JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 1. The instant intra-court, appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1690 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the objection raised by the respondent no.4 vide letter no.1591 dated 08.07.2019 regarding the appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers on the ground that the writ petitioner has not been found to be eligible to hold the post as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder: - 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an advertisement being Advertisement No.21/2016 was floated by the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for conducting the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016 for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. In pursuant to the same, the writ petitioner having the requisite qualification, applied for the same for the said post under Home Science Subject and after appearing in the recruitment process, she was shortlisted for the said post under Home Science Subject vide result dated 22.04.2019. However, vide letter dated 08.07.2019, District Education Officer informed the writ petitioner that objection has been raised with regard to her selection to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the subject Home Science as the writ petitioner had studied ‘Home Science’ as a subsidiary subject, whereas she passed Graduation with History Honours and was accordingly, asked to submit her response within one week, which the writ petitioner responded vide letter dated 12.07.2019 replied along with supporting documents stating therein that as per requirement of the Advertisement, a candidate was supposed to have passed Graduation Examination with minimum 45% in the subject applied for and there was no specification as to whether it is subsidiary or Honours paper. 4. 4. She also stated that one of her subject in graduation was Home Science and it was compulsory to score minimum 45-50 % in order to be awarded a graduate degree, but no heed was paid and the case of the writ petitioner was not recommended for appointment to the said post, whereas, at least 50 candidates all over the Jharkhand were appointed against the vacancy for subjects not being their Honours subject in graduation as per RTI filed by the writ petitioner. 5. It appears from the fact as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading that the Staff Selection Commission (in short ‘JSSC’) had issued advertisement being Advertisement No.21 of 2016 for conducting the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016 for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher. 6. The writ petitioner, having the requisite qualification, applied for the same under Home Science Subject and she has appeared in the recruitment process. She was shortlisted for the said post under Home Science Subject vide result dated 22.04.2019. However, vide letter dated 08.07.2019, the District Education Officer informed the writ petitioner that objection has been raised with regard to her selection to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for the subject Home Science as the writ petitioner had studied Home Science as a subsidiary subject, whereas she passed Graduation with History Honours subject and was accordingly, asked to submit her response, within one week. In pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2019 had replied along with supporting documents stating inter-alia that as per the requirement of the advertisement, a candidate was supposed to have passed Graduation Examination with minimum 45 % in the subject applied for and there was no specification as to whether it is in subsidiary or Honours paper. 7. It has been submitted that one of her subjects in graduation was Home Science and it was compulsory to score minimum 45-50 % marks in order to be awarded a graduate degree, but no consideration has been given with respect to such claim, rather, the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected. 8. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1690 of 2021. 9. 8. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1690 of 2021. 9. The respondent had appeared and placed reliance upon the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, exactly on the similar issue, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 10. The learned Single Judge, has taken into consideration the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent of putting reliance upon the order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015 which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2019 passed in L.P.A. No.209 of 2017 and thereby, the writ petition has been dismissed, against which, the instant appeal. 11. Mr. Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective, even though, the advertisement does not contain a condition that the graduation with Honours degree in particular subject for which an application has been made for consideration of appointment. 12. It has been contended that herein the appellant has got Home Science as one of the subject at the graduation level, although, the writ petitioner had passed B.A. Honours examination in History but it does not make any difference, since, there is no stipulation in the advertisement regarding the candidature with respect to the effect that if a subject is subsidiary one that will not be construed to have the requisite educational qualification, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. 13. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Judge putting reliance upon the order passed in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, which was affirmed in letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.209 of 2017, has dismissed the writ petition but the same cannot be said to be applicable so far as the fact of the given case is concerned. 14. According to learned counsel in the said order, the issue involved is altogether different, since, therein the issue was that a candidate having MIL as compulsory subject at graduation level, cannot be appointed as a Teacher in the Languages. 15. But herein, the Home Science was a subsidiary subject in graduation level and hence, the candidature of the appellant cannot be said to be improper for consideration of case of the appellant. 16. 15. But herein, the Home Science was a subsidiary subject in graduation level and hence, the candidature of the appellant cannot be said to be improper for consideration of case of the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, suffers from an error and hence, not sustainable in the eye of Law. 17. Per Contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC has submitted by referring to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, wherein, the requirement in pursuant thereto, is to have the graduation degree in a particular subject as a main subject and not as a subsidiary. 18. It has been contended that even though, the stipulation is not there to that effect in the advertisement but when the teachers are being appointed for a particular subject and if the teachers are having with the graduation degree as a subsidiary subject, it cannot be accepted from such candidates to have the expertise in the said subject in comparison to the candidates who are having the special subject at the graduation level. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC has submitted that the very purpose of appointment of teacher is to impart study to the utmost satisfaction of the students and that can only be possible, if the students, will be selected on the basis of acumen of one or the other candidates, if available at depth in a particular subject. 20. The submission, in the aforesaid premise, has been made that if a candidate is having specialized subject at the graduation level, the maximum can be accepted from such candidates in comparison to that of the candidates who are having the graduation degree of a particular subject as subsidiary one. 21. Learned counsel for the JSSC has further submitted that the issue has already been dealt with in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, wherein, exactly the similar issue is involved of having the issue of graduation degree of MIL as one of the subject. 22. 21. Learned counsel for the JSSC has further submitted that the issue has already been dealt with in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, wherein, exactly the similar issue is involved of having the issue of graduation degree of MIL as one of the subject. 22. But, when the candidature of such candidate was rejected on the ground that Hindi means at the graduation level, as per the requirements of the appointment of teacher to be of such candidates who are having the graduation degree in Hindi subject as a special subject, however, the Single Judge has accepted the contention of the JSSC and accordingly, has refused to interfere with the decision of recruiting agency in refusing to accept the candidature of such candidates who are having MIL at graduation level. The aforesaid order has been affirmed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.209 of 2017. 23. It has been submitted that the learned Single Judge based upon the factual aspect involved in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.209 of 2017 if has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the decision taken by the Staff Selection Commission regarding the cancellation of candidature of the writ petitioner/appellant, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 24. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 25. The dispute involves herein is that as to whether the candidates having the Home Science as a subsidiary subject, can be said to have possessed the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement for appointment of teacher in Home Science subject. 26. This Court, in order to answer the said issue, deems it fit and proper to refer the condition stipulated in the advertisement with respect to the minimum educational qualification. 27. It appears from the condition no.4 of the advertisement that the advertisement for trained graduate teacher has been notified for the purpose of appointment of such teachers in different subject including the Home Science. The minimum educational qualification has been referred that in the concerned subject (in which the appointment is to be made), 45% minimum marks is to be required at the graduation level and B.Ed. The minimum educational qualification has been referred that in the concerned subject (in which the appointment is to be made), 45% minimum marks is to be required at the graduation level and B.Ed. from the recognized training institute or equivalent to B.Ed. as declared to be equivalent by the National Teachers Education Council, for ready reference, the relevant part of the condition as contained in the advertisement is being referred as under:- inuke osrueku U;wure 'kSf{kf.kd ;ksX;rk fuEukafdr fo"k;ksa ds Lukrd izf'kf{kr f'k{kd& fgUnh] vaxzth] mfM;k] caxyk] Hkwxksy] vFkZ'kkL=] x`g foKku] okf.kT;] uxiqfj;k] iapijxfu;k] dqjekyh] eq.Mkjh] dqMq[k [kfM+;k] gks d`f"k] laFkkuh] [kksjBk ,oa lekt foKku osrucSaM ih-ch-III&:-9300&34800 xzsM osru :- 4600 lacaf/kr fo"k; ¼ftlesa fu;qfDr gksuh gSa½ esa U;wure 45 izfr'kr vadks ds lkFk Lukrd fMxzh rFkk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkku ls chŒ,MŒ vFkok jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk chŒ,MŒ ds led{k ?kksf"kr fMxzhA vuqlwfpr tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, lacaf/kr fo"k; ¼ftlesa fu;qfDr gksuh gS½ esa U;wure 40 izfr'kr vadks ds lkFk Lukrd fMxzh rFkk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkku ls chŒ,MŒ vFkok jk"Vªh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk chŒ,MŒ ds led{k ?kksf"kr fMxzhA 28. The writ petitioner has applied for the post of the teacher in Home Science subject. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that the appellant/writ petitioner is having Graduation with History Honours, i.e., the History was the special subject at the graduation level. However, the Home Science was one of the subsidiary subject at the graduation level. 29. The writ petitioner based upon the same, since she was having with the Home Science as a subsidiary subject at graduation level and considering herself to have the requisite qualification had made application for consideration of her candidature. 30. Initially by virtue of the details furnished by the writ petitioner, her candidature was accepted and she was allowed to participate in the process of selection and also declared to be successful. But at the time of scrutiny of her certificate, it was detected that she was having no Home Science subject as a main subject at graduation level, rather, the Home Science was one of the subsidiary subject. Accordingly, one opportunity was given to explain as to why, her candidature be not cancelled. 31. But at the time of scrutiny of her certificate, it was detected that she was having no Home Science subject as a main subject at graduation level, rather, the Home Science was one of the subsidiary subject. Accordingly, one opportunity was given to explain as to why, her candidature be not cancelled. 31. An objection was filed explaining therein that there is no condition stipulated to the effect that the Home Science as subsidiary subject will disentitle the writ petitioner for participating in the process of selection, but, the said objection was overruled and accordingly, her candidature was rejected, therefore, the writ petition. 32. The question which is to be answered herein that Home Science as subsidiary subject or Home Science as the main subject is the requirement as per the advertisement. The advertisement is for the purpose of appointing the teachers. 33. The teacher is to impart study only if the candidate is to be appointed as teacher is having specialized acumen in a particular subject. 34. The issue of expertise for a teacher who is to impart study has been taken care of by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 , wherein, at paragraph-29 and 33, it has been observed as under:- “29. Education is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young persons in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff. Therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/enhanced. “18 We have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress". “30. Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of 'learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs". “18 We have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress". “30. Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of 'learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be maintained at all costs". (Vide: The Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore, AIR 1976 SC 10 ; Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 311 ; Osmania University Teachers' Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 2034 ; and Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 SCC 59 ). 33. In view of the above, it is evident that education is necessary to develop the personality of a person as a whole and in totality as it provides the process of training and acquiring the knowledge, skills, developing mind and character by formal schooling. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a high academic standard and academic discipline along with academic rigour for the progress of a nation. Democracy depends for its own survival on a high standard of vocational and professional education. Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for the State not to provide quality education to its future citizens. It is for this reason that in order to maintain the standard of education the State Government provides grant-in-aid to private schools to ensure the smooth running of the institution so that the standard of teaching may not suffer for want of funds.” 35. It is further settled position of law, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors vs. Kamini and Ors., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 519 , wherein the issue fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble Patna High Court pertaining to consideration of candidate, who have participated in the process of selection in an advertisement, which contains the minimum qualification of B.Sc. Zoology with two years' diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or a graduate degree in Fisheries Science (BFSC) from a recognized university of M.Sc. Zoology with two years' diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai or a graduate degree in Fisheries Science (BFSC) from a recognized university of M.Sc. (Inland Fisheries Administration and Management) with Zoology from the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai and when the candidature of the candidate in the said case not been considered due to lack of educational eligibility criteria, the matter went before the Hon'ble Patna High Court wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition but the same has been reversed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, against which, the Bihar Public Service Commission has approached to the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein their Lordship at paragraph 5 has been pleased to hold that if the eligibility educational criteria was BSc, Zoology, such person must have passed B.Sc. Zoology as principal/main subject and not as a subsidiary or optional subject. 36. It has further been held that the Court of law has no jurisdiction to interfere and encroach upon the views expressed by the expert committee. The expert committee in the aforesaid case has opined that the student would be called graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in that subject at graduate level, meaning thereby it must be the principal subject. The aforesaid opinion of the expert committee was accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. For ready reference, paragraph nos. 5, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereunder as: "5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court was wholly wrong in allowing the appeal and in setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in ignoring the report submitted by the Expert Committee. He also submitted that even otherwise, the action of the Commission could not be said to be illegal or contrary to law. When the requisite educational qualification was BSc, Zoology, such person must have passed BSc with Zoology as principal/main subject and not as a subsidiary or optional subject. Admittedly, the first respondent had passed BSc with Chemistry as principal subject and Zoology as optional/subsidiary subject. She, therefore, could not be held qualified and the action of the Commission was in consonance with law and was legal and proper. Admittedly, the first respondent had passed BSc with Chemistry as principal subject and Zoology as optional/subsidiary subject. She, therefore, could not be held qualified and the action of the Commission was in consonance with law and was legal and proper. It was also submitted that after the representation was received from the first respondent, the Commission constituted an Expert Committee for considering the grievance of the first respondent and even the Expert Committee opined that in its opinion i.e. in the opinion of the Committee, a student would be called graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in that subject at the graduate level. If the subject is subsidiary (or side subject), he/she could not be called a graduate in that subject. It was because an Honours student at the graduate level studies eight papers in that subject whereas he/she studies only two papers in subsidiary subject. In accordance with the report, the action was taken which was proper. The counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge was wholly right in upholding the contention of the Commission that the first respondent could not be said to be BSc Honours in Zoology and dismissed the petition. The Division Bench was in error in setting aside the said order which deserves interference. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The advertisement is explicitly clear and states that the candidate must be Honours in BSc, Zoology. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has obtained BSc degree with first class but her main subject was Chemistry of eight papers of 800 marks and in addition to Chemistry, she had two papers of Zoology and Botany. In pursuance of the advertisement, which was clear, the first respondent was not eligible for the appointment to the post of District Fisheries Officer. In spite of that, she applied for the said post. True it is that initially a letter was issued by the Commission on 17-10-2002 calling upon her to appear before the Commission for interview. It was, however, a mistake on the part of the Commission. As soon as the appellant Commission realised that the first respondent was not having requisite qualifications for the post and was not eligible, her candidature was rejected. It was, however, a mistake on the part of the Commission. As soon as the appellant Commission realised that the first respondent was not having requisite qualifications for the post and was not eligible, her candidature was rejected. When a representation was made by the first respondent that cancellation of her candidature was not proper and that the decision should be reconsidered by the Commission, the Commission thought it fit to look into her grievance and an Expert Committee was appointed. The Expert Committee considered the question and submitted a report on 24-11-2002, inter alia, stating that in its “considered opinion”, a student would be called a graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in the subject at the graduate level, meaning thereby that it must be the principal subject. In our opinion, such a decision could not be said to be contrary to law. 8. Again, it is well settled that in the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications, should better be left to educational institutions (vide University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao). This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be Honours in the subject if at the graduate level, he/she studies such subject as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or side subject having two papers. Such a decision, in our judgment, cannot be termed arbitrary or otherwise objectionable. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition relying upon the report of the Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. The Division Bench was in error in ignoring the well-considered report of the Expert Committee and in setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, observed that the “litmus test” was the admission granted to the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. According to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess Bachelor of Science degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to the said course. The Division Bench observed that not only the first respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with “flying colours”. According to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess Bachelor of Science degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to the said course. The Division Bench observed that not only the first respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with “flying colours”. In our opinion, the Division Bench was not right in applying “litmus test” of admission of the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the first respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. The correct test, therefore, was not admission by the Mumbai Institution. If the requirement was of Honours in BSc with Zoology and if the first respondent had cleared BSc Honours with Chemistry, it could not be said that she was eligible to the post having requisite educational qualifications. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality." 37. The requirement as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement so far as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned that the graduation in the concerned subject is required. 38. The graduation in the concerned subject means by taking into consideration the very purport of appointment of teacher so as to impart effective study to the students will be said to be specialized degree in a particular subject and not as a subsidiary one. 39. The similar issue fell for consideration with respect to the same advertisement in the case of Ragini Sinha Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015. 40. It is evident from the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.4631 of 2015, wherein, it has been observed at paragraph-19 that appointment on the post of Language Teacher in the Upper Primary Schools requires a subject-specification qualification similar to the qualifications for appointment as Mathematics/Science teacher or Social Science teacher. 41. Further, the observation was made therein about subject-specific qualification and the implied meaning of the same, is the qualification in the “subject”. Language teacher is a distinct class of teachers, different from a Science or a Social Science teacher and for appointment on the post of Language teacher a qualification in Graduation with MIL or any other language as a compulsory subject is not a sufficient qualification. 42. Language teacher is a distinct class of teachers, different from a Science or a Social Science teacher and for appointment on the post of Language teacher a qualification in Graduation with MIL or any other language as a compulsory subject is not a sufficient qualification. 42. The learned Single has come to the conclusion that when the requirement is for the purpose of appointment of teacher in the Hindi Language, Hindi is to be a main subject at graduation level. Accordingly, the candidature of such candidates who are having the MIL in the graduation level which was rejected, has been refused to be interfered with. 43. The aforesaid order was carried to the letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.209 of 2017 and the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the said appeal vide order dated 27.06.2019 has observed as under paragraph-16 thereof that if a teacher, is appointed in the subject in Languages, only having MIL as a compulsory paper, the children would be deprived of quality education in the concerned Language, inasmuch as, MIL as a compulsory subject, is included in the course of Graduation in all subjects only to ensure that the students are going to have a minimum level of working language and proficiency in that language, but once a teacher is to be appointed for a particular subject, as for example, if he is to be appointed as a Science teacher, he must have the Graduation in Science, if he is being appointed as a teacher in Social Science, he must be a Graduate in Social Science, and if he is appointed as a Language teacher, he must be a Graduate exclusively in that Language, for ready reference, paragraph-16 of the said judgment passed in L.P.A. No.209 of 2017 and analogous cases, reads as under:- “16. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the record, we are in complete agreement with the findings given by the Hon’ble Single Judge, that a candidate, having MIL as a compulsory subject in Graduation level, cannot be appointed as a teacher in Languages. It is not denied that even the students doing Graduation in a particular Language, i.e., in Hindi, or in English, is also required to take MIL as one compulsory subject in the Graduation level, apart from several papers in the concerned language. It is not denied that even the students doing Graduation in a particular Language, i.e., in Hindi, or in English, is also required to take MIL as one compulsory subject in the Graduation level, apart from several papers in the concerned language. Curriculum for Hindi, or English in Graduation level, shall have a different course contents compared to MIL as a compulsory paper. Thus, if a teacher, is appointed in the subject of Languages, only having MIL as a compulsory paper, the children would be deprived of quality education in the concerned Language, inasmuch as, MIL as a compulsory subject, is included in the course of Graduation in all subjects, only to ensure that the students are going to have a minimum level of working language and proficiency in that language, but once a teacher is to be appointed for a particular subject, as for example, if he is to be appointed as a Science teacher, he must have the Graduation in Science, if he is being appointed as a teacher in Social Science, he must be a Graduate in Social Science, and if he is appointed as a Language teacher, he must be a Graduate exclusively in that Language. Any deviation in this practice shall result in deprivation of the children of proper education in Language, and shall frustrate the very aim and object of RCFCE Act, enacted by the Parliament of India.” 44. It has further been submitted that the similar issue which has been decided in L.P.A. No.209 of 2017, has been travelled to the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P. being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s) 37906 of 2019 but the said S.L.P. was dismissed on 10.02.2020 as the Hon’ble Apex Court found no ground to interfere with the same. 45. It has been submitted at Bar that exactly on the similar issue the order has been passed by another Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.403 of 2016 has been travelled to the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P. being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).549 of 2023 but the said S.L.P. was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit. 46. 46. This Court, after taking into consideration the condition stipulated in the advertisement and the similar issue has already been decided in L.P.A. No.403 of 2016 along with analogous cases including L.P.A. No.209 of 2017 which have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 47. The similar issue fell for consideration with respect to the History to be taken as a whole or a part of the History subject to be treated to be educational eligibility criteria. The same has been decided by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.693 of 2019, wherein, by taking into consideration the condition stipulated in the advertisement, it has been decided that the History means ‘History as a whole and not a part of the History’. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as under:- “20. Examining body while rejecting the candidature of the candidates has constituted an expert committee in order to clarify the issue, comprising of Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council; Regional Director, KDS; R.D.D.E, South Chhotanagpur; Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council; Deputy Director, Secondary Education; Additional Secretary, Secondary Education; DEO, Ranchi and Senior Advocate of the High Court, who after making various correspondences with the various Universities in the State of Jharkhand came to the conclusion that Ancient History, Medieval and Modern History are the branches of the subject History and candidates having degree in any of the branches only, not the subject History in its entirety, cannot be made eligible for selection in terms of the advertisement. 25. In view of such proposition of law, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors Vs. Kamini Devi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by accepting the opinion of the expert committee has opined that candidate would be called graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in the subject at graduate level, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge by holding the eligibility of such candidate to be considered for selection in the History subject would be considered of such candidate, who are having graduation in History subject in its entirety.” 48. It needs to be referred herein that the aforesaid judgment passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the appeal being Civil Appeal No.2217/2218 of 2022, [(2022) Insc 426]. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- “6.1. We have gone through the degrees/ certificates in the case of the respective writ petitioners. It appears that the respective writ petitioners have obtained the Postgraduate degrees/ Bachelor degrees, as the case may be, in one of the branches of History, namely, Indian Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval / Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. In our view, obtaining the degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole. As a History teacher, he/she has to teach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval/Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. Therefore, having studied and obtaining the degree in only one branch of History cannot be said to be having a degree in History subject as a whole, which was the requirement. All the relevant aspects have been considered and gone into in detail by the learned Single Judge meticulously. 6.7. As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it was stated by the respective petitioners that they are having the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of the documents, when the respective certificates were produced, at that time only, the authorities came to know that the respective writ petitioners have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a whole and therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respective petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisite qualification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after giving them the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too after obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.” 49. In the instant case, another issue has been raised that once the candidature of the appellant has been accepted, basis upon which, the appellant has been declared to be successful in the process of selection, hence, after the aforesaid decision having been taken by the recruiting agency, it is not proper on their part to reject the candidature. 50. In the instant case, another issue has been raised that once the candidature of the appellant has been accepted, basis upon which, the appellant has been declared to be successful in the process of selection, hence, after the aforesaid decision having been taken by the recruiting agency, it is not proper on their part to reject the candidature. 50. Herein, the appellant has furnished the details of possessing the educational qualification of Graduation with Home Science. But, it has not been disclosed that Home Science as special subject or subsidiary one. The same has been scrutinized by the recruiting agency at the time of verification of original certificate and at that juncture; it was found that the writ petitioner was having no required educational qualification to hold the said post. 51. Therefore, we are of the view that if the candidature has wrongly been accepted as a fact of the case herein, since, admittedly, the writ petitioner is not having Graduation in Home Science as a special subject, rather, it is subsidiary, hence, by considering the condition of advertisement at the time of scrutiny of the certificate, if such decision has been taken by the recruiting agency, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error, it is for the reason that if the candidature of a candidate goes to possessing the required eligibility criteria, as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the applicable rules of recruitment and if at that stage, it has been found by the recruiting agency that the appellant was not having the requisite educational qualification and in that view of the matter, if decision has been taken for rejection of the candidature, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 52. It needs to refer herein that as per the advertisement, the online application form was to be filled up and that is the reason, the verification of the certificate has got paramount importance at the time when the original certificate is to be produced by one or the other candidates. 53. It is for the reason that if the candidature of a candidate is only to be accepted, if such candidate is required to possess such eligibility criteria as per the terms and conditions of the condition and the applicable rules of recruitment. 54. 53. It is for the reason that if the candidature of a candidate is only to be accepted, if such candidate is required to possess such eligibility criteria as per the terms and conditions of the condition and the applicable rules of recruitment. 54. The recruiting agency, at the time of scrutiny of certificate if has found that the appellant was not having requisite educational qualification, hence, in that context, if any decision has been taken for cancellation of candidature of the appellant, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error, rather, if the candidature would be accepted of such candidate, then it will hit the Article 14 of the Constitution of India by way of relaxing the condition of advertisement which is not available in terms and conditions of rule and in that view of the matter, the same will be prejudicial to the interest of other identical candidates who after knowing the fact that the Home Science is not a main subject at Graduation Level, had not applied. 55. Further, if the candidature of candidates will be accepted, the same will amount to relaxing the condition by deviating from the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Such relaxation is impressible, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors. reported in 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. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. 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." 56. The position of law is well settled that a candidate is only entitled to hold the post, if eligible to hold the post as per the rules of recruitment and the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. 57. The aforesaid argument has also been agitated in L.P.A. No.693 of 2019 and while dealing with the said contention, this Court has come to the conclusive finding that on account of lack of educational eligibility criteria of a particular candidate, if the candidature of a candidate has been rejected even after allowing such candidate to participate in the process of selection, no right will be said to have accrued in favour of such candidate. 58. 58. This Court, on the basis of the law as has been settled and the similar issue has been dealt with as also considering the very purport of appointment of teacher having expertise in a particular subject, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid condition of advertisement, has refused to interfere with the impugned decision taken by the authority concerned considering the condition stipulated in the advertisement where the requirement is to consider the candidature of one or the other candidates if having expertise in a particular subject at the graduation level, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 59. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 60. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.