JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The issues involved in all the writ petitions are same, similar and identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various dates and are being disposed of by this common order. PRAYER 2. The writ petitioners in all these writ petitions are mainly aggrieved by the result dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure-8), published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and uploaded on the website on 18.03.2021 and have prayed for quashing the same which is related to those candidates who were not having Associate Membership from the Institute of Town Planners (ITPI) on the date of publication of Advertisement No 04/2020 hence were ineligible for the appointment on the post of Assistant Town Planner under the Urban Development and Housing Department but they have been declared successful. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue the modified results after considering candidature of only those candidates who were duly qualified having the Associate Membership from ITPI prior to cut-off date and also to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioners FACTS OF THE CASE 3. According to petitioners, pursuant to the requisition sent by the Urban Development Department for direct appointment of the Assistant Town Planner, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission issued a Press Release on 14.07.2020 on its Website intimating the candidates about appointment to the said post. As per Advertisement, the Compulsory Educational Qualification was Graduate in Architecture, Bachelor of Planning, Civil Engineering and Post Graduate in Master of Planning with specialization in either of (i) Urban (ii) Transport (iii) Housing (iv) Environmental (v) Regional Planning and Associate Member from the Institute of Town Planners (India). The date to fill up the Online Application was from 15.07.2020 to 10.08.2020. As per Condition No.11(b) of the advertisement, the candidature of the candidate was to be ascertained as per the information given by the candidate. Further the Condition no. 11(n) stated that for the purpose of verification of documents for appearing in interview the required certificates of the claims made in the online application were to be submitted. The Condition no. 11(m) stated that if it was found that a wrong information was given by the candidate in the application, the Commission was at liberty to cancel candidature of such candidates. 4. The Condition no. 11(m) stated that if it was found that a wrong information was given by the candidate in the application, the Commission was at liberty to cancel candidature of such candidates. 4. Subsequently the J.P.S.C. issued a Press Release on 26.08.2020 asking the candidates whose application was provisionally accepted, to submit their certificates as per their claims made in the online application in accordance with the condition 11(n) stipulated in the Advertisement from 27.08.2020 to 08.09.2020. Through this Press Release, the list of candidates whose online applications were accepted or rejected, has also been mentioned. 5. It is case of the petitioners that they being qualified and eligible in all respects as per the Advertisement, applied online for the Post in question, sent the requisite certificates as was demanded within the time prescribed. The interviews of the candidates were conducted from 06.01.2021 to 08.01.2021 and a startling result was published on 18.03.2021. The results indicated that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission had allowed to appear in interview even those candidates who were not having the Associate Membership from the ITPI on the cut of date i.e. on 10.08.2020 as the said Institute in its meeting held on 22.08.2020, gave Associate Membership to a number of persons including the private respondents. 6. During pendency of the writ petitions, an information vide Letter No.958 dated 06.09.2021 was issued by the Public Information Officer (Annexure R/7) that a Scrutiny Committee was constituted by the Commission to verify certificates and documents of the candidates. Upon verification, the Scrutiny Committee submitted its Report as (i) May be accepted (130 candidates) (ii) Doubtful cases regarding required qualification (19 Candidates) (iii) List of those candidates who obtained ITPI membership after last date of online application (186 candidates) (iv) May be rejected (188 Candidates). The Scrutiny Committee was of considered view that candidature of only 130 candidates may be accepted and candidature of 188 candidates may be rejected that included 186 Candidates who obtained ITPI membership after last date of submission of online applications but the Commission bypassed report of the Scrutiny Committee and instead of rejecting candidature of these 186 candidates, allowed them to participate in the interview even when they received the Associate Membership Certificate from ITPI after the last date of submission of online application i.e 10.08.2020. The private respondents and other candidates total 186 in number who were not having the Certificate of the Associate Membership of ITPI before 10.08.2020, made a wrong entry in the online application and got their application provisionally accepted. Though upon verification it was found that their Associate Membership had been obtained after 10.08.2020 i.e. after the cut-off date, instead of rejecting their candidature as per Condition 11(m) of the advertisement, Commission allowed them to participate in the interview and made a selective favour. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 7. Mr. Sidhartha Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Ms. Shipra Shalini submitted that apparently the Commission has given undue favour to the private respondents and in order to accommodate them, the cut-off date has been ignored. When the date to fill up the Online Application was from 15.07.2020 to 10.08.2020, it is clear that the cut-off date was 10.08.2020 and thus the date of submission of certificate could not have been extended. Had the cut-off date been extended, then more candidates would have applied but instead of doing so, only to give undue favour to the private respondents, the date of submission of certificates has been enhanced for those candidates only who had filled up the form. 8. Learned counsel further argued that a wrong statement is made by the J.P.S.C. in its affidavit that it extended the date of submission of documents from 27.08.2020 to 08.09.2020 bringing into notice through a Press Communique dated 26.08.2020, which was not an extended date to submit the documents rather to submit the required documents related to educational qualification/ experience etc. as was claimed by the candidate in the online application form. Thus, the candidates were required to submit the self-attested copies of certificates of the educational qualifications, Certificate of Associate Membership of ITPI as was claimed by them to be in their possession at the time of making the application as per clause 11(n) of the online application from 27.08.2020 to 08.09.2020. Thus, it was not an extended date to submit a document that was obtained after 10.08.2020 specially ITPI Certificate obtained on 22.08.2020. 9. Learned counsel further argued that even from plain reading of the Press Communique dated 26.08.2020, it would transpire that stand of the J.P.S.C. is false and misleading as it nowhere uses the word “extension” nor any extension can be inferred therefrom. 9. Learned counsel further argued that even from plain reading of the Press Communique dated 26.08.2020, it would transpire that stand of the J.P.S.C. is false and misleading as it nowhere uses the word “extension” nor any extension can be inferred therefrom. J.P.S.C. in view of the content of this letter cannot take a plea that it extended the date of submission of documents in respect of these 186 candidates also whose candidature was required to be rejected since they got their candidature provisionally accepted on false statement made with regard to availability of the Associate Member Certificate of ITPI during the submission of the online application till 10.08.2020 or at the time of making application. The last date for submission of documents was never extended as would be evident from the perusal of the Letter No.958 dated 06.09.2021 issued by the Public Information Officer (Annexure R/7) also wherein the reference of the constitution of a Scrutiny Committee by the Commission to verify the certificates and documents received from candidates is made and this Committee also does not speak that the date for submission of documents was ever extended rather it says that these candidates obtained ITPI membership after last date of online application but it was submitted during the period when the documents related to claim made in online application was directed to be sent. 10. Learned counsel further argued that as per Rule 4.2 of Rules 2014 the Educational Qualification included Associate Membership of ITPI. Further as per amended Rules 2019 after Rule 4.2 of Rules 2014, Rule 4.3 is embedded as “the minimum educational qualification mentioned under Rule 4.2 Graduation from any of the Graduation Faculty with Master’s Degree with any of the subjects mentioned in the heading Master’s Degree and Associate Member of ITPI would be essential”. Thus, the Membership of ITPI is also an essential eligibility. Though the clause 7 of the advertisement speaks about the selection process whereas clause 5 speaks about the eligibility criteria. In order to be part of selection process one must first be eligible and that was lacking in case of the respondents by the last date of advertisement. Clause 11(n) of the advertisement speaks about the actual verification of those documents at the time of interview that was claimed at the time of submission of the online form. In order to be part of selection process one must first be eligible and that was lacking in case of the respondents by the last date of advertisement. Clause 11(n) of the advertisement speaks about the actual verification of those documents at the time of interview that was claimed at the time of submission of the online form. The Press Communique dated 26.08.20 specified that the candidates are required to submit the self-attested certificates of the educational qualifications, Certificate of Associate Membership of ITPI, caste certificate etc. where applicable as was claimed by them at the time of making the application as per clause 11(n) of the online application from 27.08.2020 to 08.09.2020. Thus, this was the date during which the documents those were claimed in the application form was required to be send that was acquired prior to the cut off date i.e.10.08.2020 and not to obtain the same after the cut-off date and to submit it during 27.08.20 to 08.09.2020. The educational qualification required for appointment included the Associate Membership from ITPI and the same was not in possession of the respondents by the cut-off date and that made their applications accepted by the Commission thoroughly wrong. Their acquisition of the said certificate after the last date of submission of form would not make them eligible to be considered by a later date i.e. 08.09.2020 that was meant for submission of the certificates regarding essential qualifications those was acquired prior to the cut off date i.e. 10.08.2020. Petitioners have not challenged entire appointment procedure or any qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. The cause of action has arisen to seek judicial review when the persons who do not fulfill the essential qualification were included in the select list. Hence the writ is well maintainable. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the facts and circumstances of the case is indicative of the facts that J.P.S.C. acted beyond the Advertisement and Recruitment Rules and also by passed the report of the scrutiny committee and shown undue favour to the ineligible candidates that has resulted into the wrong recommendations and that are required to be corrected and a modified result be accordingly be required to be published. The writ petition is fit to be allowed. 12. The writ petition is fit to be allowed. 12. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Judgments, which are being placed hereinafter : (i) (2013) 11 SCC 58 [Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi)]; Para 11, 15, 17 & 22; (ii) (2012) 9 SCC 545 (State of Gujarat & others vs. Arvind T. Tiwary); Para 9, 10 &14; (iii) (2011) 12 SCC 85 (Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaulah Khan); Para 29 (iv) (2018) 3 JBJC 357 (Eqbal Ahmad & others vs. State of Jharkhand); Para 14 & 15 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS 13. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurav Arun submitted that as per Rule 4.2 of Rules 2014 the Educational Qualification that is required is Graduation in Architecture, Bachelor of Planning, Civil Engineering and Master’s Degree in Master of Planning with specialization in the certain subjects but there being no marks given in Associate Membership of ITPI and hence the said qualification is not cardinal but supplementary in nature. As the Clause 7 of the advertisement speaks about how the marks are to be given for educational certificate and interview but does not speak about the associate membership with ITPI Delhi and as such this membership is nothing to do with the appointment. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that in terms of clause 11(n) of the advertisement, the certificates required by the JPSC was to be physically verified and on the date of verification the educational certificates, the documents were required to be up to date and JPSC came out of the press release on 26.08.2020 for fulfillment of requirement as per clause 11(n) and period of submission of documents was fixed in between 27.08.2020 to 08.09.2020 and accordingly the certificates were submitted during the said time. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that all the respondents were having the necessary qualification (Degree from the recognized University) by the last date of advertisement and the examination body was not wrong in accepting the application and the qualification of paid membership of the ITPI was submitted by 08.09.20 as per the press release. 14. Learned Sr. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that all the respondents were having the necessary qualification (Degree from the recognized University) by the last date of advertisement and the examination body was not wrong in accepting the application and the qualification of paid membership of the ITPI was submitted by 08.09.20 as per the press release. 14. Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the fact petitioners had participated in the selection process and after becoming unsuccessful, they have challenged results of the successful candidates who scored more marks than the petitioners. Learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon the Judgments as under : (i) Mrs. Kunda S. Kadam and others Vs. Dr. K.K. Soman and others reported in (1980) 2 SCC 355 ; (ii) Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 644 ; (iii) Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary and others reported in (2018) 4 JLJR 107 ; (iv) State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 ; 15. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents submits that he accepts the arguments advanced by learned Sr. Counsel and further submitted that the unsuccessful candidates have no locus standi to challenge the results of successful candidates once they have been declared unsuccessful in the examination. Drawing attention of this Court towards Clause-8.2 of the Jharkhand Gazette (Extraordinary) Dated 10.03.2014, learned counsel submitted that there is no provision for giving any extra marks for TIPI Certificates rather 30% of the marks obtained at Graduation level, 50% of marks obtained at Master’s Degree in Town Planning and 20% of marks obtained in Interview shall be considered. Thus, the allegations that the private respondents have been benefitted by extending the last date of submission of documents, is false and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel further placed reliance upon the Judgments, as mentioned hereunder : (i) Air Commodore Naveen Jain Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 34 ; (ii) Uttam Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P.(C) No. 3645 of 2021. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE JPSC 17. Mr. 16. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel further placed reliance upon the Judgments, as mentioned hereunder : (i) Air Commodore Naveen Jain Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 34 ; (ii) Uttam Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P.(C) No. 3645 of 2021. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE JPSC 17. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned Counsel representing the Jharkhand Public Service Commission argued that after issuance of the advertisement, several candidates submitted representation before the Commission for extension of time for submission of Certificates of Associate Membership of ITPI in view of Covid-19 Pandemic and after receiving online applications from the candidates, representations were considered for extension of time for submission of documents mentioned in clause 11(n) of the advertisement and accordingly press notification was issued on 26.08.2020 by which time was extended for submission of documents from 27.08.2020 to 08.09.2020. Accordingly, the candidates submitted their testimonials and Commission considered candidature of only those candidates who had submitted their documents including the membership certificate upto the last extended date i.e. 08.09.2020. 18. Placing reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , learned counsel submitted that how the Commission would judge merits of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair. There being no such discrimination or arbitrariness, no interference is warranted and writ petitions are fit to be dismissed. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS – STATE 19. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Gaurav Abhishek and Mr. Piyush Chitresh very fairly submitted that prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility. It is not the role of the constitutional court to expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications while exercising power of judicial review. Petitioners have failed to show any malafide on part of the respondents. The State as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility. It is not the role of the constitutional court to expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications while exercising power of judicial review. Petitioners have failed to show any malafide on part of the respondents. uniform procedure has been adopted for preparation of result and/or asking the candidates to submit their certificates/ testimonials. The ground raised by the petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law and writ petition deserves dismissal. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 20. After going through arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties across the bar and from perusal of records of the case, it appears that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons : a. Admittedly petitioner participated in the selection process without throwing any challenge to the entire selection process or the advertisement. It is only after being declared unsuccessful petitioner has thrown challenge to the process of examination. The procedure was adopted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission by extending date of submission of certificates of the candidates who had already submitted their certificates by way of Online Application Form fixed from 15.07.2020 to 10.08.2020. Petitioner also submitted his Online Application Form for consideration of his candidature for appointment against the advertised post. b. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, after receiving representation from the candidates for extension of time for submission of certificate of Associate Membership from the Institute of Town Planners (ITPI) in view of the prevailing COVID-19 Pandemic, extended time for submission of documents mentioned in Clause 11(n) of the Online Application and the same was notified by Press Notice dated 28.06.2020 and intimated through emails also with a caution that after the last date i.e. 08.09.2020, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission will not entertain any certificate/ document. After issuance of press communiqué, the candidates submitted their testimonials in terms of Clause-11(n) of the advertisement through email. Nowhere it has been denied that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission considered candidature of only those candidates who had submitted their documents including Associate Membership from the Institute of Town Planners (ITPI) in terms of Clause 11(n) of the advertisement up to the last extended date i.e. 08.09.2020. c. After verification of testimonials, the date of interview was fixed from shortlisted candidates from 06.01.2021 to 08.01.2021. c. After verification of testimonials, the date of interview was fixed from shortlisted candidates from 06.01.2021 to 08.01.2021. Petitioner also appeared before the Interview Board and after interview, the list of successful candidates were published on 18.03.2021. Admittedly, petitioner’s name did not find place in the list of successful candidates as he had secured less marks than the last successful candidate in his category. d. After publication of the results, names of the candidates were recommended for appointment before the Member Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand on 05.04.2021 and as such selection process is also over. Petitioner never raised any objection and it is only after being declared unsuccessful, the results as well as the recommendations are subject matter of challenge by the petitioner though he is aware of the fact that as per the settled principles of law, after being declared unsuccessful, he is precluded from challenging the same. e. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D. Saroja Kumari has observed that the law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is stopped from challenging the process of selection f. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Vijay Lakshmi S. Vs. State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.(S) No. 1402 of 2021 reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 26. It is relevant to quote para-18 to 24 of said Judgment which reads as follows: “18. In the case of G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 , the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected, pleaded that the experts were biased. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows:— “15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee.” 19. In Madan Lal v. State of J & K, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para-9 held as under:— “9. … Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.” 20. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 256, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para-16, held as under:— “16. … Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.” 21. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 , where the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para-24 as follows:— “24. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para-24 as follows:— “24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge8 and the Division Bench9 of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.” 22. The same view was reiterated in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studieis v. K. Sivasubramaniyan, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 . 23. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 , where the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. Only when they declared unsuccessful, they challenged the same, which cannot be allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para-17 as follows:— “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants had not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.” 24. Admittedly, petitioners had participated in the selection process having fully aware of the terms and conditions as envisaged in the advertisement. It was only after being declared unsuccessful, the rules are being interpreted in their own way. Such candidates cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process/procedure and they are stopped from doing so. Admittedly, petitioners had participated in the selection process having fully aware of the terms and conditions as envisaged in the advertisement. It was only after being declared unsuccessful, the rules are being interpreted in their own way. Such candidates cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process/procedure and they are stopped from doing so. Such writ petition is to be dismissed in limni as not maintainable, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” g. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 has held in para-25 as follows: “25. How the Commission would judge the merit of the candidates is its function. Unless the procedure adopted by it is held to be arbitrary or against the known principles of fair play, the superior courts would not ordinarily interfere therewith. The State framed Rules in the light of the decision of the High Court in S. Jaffer Saheb [ (1985) 2 APLJ 380 ]. Per se, it did not commit any illegality. The correctness of the said decision, as noticed hereinbefore, is not in question having attained finality. The matter, however, would be different if the said Rules per se are found to be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody has any fundamental right to be appointed in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It merely provides for a right to be considered therefor. A procedure evolved for laying down the mode and manner for consideration of such a right can be interfered with only when it is arbitrary, discriminatory or wholly unfair.” 21. It also remains undisputed that the certificates were obtained after extension of the date by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. It is also well settled that during midst of the proceedings or after the process of selection is over, the Rules cannot be altered or changed. Law is well settled that the cut-off date once fixed, cannot be extended. However, in the instant case the same was extended and was accepted by all, even by the petitioners herein. 22. Petitioner in the instant case was fully aware of the terms and conditions and rules envisaged in the advertisement and it cannot be said that he was prejudiced by extension of the cut-off date as he himself participated in the entire selection process. 22. Petitioner in the instant case was fully aware of the terms and conditions and rules envisaged in the advertisement and it cannot be said that he was prejudiced by extension of the cut-off date as he himself participated in the entire selection process. Admittedly, had the petitioner been declared successful and his name would have been placed in the list of successful candidates and recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, then in that case he would not have challenged to the decision of the Commission to extend date of submission of documents. But in the instant case, it is crystal clear that once petitioner has consented to the terms and conditions and by accepting the same appeared in the examination and thereafter challenging the terms and conditions, the same is not open to him. Admittedly, extension of date was not for any particular candidate rather it was for all the candidates who had filled-up the forms. Petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or any infirmity in the entire selection process. Petitioner having taken a chance and on being unsuccessful to compete with the others, either on merits or otherwise, has filed this writ petition. 23. It is not in dispute that no weightage has been given in procuring Associate Membership from the Institute of Town Planners (ITPI) rather weightage was given on the merits and the qualification of the candidates and that of the performance in the interview. The Associate Membership from the Institute of Town Planners (ITPI) is not an additional qualification rather it was the Membership of the Association. 24. At this stage it can comfortably be inferred that mere recommendations made by the Commission does not give an absolute right to a candidate for appointment. It is the duty of the State and it is always open to consider whether the recommendations of the Public Service Commission is in right perspective and in accordance with law. 25. From the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and after perusing records of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for any interference as it cannot be said at this juncture that the process of selection is illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory and/or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 26. 26. This order was reserved for pronouncement but before pronouncement of the same, the State Government, vide its order dated 07.02.2022, has come up with an order issued vide Memo No. 18, Dated 07.02.2022, whereby and whereunder recommendation of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has been rejected. A copy of the said order has been sent through email by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the same is taken on board, the same is directed to be kept on record. It is always open for the respondents – State either to accept or not to accept recommendations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and it is also open for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to act in accordance with law after rejection of its recommendation by the State Government. Since petitioner had appeared in the process throughout and it has been only after being declared unsuccessful, he has knocked door of this Court, in view of plethora of Judgments as mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted. 27. As a sequitur of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for any interference. Resultantly, the writ petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. 28. As a sequel thereof, all pending Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.