JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. The instant intra-court appeal has been listed under the heading for “Orders (with defects).” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defects as has been pointed out by the Office vide stamp report dated 18.09.2018 wherein altogether eight defects have been pointed out of which defect Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been removed. It has further been submitted that so far as rest of the defects are concerned, the same may be ignored. 4. This Court has gone across the remaining defects which have not been removed and found therefrom that the defects can be ignored. In view thereof, the rest of the defects as have been pointed out by the office in the office note dated 18.09.2018 are ignored. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed to hear the matter on merit at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondents both for the State as well as the RIMS have also consented for hearing of the matter at this stage. In view thereof, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant appeal has been taken up for hearing on its merit. 6. The appeal has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5457 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the relief sought for by the appellant/writ-petitioner in the writ petition pertaining to quashing of the part of the Advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 and 06.09.2017 as contained in Annexure-3 and 4 to the writ petition have been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ-petition. 7. The brief facts of the case which requires to be referred, reads as under: The appellant/writ-petitioner claims to have passed Bachelor of Dental Science and took admission in Master of Dental Sciences at Awadh Dental College and Hospital, Jamshedpur and appeared in the final examination held in the month of June, 2017 result of which was published on 24.07.2017 in which the appellant/writ-petitioner was found to be passed. The respondent-RIMS came out with an advertisement on 28.03.2017 bearing Advertisement No. 2250/2017 inviting applications for fulfilling the post of Tutor in the different departments including Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology for which total four posts were notified. The appellant/writ-petitioner had applied for the post of Tutor under Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology being the appearing candidate in the postgraduate degree examination of MDS in the respective discipline. The application of the appellant/writ-petitioner was accepted and called for to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on 06.09.2017 but before she could have appeared before the Interview Board she was informed that the interview letter has been issued due to inadvertence and as such, as per the decision of the competent authority, the interview letter has been recalled. The appellant/writ-petitioner being aggrieved with such decision of the respondent-RIMS ventilated her grievance before this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter-alia on the ground that although the appellant/writ-petitioner was the appearing candidate on the date of submission of application form but as per the regulations of the RIMS which was notified on 22.09.2014 by the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand she was eligible to fill up her application form in the capacity of appearing candidate in the postgraduate examination since there is specific stipulation made in the regulation that the norms of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (in short AIIMS) would be followed and under the norms of AIIMS the appearing candidate are also required to fill up their application form but the authorities of the RIMS in not allowing the appellant/writ-petitioner to participate in the interview has acted illegally even though she was eligible to appear as per the regulation issued by the State Government governing the field but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and dismissed the writ-petition on the ground that as per the condition of advertisement which requires to possess the postgraduate pass certificate by one or the other candidates and the appellant/writ-petitioner admittedly was not having the postgraduate certificate on the date of submission of application or even on the date of interview, the said order is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Rajeev N. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has argued with vehemence by drawing attention of this Court to a notification issued by the State of Jharkhand notified on 22.09.2014 as contained in Annexure-6 to the paper-book wherein under Clause B(ii) provision has been made that the appointment of the doctors under the teaching cadre would be made in accordance with the terms of the AIIMS, New Delhi and as such, there is specific provision to follow the terms of the AIIMS wherein there is a provision even to permit the appearing candidate in the postgraduate examination to participate in the selection process, denial of the said opportunity is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of the power on the part of the selecting authority which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. 9. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the RIMS has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order since the learned Single Judge while passing the aforesaid order has considered the advertisement issued by the RIMS wherein under the head “Eligibility Criteria” it has been provided as condition No. 5 that a candidate is required to enclose with the application form the postgraduate pass certificate while under the condition No. 6 it has been provided that incomplete application will not be considered and therefore, it is the admitted case of the appellant/writ-petitioner that she had not passed postgraduate examination on the date of submission of application form and although the interview letter was issued but subsequently it was realized that it was issued inadvertently which was rectified by recalling it, as such, there is no illegality in taking such decision. It has been submitted in response to the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant about observance of the terms of AIIMS that RIMS being an autonomous body is to govern under the rules and regulations issued by the State of Jharkhand from time to time although in the said regulation stipulation has been made to observe the terms of AIIMS but that does not mean that the RIMS is to follow the terms of appointment also rather being an autonomous body it is the prerogative of the RIMS to evolve its own eligibility criteria for consideration of the candidature of one or the other candidates in the matter of appointment in the different departments and considering that aspect of the matter, the advertisement has been issued by the RIMS wherein specific condition has been laid down about passing of the postgraduate examination which is to be attached with the application form. It has further been submitted that the appellant/writ-petitioner has participated in the process of selection by making an application in terms of the Advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 which contains a specific condition about having postgraduate pass certificate to be attached with the application form, the appellant/writ-petitioner, after having known to the aforesaid condition has filled up her application form and now she is coming forward with the ground of eligibility to consider her candidature even though she is not fulfilling one of the conditions of the advertisement pertaining to have passed the postgraduate examination which she cannot do at this stage as per the settled position of law that once a candidate has participated in the selection process he/she cannot turn around and challenge the aforesaid condition. Lastly, it has been submitted that if the learned Single Judge has declined to pass any positive order by quashing the impugned advertisement, no infirmity has been committed. 10. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also by considering the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as available in the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to first deal with certain undisputed facts which read as hereunder: Admittedly, the appellant/writ-petitioner on the date of submission of application form was having no postgraduate pass certificate rather she in the capacity of appearing candidate in the postgraduate participated in the process of selection. It is further admitted case that the appellant/writ-petitioner has submitted application form for consideration of her candidature for the post of Tutor in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Implantology in pursuance to the advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017. It is evident from the aforesaid advertisement which is available on paper-book which contains eligibility criteria requiring therein to consider the candidature of one or the other candidates who is possessing postgraduate pass certificate (MDS) in the respective discipline from a recognized university/institute. Under the condition No. 5 it has been provided requiring one or the other candidates to submit the application form along with the self-attested photocopies of all mark sheets of BDS and MDS, attempt certificate of BDS and MDS, certificate of registration, postgraduate passing certificate along with one self-attested passport size photograph attached with the application form. Condition No. 6 contains a condition to the effect that incomplete application will not be considered. 11. It requires to refer herein that the State of Jharkhand came out with a notification on 22.09.2014 issued by the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department to be known as Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Regulation 2014 in pursuance to the power conferred under Section 32 of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Regulation 2002. The said notification apart from the other provisions contains a provision about constitution of permanent selection committee and appointment of doctors pertaining to teaching cadre wherein provision has been made that the permanent selection committee would be constituted in accordance with Schedule-V of the Regulation. The appointment of Medical Officers of teaching cadre would be through open advertisement by the selection committee in terms of AIIMS, New Delhi. It has further been provided that under Clause B(b) the merit list of medical officers will be in accordance with the schedule-III of the AIIMS, New Delhi. It has been provided under Schedule-III which contains eligibility and appearance along with salary and allowances of medical officers of the RIMS, Ranchi wherefrom it is evident that for the purpose of Tutor or Senior Resident postgraduate medical degree in the respective discipline from a recognized university/institute has been provided to be an essential qualification. 12. It has been provided under Schedule-III which contains eligibility and appearance along with salary and allowances of medical officers of the RIMS, Ranchi wherefrom it is evident that for the purpose of Tutor or Senior Resident postgraduate medical degree in the respective discipline from a recognized university/institute has been provided to be an essential qualification. 12. The grievance of the appellant/writ-petitioner is that she having not passed postgraduate examination on the date of submission of application form but even though she is eligible to be considered for selection/appointment to the post of Tutor in the discipline in question on the basis of the norms of the AIIMS. The learned Single Judge has negated the aforesaid ground basis upon the fact that the RIMS Regulation nowhere talks of appearing candidates, however, the Regulation of AIIMS may allow the appearing candidates but no such specific stipulation has been made in the RIMS Regulation, therefore, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the regulation of AIIMS as not a mandatory requirement rather it is up to the RIMS to come out with its own conditions of eligibility and further on the ground that the process of appointment is already over and therefore, at this stage, the case of the appellant/writ-petitioner cannot be considered. 13. 13. This Court is not in disagreement with the aforesaid finding for the reason that it has nowhere been provided under the notification dated 22.09.2014 that RIMS has been restricted from coming out with their own conditions for recruitment along with the eligibility criteria rather the appellant/writ-petitioner wants to derive the conclusion that the recruitment is to be made on the basis of the norms of the AIIMS but the question is that when the RIMS is an autonomous body and is to govern through a regulation known as Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Regulation 2002 which contains power as under Section 32 and in pursuance thereto, the notification was issued on 22.09.2014 by the Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department which refers to follow the norms of the AIIMS but that does not mean that the RIMS being the recruiting authority has been curtailed with the power not to come out with the eligibility criteria depending upon the situation and that is the reason the RIMS had come out with an advertisement making out a specific condition to consider the candidature of one or the other candidate who have already passed postgraduate examination to that effect is to be enclosed along with the application form apart from the other relevant required documents. 14. Admittedly, the appellant/writ-petitioner participated in the process of selection by submitting her application form in terms of the advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 wherein the condition about attaching postgraduate certificate has already been mentioned as eligibility criteria and as such, it is incumbent upon one or the other candidates to submit the application form along with the requirement as made under the eligibility criteria since the appellant/writ-petitioner had participated in the selection process in terms of the advertisement No. 2250 dated 28.03.2017 which contains a condition about attaching postgraduate degree along with the application form, it was incumbent upon one or the other candidates to submit the application form after fulfilling the eligibility criteria and in case a candidate has submitted the application form without having minimum eligibility criteria, the candidature is to be thrown at the threshold holding it not eligible to be considered and following the said principle if the interview letter which initially has been issued by the authority but subsequently been recalled, the same cannot be said to have any fault. The further question that whether the appellant/writ-petitioner can be allowed to challenge the terms of the advertisement once her candidature has been said to be unfit on the ground of non-fulfilling the terms and conditions, the position of law is settled that once the candidate has participated in the process of selection he/she cannot be allowed to turn around and question the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, 1986 (Supp) SCC 285, has held that if a candidate had appeared in the examination without protest, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 realizing that he would not succeed in the examination. Further reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marripati Nagaraja and Others vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 522 wherein it has been held that if the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur, they did not question the validity of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority, therefore, they were estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process. In the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 150 at paragraph 24 it has been held that: “....All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were fully aware that must possess the basic knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellants also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now they cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction.” 15. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter has rightly came to a conclusive finding holding the appellant/writ-petitioner’s case without any merit. Dismissing it cannot be said to have any infirmity. 16. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration these aspects of the matter has rightly came to a conclusive finding holding the appellant/writ-petitioner’s case without any merit. Dismissing it cannot be said to have any infirmity. 16. The appellant/writ-petitioner if at all was aggrieved, the occasion was available for her to question the terms and condition of the advertisement at the threshold, i.e., after issuance of the advertisement if at all it was contrary to the terms and conditions but the appellant/writ-petitioner has chosen not to do so rather she has chosen to participate in the process of selection treating her to be eligible merely on the ground that she was appearing in the postgraduate examination but the question is that if the candidature of the appellant/writ-petitioner would have been considered by the competent authority or the learned Single Judge would have extended such relief to the appellant/writ-petitioner, the same would amount to granting relaxation to the appellant/writ-petitioner and it is settled that there cannot be any relaxation to the terms and conditions of the advertisement and if any relaxation would be granted, the question would be why it is only to the appellant/writ-petitioner why not to the other similarly situated, thereby, the same will ultimately hit the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to provide equal opportunity to all the similarly situated candidates. Reference in regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1803 . The relevant paragraphs, paragraph nos. 28 and 29 of the said judgment, are quoted hereunder as: “28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 17. This Court, after having dealt with the issue as above and considering the matter in detail, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in passing the impugned order. 18. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.