JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. PRAYER 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the result dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure-2) published in connection with Advertisement No. 09/2017 (Annexure-1) and as such prayed for quashing the same. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 for declaring results of Limited Examination held as per Advertisement No. 09/2017 only after determining the minimum qualifying marks of BC-1 and BC-2. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents for determining the minimum qualifying marks of BC-1 and BC-2 categories in the Advertisement No. 09/2017. Petitioners have further prayed for restraining the Commission from inviting any application for the same post for the BC-1 and BC-2 categories for which examination has already been conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 09/2017 but the results have not yet been declared. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. According to the petitioners, an Advertisement No. 9/2017 was floated by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for conducting Limited Examination for appointment of 1544 numbers of Sub-inspectors from amongst Hawaldar/Assistant Sub-Inspector. Petitioners also appeared in the said examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the post of Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017 held on 26.11.2017. The selection process was scheduled in three tier system i.e. written examination followed by physical test and medical examination. The result was declared on 22.02.2018 but the result of BC-1 and BC-2 categories was not declared and the result of candidates belonging to aforesaid categories was held up by the Commission on the ground that the qualifying marks for the candidates of these categories was not mentioned in the said advertisement. Being aggrieved, petitioners represented before the authorities concerned but no heed was paid and as such they have been constrained to knock door of this Court. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal and Ms. Aditee Dungrawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that petitioners fulfill the essential qualification and criteria required and the result published by the Commission is violative of their statutory rights as the result of BC-1 and BC-2 candidates have not been declared so far and have been held up by the respondents till date. Ankit Vishal and Ms. Aditee Dungrawat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that petitioners fulfill the essential qualification and criteria required and the result published by the Commission is violative of their statutory rights as the result of BC-1 and BC-2 candidates have not been declared so far and have been held up by the respondents till date. Learned counsel further argues that from Clause 13(ii) of the advertisement, it is clear that out of 1544 posts, though the Commission had put a separate category for the BC-1 (total 124 posts), BC-2 (total 93 posts), general (772 posts), female (124) posts but they have not mentioned the qualifying marks for the BC-1 and BC-2 category candidates. It was incumbent upon the candidates to obtain in paper-2 and 3 the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 45% for the unreserved category, 40% for the SC/ST category candidates but the minimum qualifying marks was not specified by the Commission for the candidates belonging to the BC-1 and BC-2 categories. The results were declared on 22.02.2018 but the results of BC-1 and BC-2 has been illegally held up by the respondents on the ground that the qualifying marks for the candidates of these categories were not mentioned/specified in the advertisement. The action of the respondents is in teeth of the orders and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has clearly been held in catena of decisions that treating two persons equally who are not similarly situated is an act of arbitrariness and in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This was for the first time that the State has conducted Limited Departmental Examination and as such there was no upper age limit prescribed for any candidates. Learned counsel further argues that admittedly no candidates have been recommended for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector under the BC-1 and BC-II categories and all the seats are lying vacant and as such, case of the petitioners should have been considered for appointment by prescribing/fixing different qualifying marks for the said category. Drawing attention towards Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder dated 20.06.2022, learned counsel submits that the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, vide Resolution dated 27.11.2012 has made certain decisions in relation to the examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission etc. Drawing attention towards Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder dated 20.06.2022, learned counsel submits that the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, vide Resolution dated 27.11.2012 has made certain decisions in relation to the examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission etc. wherein minimum qualifying marks have been prescribed for the candidates of different categories viz. Unreserved category-40 percent, Backward Category – 36.5 percent, BC-1 – 34 percent, SC/ST/Female category – 32 percent. Similarly, the Special Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, vide Notification no. 4054, dated 19.07.2018, has made certain amendment in the matter relating to appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector through limited departmental examination and separate cut-off marks has been prescribed for different categories. The respondents ought to have considered while rejecting claim of the petitioners in view of the fact that the qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates cannot be equated with the general category candidates. It is a fit case where interference of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. 6. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned GP-I submits that Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, vide its Resolution No. 252, dated 28.01.2016, constituted the “Jharkhand State Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Recruitment Rule, 2016. Rule 19 of the said Resolution clearly fixes 45% marks separately in both the papers and an aggregate of 50% marks in total as the minimum qualifying marks for the unreserved candidates. The said Rule further stipulates that there shall be relaxation of 5% marks for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates i.e. minimum qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates has been fixed to be 40% separately in both the papers and 45% marks in aggregate as the eligibility for appointment on the said post. There is no illegality or any infirmity and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – Commission submits that from perusal of Clause-8 and Clause-13 of the Advertisement 09/2017 (Annexurte-1) it is apparent that the physical criteria and the minimum qualifying marks are same for the candidates belonging to unreserved category or the candidates belonging to EBC-I or BC-II categories. Sanjay Piprawal assisted by Mr. Prince Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – Commission submits that from perusal of Clause-8 and Clause-13 of the Advertisement 09/2017 (Annexurte-1) it is apparent that the physical criteria and the minimum qualifying marks are same for the candidates belonging to unreserved category or the candidates belonging to EBC-I or BC-II categories. On the basis of final answer key, the merit list was prepared and candidates were called for the physical and medical test followed by the document verification. Thereafter, the final result was published on 22.02.2018. Drawing attention towards para-14 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, learned counsel submits that pursuant to Advertisement No. 09/2017, 3350 applications were received whereas only 3219 candidates appeared in the examination. In terms of the Recruitment Rules, only 663 candidates were declared successful and were called for physical and other tests. Out of 663 candidates, only 399 were declared physically fit in physical test and were sent for medical test. Only 398 candidates were declared medically fit by the Medical Board and were called for document verification. One candidate failed to submit valid Caste Certificate under Scheduled Caste category and work experience certificate of one candidate was revoked by the Department and as such name of only 396 candidates were recommended by the Commission for appointment. Out of 772 vacancies under Unreserved category, only 290 were recommended under said category; out of 154 posts under Scheduled Caste, only 39 were recommended under the said category; out of 401 vacancies under Scheduled Tribes category, only 67 candidates were recommended under said category; whereas out of 124 vacancies under EBC-I and 93 vacancies under BC-II categories, none were recommended. Learned counsel further argues that 63 candidates of EBC-I category and 33 candidates of BC-II category had secured minimum qualifying marks as fixed for the unreserved category candidates and as such they have been recommended in unreserved category. Thus, 63 candidates under EBC-1 and 33 candidates in BC-II category have already been recommended for appointment. The contention of the petitioner that the cut-off marks of the BC-I and BC-II was not prescribed/specified in the advertisement leading to non-publication of their results is misleading, misconceived and denied. The minimum qualifying marks are same for the unreserved, BC-II and EBC-I category candidates. The contention of the petitioner that the cut-off marks of the BC-I and BC-II was not prescribed/specified in the advertisement leading to non-publication of their results is misleading, misconceived and denied. The minimum qualifying marks are same for the unreserved, BC-II and EBC-I category candidates. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioners did not secure minimum aggregate marks in paper-2 and paper-3 and as such they were not declared successful, which is evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the Commission on 18.12.2020. The writ petition is further devoid of merits because of non-joinder of successful candidates as party-respondents in the instant writ petition. The selection process has already been completed in 2018 itself and no interference is warranted. The writ petition is fit to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 8. From the facts, submission and legal proposition brought before this Court by both the sides, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 9. It is an admitted fact that petitioners appeared in the examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in connection with Advt. No. 09/2017 and thereafter, when they were declared unsuccessful, they have taken a ‘U’ turn by challenging the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that Final Results have already been published and same yardstick has been applied in case of all the candidates and there has been no discrimination. 10. It appears that among the reserved category candidates who have obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination fixed for unreserved category candidates and were declared physically and medically fit by Medical Board, were recommended for appointment under unreserved category. From the records it appears that 63 candidates from EBC-I category and 33 candidates from BC-II category had secured minimum qualifying marks as fixed for the unreserved category candidates and as such, they have been recommended in unreserved category. Thus, 63 candidates under EBC-I and 33 candidates under BC-II category have already been recommended for appointment. The eligible candidates under EBC-I and BC-II were selected under unreserved category candidates and as such, there was no separate result and cut-off marks for those candidates. Thus, 63 candidates under EBC-I and 33 candidates under BC-II category have already been recommended for appointment. The eligible candidates under EBC-I and BC-II were selected under unreserved category candidates and as such, there was no separate result and cut-off marks for those candidates. From Clause-13 of the Prospectus/Advertisement which has been annexed as Annexure-1 it is clear that minimum qualifying marks are same for unreserved, BC-II and EBC-I category candidates. 11. From the aforesaid facts and from perusal of the different documents brought on record it appears that petitioners did not challenge the Advertisement at the time of filling-up application form, rather, they were satisfied with the same and it is only when they have been declared unsuccessful a ‘U’ turn has been taken challenging the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. It is not a case that petitioners were not aware of the terms and conditions and the same has been added later on, rather, being fully satisfied and aware of the terms and conditions, they accepted the same and thereafter appeared in the recruitment process. 12. The terms and the conditions of the Advertisement can neither be relaxed nor be altered. The said legal proposition is no more res integra and find strength from the celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 , the relevant para of which reads as under: “29. 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. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. 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 equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ………………….. ………………… 32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list.” 13. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Anr., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 643 , relevant para of which reads as under: “29. It would be seen that Shri Aggarwal is on firm ground because this Court has specifically stated that rules or regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation which are ultra vires are bound to be ignored by the courts when the question of their enforcement arises and the mere fact that there is no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires would not stand in the court's way of not enforcing them. We also feel that since this is a question of the very jurisdiction to levy interest and is otherwise covered by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court, it would be a travesty of justice if we would not allow Shri Aggarwal to make this submission.” 14. Upon going through the said judgment and its interpretation it appears that same is helping the respondents rather than the petitioners since the terms and conditions of the advertisement has not been declared ultra vires and could not stands in the Court’s way of not enforcing them. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para-40 of the judgment rendered in case of U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 139 has held as under: “40. It is well settled that equals cannot be treated unequally. But it is equally well settled that unequals cannot be treated equally. Treating of unequals as equals would as well offend the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Executive Engineers placed in Category I must get priority and preference for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer over Executive Engineers found in Category II.” 16. Since the appointments have been made fully in consonance with the Rule-659 (ka) & (kha) of the Police Manual and also considering the result dated 28.01.2016, issued as per the Jharkhand State Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Recruitment Rules, 2016, particularly Rule-19, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in holding the examination declaration of results thereof. The contention of the petitioners is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. 17. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 18. No order as to costs.