JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. Heard parties. 3. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order dated 11.06.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3604 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the appointment of Respondent No. 9 to the post of Assistant Professor (History) has been held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly quashed and set aside with a further direction to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner, if found eligible for appointment. 4. The brief facts of the case which are required to be referred, read as under:- The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 having qualification of Ph.D., M.A. in History, M.A. in Archaeology and Museology, submitted application in pursuance to advertisement issued by Yogada Satsanga Mahavidyalaya in the year 2017 by which applications were invited for a walk in interview and presentation for contractual appointment as Assistant Professor on per class basis at the Degree Section of the college in question. The case of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 along with others, having found eligible, were called to participate in the interview and after scrutiny of the documents and qualification of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9, an appointment letter dated 18.08.2017 was issued and he was appointed as Assistant Professor (Contractual) in the Department of History. After appointment, the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 started discharging his duty to the satisfaction of all concerned and consequently the services of the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 9 was extended vide letter dated 10.08.2018 for a period of 11 months with effect from 22.07.2018. In the meantime, the respondent-College issued fresh advertisement dated 24.01.2018 for direct recruitment on the sanctioned post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 being eligible for the post advertised, applied for the same and even though he was found to be qualified, without considering his case, one Mritunjay Kumar (appellant herein) has been shortlisted and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History. The writ petitioner/respondent no. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 being eligible for the post advertised, applied for the same and even though he was found to be qualified, without considering his case, one Mritunjay Kumar (appellant herein) has been shortlisted and appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of History. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 sought information by making an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the entire recruitment process right from issuance of the advertisement and criteria adopted for selection of a candidate and the details of appointment made in the department of history earlier and the existing procedure for appointment in the said department. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 9, after going across the information furnished, has found that the appellant has passed M.A. in Ancient History and not in History and he is not eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor in History and as such, writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3609 of 2019 has been filed questioning the appointment of respondent no. 9/appellant by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India agitating therein that the respondent no. 9/appellant ought not to have been appointed due to not possessing the required eligibility condition since as per the advertisement the educational qualification to be possessed by one or the other candidates in the relevant subject and since applications were invited for appointment of Assistant Professor in History, the respondent no. 9/appellant being holder of post-graduation degree in Ancient History, cannot be construed to be subject History being part of history subject and hence, he is not fulfilling the requisite educational criteria but without considering this aspect of the matter, the respondent no. 9/appellant has been appointed. The writ petitioner has also taken a ground by putting reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 [Manish Kumar and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others] whereby and whereunder this Court has laid down the ratio by holding therein that History means History and not the part of the History like World History, Ancient History or Modern History and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner is squarely covered with the said judgment and in view thereof the appointment of respondent no. 9/appellant is fit to be struck down. 5. The respondent no. 9/appellant is fit to be struck down. 5. The respondent no. 9/appellant as also the college in question have put their appearance before the writ court and jointly taken the plea that as per the UGC Regulation wherein it has been stipulated that the Master’s degree in relevant/concerned/allied subject is required and the respondent no. 9/appellant since is possessing Master’s degree in Ancient History, the Selection Committee has found him fit to be appointed. Further, the respondent no. 9/appellant has qualified in the National Eligibility Test (NET) whereby and whereunder he has been found eligible to be appointed in the subject History, however, the subject of NET finds mentioned as Ancient History and, therefore, when in the NET itself the writ petitioner has been held eligible to be appointed in the subject History, the Selection Committee on consideration of the said certificate, has found the respondent no. 9/appellant eligible to be appointed and accordingly, he has been appointed. So far as the applicability of the judgment rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 is concerned, the factual aspect revolves therein is quite different to that of the present one since therein the question of appointment to the post of post-graduate teachers were involved and applications were invited for appointment of teachers in the subject History and as per the decision taken by the Expert Committee, subject History has been said to be History in entirety and not a branch of it but herein since the question of appointment as Assistant Professor is involved which is to be governed by the UGC Regulation which provides condition for appointment as Assistant Professor if a candidate is possessing Master’s degree with minimum 55% marks in concerned/relevant/allied subject and further, in the Regulation itself the educational criteria is fixed to have the post-graduation degree in the relevant subject and, therefore, the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 cannot be made applicable but the learned Single Judge without appreciating the factual aspect involved therein, has made that judgment applicable in the facts of this case. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the prayer made by the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 is not fit to be entertained. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the prayer made by the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 is not fit to be entertained. Learned Single Judge, on appreciating the rival submissions, has allowed the writ petition by taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 as also by going through the advertisement which prescribes eligibility criteria for a candidate to have post-graduation degree in History but that is not being possessed by respondent no. 9/appellant, therefore, his appointment has been quashed and set aside with a direction to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment, if the writ petitioner is found eligible, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel in the present intra-court appeal. 7. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel, has submitted by assailing the impugned order by referring to the infirmity committed therein that the learned Single Judge has passed the order without answering the issue raised before it. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 without considering its applicability on facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the eligibility of the respondent no. 9/appellant who has been declared eligible by granting certificate on being qualified in the National Eligibility Test and further, as per the UGC Regulation, which is applicable to the university concerned, the appellant is having requisite educational qualification since it has been provided in the Regulation to have post-graduation degree with 55% marks in concerned/relevant/allied subject. It has further been submitted that the employer has found the writ petitioner fit to be appointed and, therefore, on this count also the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 cannot be said to be applicable as because in that case the recruiting agency itself has declared the candidature of such candidates who were having no post-graduation degree in History as unfit but herein the employer has accepted the candidature of the appellant considering the post-graduation degree in Ancient History as also by taking into consideration the qualification of the respondent no. 9/appellant in the National Eligibility Test and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 201 (ii) Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa, (2008) 9 SCC 284 (iii) Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 (iv) Bedanga Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others, (2011) 112 SCC 85 (v) Sanjay K. Dixit and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 373 (vi) Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Another vs. Rahul Singh and Another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 8. The respondent No. 6-Yogada Satsanga Mahavidyalaya has been represented by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel. He submits that the candidature of the eligible candidates including the writ-petitioner and respondent No. 9 have been considered in which the respondent No. 9/appellant has been found to be more meritorious in comparison to the others, as such, he has been placed at the top of the merit list, hence, the selection committee, considering the suitability/merit of the respondent No. 9/appellant, has selected and appointed as per the requirement. It has further been submitted that the selection committee has found the candidature of appellant more suitable than the writ-petitioner and as per the requirement and suitability, he has been selected and therefore, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to interfere with the decision of the selection committee consisting of the experts. It has further been submitted that the selection committee has found the candidature of appellant more suitable than the writ-petitioner and as per the requirement and suitability, he has been selected and therefore, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to interfere with the decision of the selection committee consisting of the experts. Further, if the selection committee has taken a decision about the suitability as per the requirement, the same cannot be subjected to appeal unless it is arbitrary or malice but no such allegation has been leveled, save and except, lack of educational qualification of not having post-graduation in History but when the selection committee has considered the certificate issued on being qualified in the National Eligibility Test finding the appellant fit for the purpose, the same cannot be interfered with by the High Court because it is the employer’s prerogative to choose more suitable candidate as per the requirement and as per the UGC regulation which has been considered in the appointment of appellant who is having post-graduation in relevant/concerned/allied subject coupled with NET qualified, hence, it cannot be said that the appellant herein is lacking the minimum qualification but according to the learned counsel on the backdrop of these factual aspects, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 is not applicable and all these aspects of the matter same has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 9. Per contra, Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/ respondent no. 9, has submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as because the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the specific stipulation made in the advertisement wherein the requirement to possess the educational qualification is in the relevant subject and herein the relevant subject being advertised is post-graduation in History and, therefore, having post-graduation degree in Ancient History cannot be construed to be post-graduation degree in History. He further submits that this very issue has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 wherein the issue fell for consideration is also exactly the same by deciding with respect to the determination of educational qualification in the subject History and having post-graduation degree in one of the branch of History has been held to be not sufficient for consideration of candidature of a candidate for being appointed as teacher in the History and, hence, the learned Single Judge while following the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019, since has quashed an set aside the appointment of the respondent no. 9/appellant, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. He further submits that if any stipulation has been made in the advertisement, the same is strictly to be adhered to and in the advertisement the requirement has been stipulated to be the post-graduation degree with minimum 55% marks in the relevant subject and since in the advertisement the post of Assistant Professor was to be filled up in the subject History but admittedly herein, the appellant/respondent no. 9 is having post-graduation in Ancient History, therefore, he cannot be said to have post-graduation in subject History and considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge is correct in holding the appointment of appellant/respondent no. 9 to be illegal being not possessing the required advertised educational criteria. He has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4016 of 2020 [APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Another vs. Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering Technology and Others]. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 11. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to first deal with the factual aspects of the matter. The respondent no. 6-Yagada Satsanga College, a minority school under the control of the Ranchi University wherein the UGC Regulation has been adopted, has come out with an advertisement inviting application for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (History) for filling up two vacant posts in the Department of History. The respondent no. 6-Yagada Satsanga College, a minority school under the control of the Ranchi University wherein the UGC Regulation has been adopted, has come out with an advertisement inviting application for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (History) for filling up two vacant posts in the Department of History. The qualifications for Assistant Professor in colleges have been decided to be in accordance with the UGC Regulation, 2010 and the subsequent amendment as adopted by Ranchi University. The criteria has been fixed as:- “4.0 Direct Recruitment 4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education, and Journalism & Mass Communication. (I) Assistant Professor: Eligibility (A or B): (A) (i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. (ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET.” Thus, it is evident that the educational qualification of having at least 55% marks at the Master’s degree level in the relevant subject has been provided with clearing the NET conducted by UGC or the CSIR. The aforesaid advertisement has been published following the UGC Regulation 2010 and their subsequent amendments as adopted by the Ranchi University. The UGC Regulation has been appended to in the memo of appeal. The aforesaid advertisement has been published following the UGC Regulation 2010 and their subsequent amendments as adopted by the Ranchi University. The UGC Regulation has been appended to in the memo of appeal. We, after going through the UGC Regulation notified on 18.07.2018, has found therefrom that minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staffs in universities and colleges has been provided wherein under caption heading “Coverage” under Regulation 1.0 minimum qualification for appointment and other service conditions of university has been provided which contains that for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and other positions pertaining to discipline in which National Eligibility Test, conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) or Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) as the case may be, or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or the State Eligibility Test (SET) conducted by bodies accredited by UGC for the said purpose. Qualifying in NET/SLET/SET shall be an additional requirement, meaning thereby, apart from having minimum educational qualification and having 55% marks in the post-graduation in relevant subject and NET/ SLET/SET is also mandatorily to be possessed by one or the other candidates. It is further evident from Clause 4.0 under caption heading “Direct Recruitment” which provides under Clause 4.1 that for the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education, and Journalism & Mass Communication, a Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university and further, besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016. Thus, it is evident that in the advertisement reference has been made to have post-graduation degree with minimum 55% marks in the relevant subject. The relevant subject, according to the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 is post-graduation in History and since the appellant/respondent no. Thus, it is evident that in the advertisement reference has been made to have post-graduation degree with minimum 55% marks in the relevant subject. The relevant subject, according to the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 is post-graduation in History and since the appellant/respondent no. 9 is having post-graduation in Ancient History, he cannot be held eligible as per the advertisement but the question is that if the advertisement refers a condition about having post-graduation with minimum 55% marks in the concerned/relevant/allied subject while UGC Regulation which has been adopted contains the eligibility criteria to have Master’s degree with 55% marks in concerned/relevant/allied subject which will prevail, the condition stipulated in the advertisement or in the Regulation? It is not in dispute that if any advertisement is being issued by any recruiting agency or employer to fill up a public post, the same is to be in pursuance to the recruitment rules. Admittedly herein, the UGC Regulation has been adopted, as would be evident from the advertisement and, therefore, if there is any contradiction so far as it relates to the eligibility criteria, the condition stipulated in the Rules or Regulations is to be followed and, therefore, we have thought it proper to reject the plea of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 9 that the condition which has been stipulated in the advertisement to have a minimum post-graduation degree with 55% marks in the relevant subject will only construe to be post-graduation in History and not the post-graduation degree in concerned/relevant/allied subject as because Ancient History will be said to be an allied subject of History and since as per the UGC regulation, a candidate having the post-graduation in Ancient History or allied subject will be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in History. The above finding is further being fortified from the certificate issued by the University Grants Commission declaring the appellant qualified in the National Eligibility Test holding him fit for consideration for appointment in the subject “History”, however, the subject of National Eligibility Test has been stipulated therein as “Ancient History.” Therefore, the question would be when the Expert Committee has granted the NET qualified certificate to the appellant, the same being opinion of Expert Committee, we, as a court of law cannot sit upon the certificate of being qualified in the NET holding the appellant fit to be considered for appointment in the subject History and, therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ancient History, in the facts and circumstances of the case, will also come under the fold of the minimum educational qualification of having 55% marks in the post-graduation degree in the concerned subject. The question of eligibility to the post of Reader having qualification in the relevant subject fell for consideration in Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 284 wherein the fact as would appear from paragraph 6 thereof that one Dr. Raj Kumar Siwach, who was a Lecturer in Public Administration had also applied for the post of Reader, but he was not selected and instead the appellant was selected. Hence, Respondent 2 filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court being CWP No. 6642 of 2005 in which he alleged that the appellant herein, Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal, did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Reader in Public Administration. It was alleged in the writ petition that the appellant was an MA and PhD in Political Science and not in Public Administration. Hence, the appellant was not eligible for being selected and appointed as Reader in Public Administration. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the said issue has relied upon the opinion of the academic experts who have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline and as such it was opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of experts (Para 25). Paragraph-25 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “25. Paragraph-25 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “25. In our opinion, in the present case, the anusanga principle of Mimansa should be utilised and the expression “relevant subject” should also be inserted in the qualification for the post of Reader after the words “at the Masters degree level.” Hence, we cannot accept the submission of Mr. Patwalia in this respect. However, we agree with Mr Patwalia that since academic experts have regarded Political Science and Public Administration to be one discipline, it is not right for this Court to sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the judgment rendered in Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 546 , wherein it has been observed that “normally, it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are.” It appears from the observation made at paragraph 29 of the judgment rendered in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Supra) that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Master’s degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Master’s degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view. Paragraph 29 of the said judgment is quoted as under:- “29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 has held that courts should show deference to recommendations of Expert Committee, particularly when no mala-fides have been alleged against experts constituting Selection Committee and the courts should not endeavor to sit in appeal over decisions of experts. The facts leading to the said case is that it has been claimed that the appellants were not eligible to be appointed because they had degrees in Zoology and Botany respectively whereas only Respondent 1 was eligible because he was the only one who had the doctorate degree in the subject of Sericulture. Such claim has been made after pointing out the qualification stipulated in the advertisement for appointment as Reader which was a doctorate degree or equivalent published work but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the concerned respondent on the ground that selection had taken place in 1999 and the appellants were working in their respective teaching posts. The Division Bench has allowed the appeal filed by the concerned respondent on the ground that the appellants herein did not have doctorate degree in Sericulture and thereafter the matter reached to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field wherein it had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made and hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court has been criticized on the ground that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture. The judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 201 , is on the principle of prospective overruling of a judgment. The judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 201 , is on the principle of prospective overruling of a judgment. By referring to Para 54 whererin it has been laid down that any judgment will have prospective overruling and according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 is subsequent to the appointment of the appellant and as such, the same will not be applicable in the facts of this case. Here the fact of the case which is not in dispute is that the appellant is having post-graduation in Ancient History. The appellant is NET qualified which makes him eligible to be considered for the post of Lecturer in the History subject and the Selection Committee as also the UGC has issued a general order leaving it open upon the concerned recruiting agency to look into the equivalence of the qualifications as has been referred in the impugned order. The Selection Committee has considered the candidature of the appellant vis-a-vis the writ petitioner and found the appellant eligible to be appointed. Thus, the Regulation provides for minimum qualification of 55% marks in the post-graduation in the concerned/relevant/allied subject coupled with the NET qualified certificate wherein the appellant has been found to be eligible to be considered for Lecturer in History and when the UGC has held him fit to be considered for the post of Lecturer in History, if contrary view would be taken by the court of law, the same will amount to sitting over appeal upon the opinion of the experts who have found the appellant fit to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in the subject History and as such in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, ( 2010 8 SCC 372 , we are of the considered view that the appointment of the appellant cannot be held to be illegal for want of minimum qualification of post-graduation in subject History. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, ( 2010 8 SCC 372 , we are of the considered view that the appointment of the appellant cannot be held to be illegal for want of minimum qualification of post-graduation in subject History. Further, the UGC has issued a general communication leaving it open upon the concerned recruiting agency to take a decision about the equivalence of a degree and considering that aspect of the matter if the Selection Committee has considered the appellant fit to be appointed as Assistant Professor in the subject History, it cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.” 12. So far as the question of applicability of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 [Manish Kumar and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others] is concerned, this Court, after going through the said judgment, has found from the factual aspect involved therein that the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission had come out with an advertisement being Advertisement No. 10/2017, known as ‘Post Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination-2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher for different subject, including the subject History. Pursuant thereto, applications were submitted and the applicants participated in the process of selection but on the date of verification of testimonials it was found that the appellant of the said case has submitted graduate/postgraduate degree in Ancient/Medieval/Modern/Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. and on being asked by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the examining body, the appellant failed to submit the certificate of degree in Graduation/ Masters of Arts in post-graduation with the subject History in terms of the advertisement even after show cause having been issued to them and thereby action of the recruiting agency has been questioned by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition inter-alia on the ground that having degree or post-graduation in one of the branch of History cannot be construed to be degree of post-graduation in subject History which was assailed in intra-court appeal and the Division Bench of this Court also confirmed the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly therein, the fact of the case was for appointment of post-graduate teacher in different subjects including the subject History. Admittedly therein, the fact of the case was for appointment of post-graduate teacher in different subjects including the subject History. The examining body had notified the advertisement stipulating therein the minimum educational qualification for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher/Post-Graduate Teacher in the subject History with the specific stipulation in the advertisement to that effect. The examining body found the candidature of the appellants not as per the minimum education qualification of having graduate or post-graduate in subject History and, therefore, his candidature has been cancelled by issuance of show cause notice, meaning thereby, the examining body took a decision not to consider the candidature of the candidate who is not having degree or post-graduation degree in the subject History rather degree or post-graduation in one of the branches of History. It is due to the reason that the appointment to be made in the different subjects as Teacher in the schools and therein the UGC Regulation is not applicable but herein the UGC regulation is applicable having been adopted by the concerned college/university which provides the minimum educational qualification of post-graduation with 55% marks in the relevant/concerned/allied subject. However, in the advertisement reference of only minimum educational qualification of post-graduation with 55% marks in the relevant subject has been provided but it is settled position of law that advertisement will not prevail over the Rule or Regulation and therefore, factual aspect involved in this case is quite different on two counts:- First, therein the recruiting agency itself has found the candidature of the appellants not worthy to be considered in pursuance to the conditions of advertisement and as such, their candidatures were cancelled at the threshold by issuance of show cause notices and further, the appointment in the different subject was decided to be made for the post of teacher in different subjects but herein the appointment to be made as Assistant Professor in pursuance to the UGC Regulation and it is not that the Selection Committee has rejected the candidature of the appellant rather, after consideration of the certificate/educational qualification, his candidature has been found to be fit. And secondly, it would be evident from the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 that even the expert committee constituted in order to clarify the issue, had opined that Ancient, Medieval, Modern History are the branches of the subject History and candidates having degree in any branch only and not the subject in its entirety, cannot be eligible for selection in terms of the advertisement but herein even the Expert Committee, at the time of declaring the appellant qualified in the NET which is also one of the additional eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulation, has considered the appellant fit to be appointed as Lecturer in subject History, the same will be considered to be assessment of the candidature of the appellant at the national level under the UGC Regulation and hence the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Since we have come to the conclusion about non-applicability of the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019, therefore, we are not dealing with the principle of prospective overruling as has been relied making reference of judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra). 13. We have gone across the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found the following infirmities:- (i) The learned Single Judge has not answered the issue raised by the respondent no. 9/appellant about applicability of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 in right perspective as has been dealt and discussed by us hereinabove. 9/appellant about applicability of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 693 of 2019 in right perspective as has been dealt and discussed by us hereinabove. (ii) The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that if there is discrepancy in the condition of advertisement regarding eligibility criteria with the Rules or Regulation, it is the Rules or Regulation to be considered and not the advertisement as because herein, the learned Single Judge has considered emphatically about the condition of the advertisement which contains a condition about possessing the post-graduation degree in History but in the UGC Regulation, possessing post-graduation degree with 55% marks in concerned or relevant or allied subject is mentioned, meaning thereby, if a candidate is having post-graduation even in allied subject, will be said to be eligible for consideration of his candidature since the word ‘allied’ literally means “connected” and that is the reason the writ-petitioner has been held fit to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in History. (iii) The learned Single Judge has not considered the expert opinion that is by way of declaring the respondent no. 9/appellant as NET qualified holding him fit to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in subject History. (iv) The learned Single Judge has come to conclusion by way of considered opinion that illegality has been committed and the same cannot be allowed to be continued but we fail to understand that what led the learned Single Judge in coming to a considered opinion that illegality has been committed since there is no discussion for coming to such conclusion and it is settled that if any conclusion is being arrived at by a court of first instance, the reason is to be stipulated. It is settled position of law that any opinion or finding, in absence of a valid reason or any reason whatsoever, will be said to be mechanical and cryptic. It is settled position of law that any opinion or finding, in absence of a valid reason or any reason whatsoever, will be said to be mechanical and cryptic. (v) The learned Single Judge has come to a finding “admittedly, the subject “History” has different parts namely (i) Ancient (ii) Medieval (iii) Modern History (iv) World History” but after going through the impugned order we have not found anything having been mentioned therein that what led the learned Single Judge in coming to conclusion that the subject History has different parts namely, Ancient History, Medieval History, Modern History and World History since as would appear from the pleading made by the parties, the same dispute is involved herein as to whether a candidate having the degree/ post-graduation in Ancient History can be said to be eligible for Lecturer in the subject History and, therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the factual aspect in entirety, has come to conclusion by holding different parts of history. It is required to be referred herein that the court of law is required to give a finding on the basis of the factual aspect and not in its own personal knowledge. (vi) Further, we have found that learned Single Judge has come to a finding holding therein that only to give undue favour to respondent no. 9, such appointment has been made, meaning thereby, the learned Single Judge has considered the aspect by attributing mala-fide but we have not found any material available on record alleging mala-fide and, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge about giving undue favour is without any foundation. 14. We, in entirety of facts and circumstances and as per the discussions made hereinabove, are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact of the case in the right perspective and, therefore, the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 15. The instant appeal is accordingly allowed and the writ petition stands dismissed. 16. Consequently, I.A. No. 3837 of 2020 stands dismissed. 17. Interim order dated 17.12.2020 stands vacated.