority concerned. 11. Mr. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that information obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act, which has been placed on record as Annexure-4. As it appears, criteria for engagement of GRS had been specified therein, which reads as under:- 1. The candidate who shall apply for the post of GRS must be resident of the very same Gram Panchayat; 2. the age of the candidate should not be less than 18 years and above 40 years as on 01.01.2008; 3. the candidate must passed +2/intermediate examination and 4. the candidate who satisfy the requirement and have secured higher marks in +2/intermediate examination excluding the 4th optional subject will be selected as GRS. As would be evident from the above, condition stipulated with regard to acquisition of computer qualification has been excluded and, as such, this principle is only applicable for selection of GRS in Puri district, and to the candidates, who submitted their applications in between 25.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 But fact remains, the petitioner having applied for the post of GRS, pursuant to advertisement in Annexure-3, the document in Annexure-4 may not have any application. Furthermore, nothing has been indicated as to why the advertisement in Annexure-4, excluding the computer qualification, is applicable to Puri district only when the same is meant for other districts, namely, Cuttack, Kendrapara, Jagatsinghpur, Khurda and Nayagarh. Thereby, the advertisement in Annexure-4, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration, as the criteria fixed therein being only applicable to Puri district. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State opposite parties, paragraphs-6, 7 and 8 whereof read thus:- "6. That it is submitted that the advertisement, amongst others, provides a detail procedure to be followed during the process of selection as such, a candidate must be permanent resident of the concerned Gram Panchayat, his age should not be less than 18 years and more than 40 as on 01.01.2008, the candidate must have passed +2/intermediate examination and he must have completed the requisite qualification of computer course, as mentioned in the said advertisement. 7. 7. That so far the qualification of computer course is concerned, the advertisement provides as follows; Course description Under DOEACC -AICTE Under IGNOU Under University Foundation course basis computer literary “O” Level Certificate in computer/certificate of participation Advance Diploma in computer “A” Level PGDCA DCA/PGDCA Master Computer Application “B” Level MCA MCA From the aforesaid table, it is manifest that a candidate must have possessed either "O" Level or "A" Level or "B" Level under DOEACC-AICTE. Alternatively, a candidate must have possessed either certificate in computer/certificate of participation or PGDCA or MCA under IGNOU or a candidate must have acquired either DCA/PGDCA or MCA from any other University. This being the essential criteria laid down in the advertisement, and the petitioner since lacks the eligibility criteria, the selection committee after considering the application of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 4 arrived at a conclusion that the opposite party No. 4 who fulfills the eligibility criteria was eligible to hold the said post and accordingly rejected the application of the petitioner. 8. That the ground on which the application of the petitioner has been rejected is legal and justified inasmuch as the certificates enclosed to the writ petition showing his educational qualification is not disputed. On the contrary, he has not produced a single documentary evidence showing his qualification in computer course as per the advertisement, which fact has been consciously suppressed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to conform to the criteria laid down in the advertisement with regard to submission of computer certificate, the selection committee has rightly rejected his candidature and selected the opposite party No. 4 to be engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevak in Tulsipur Gram Panchayat under Nimapara Block, who has been continuing as such. Therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the opposite party No. 3 and as such the prayers sought for in the writ petition merit no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed." 13. In view of the specific stand taken by the opposite party No. 3 in the counter affidavit, as extracted hereinbefore, as well as the settled position of law discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in the matter engaging opposite party No. 4 as Gram Rozgar Sevak (GRS) in respect of Tulasipur Gram Panchayat. Thereby, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is thus dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.