ORDER : Ashutosh Shastri, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions by of the nature of writ directing to disclose the result / rank of the petitioner and thereafter declare the Petitioner eligible to be selected to the post of District Judge (Direct Recruitment) as per the Notification No.RC/1250/2022 Annexure-C and further direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner against the said vacancy in the subject notification; (B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the resolution passed by the Hon'ble Committee as mentioned in the RTI reply bearing No. RTI/O.W No. 594/2022 dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure-B); (C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondents to keep one seat vacant in the cadre of District Judge (Direct Recruitment); (D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Background of facts which has given rise to present petition is that petitioner was an aspirant for District Judiciary and as such, pursuant to advertisement which has been issued by the High Court of Gujarat, vide notification No.RC/1250/2022 for recruitment to the post of District Judge under direct recruitment to the post of District Judges (25%), he participated in examination since according to petitioner, he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria. 3. Petitioner appeared in preliminary examination and his seat number is 96000589 and he cleared the said preliminary examination. Out of 808 candidates who appeared in the said examination, only 87 candidates were able to clear the said examination and qualified for second stage, i.e. for main written examination. It is the case of petitioner that he also appeared in main examination conducted on 7.8.2022 and out of said 87 candidates, 5 candidates were called for viva-voce round and petitioner is one of those of candidates who qualified for next stage of recruitment, i.e. viva-voce examination. It is the case of petitioner that he also appeared in main examination conducted on 7.8.2022 and out of said 87 candidates, 5 candidates were called for viva-voce round and petitioner is one of those of candidates who qualified for next stage of recruitment, i.e. viva-voce examination. Petitioner appeared in said viva-voce round on 5.9.2022 and according to him, he performed well, but in spite of fulfilling the eligibility criteria, name of petitioner was not included in the final selection list on 19.9.2022 and it is the grievance of petitioner that result qua marks obtained in main as well as viva-voce round was not communicated to petitioner. 4. It is further case of petitioner that result had not been uploaded at OJAS site and as such petitioner telephonically inquired about his score and also requested through email dated 9.10.2022, but respondent No.2 informed the petitioner on 10.10.2022 that request for disclosure of marks could not be acceded to. As a result of this communication, petitioner applied under RTI Act by way of an application on 7.10.2022 for securing information about the marks and reasons for non-selection, but then reply was received under RTI by petitioner on 2.11.2022 informing that Hon’ble Committee resolved that petitioner does not possess prescribed certificates of SSC and HSC with Gujarati (Higher Level) subject at both stages and as such, candidature of petitioner was rejected since petitioner was disqualified from recruitment process and it was also indicated that Hon’ble Committee has resolved not to publish marks of petitioner and as such information sought by petitioner was not made available. 5. It has been further stated by petitioner that he has already passed Secondary School Examination in April 2016 and Higher Secondary School Examination in October 2020 with subject of Gujarat from National Institute of Open Schooling, an Institute under Ministry of Human Development (MHRD), Government of India and same was equivalent to certificates of SSC and HSC with Gujarat (Higher level) subject at both stages. Mark statement-cum-certificate of Secondary School Examination with Gujarati subject issued by NIOS has been annexed to the petition and it is the say of petitioner that he has already declared and disclosed entire details of his Gujarati language qualification while filing online application for preliminary examination for the said post. Mark statement-cum-certificate of Secondary School Examination with Gujarati subject issued by NIOS has been annexed to the petition and it is the say of petitioner that he has already declared and disclosed entire details of his Gujarati language qualification while filing online application for preliminary examination for the said post. During preliminary examination as well as main written examination, there was no objection raised with regard to Gujarat language qualification of petitioner and he was permitted to participate in the recruitment process. It has been stated by petitioner that said examination which petitioner has cleared from NIOS is equivalent at par with eligibility criteria required by respondents and as such could not have been declared disqualified on the ground that he does not possess the certificates of SSC and HSC with Gujarat (Higher Level) subject at both stages and as such, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision and impugned communication dated 2.11.2022, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs as indicated above. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Digant Popat appearing on behalf of petitioner has vehemently contended that petitioner is an eligible candidate and possessing essential qualifications and as such, decision taken by respondents is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. It has been submitted that petitioner is the most meritorious candidate and out of 808 candidates, only 5 were found to be eligible in the ultimate round of recruitment and at last moment, petitioner has been declared as disqualified. This action is apparently arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been stated that there are as many 34 vacant posts available and if petitioner can be considered, same would subserve the interest of justice. Mr. Popat has further contended that basic eligibility criteria which has been fixed for recruitment process has already been possessed by petitioner and this qualification which petitioner is having about Gujarati subject is a well-recognized equivalent to the certification of SSC and HSC with Gujarati (Higher Level) subject at both stages. To substantiate this submission, learned advocate Mr. Mr. Popat has further contended that basic eligibility criteria which has been fixed for recruitment process has already been possessed by petitioner and this qualification which petitioner is having about Gujarati subject is a well-recognized equivalent to the certification of SSC and HSC with Gujarati (Higher Level) subject at both stages. To substantiate this submission, learned advocate Mr. Popat has drawn attention of this Court firstly to the certificate which has been obtained by petitioner from National Institute of Open Schooling in which in April 2016; he cleared Gujarati subject as single subject examination and enrolled from Haryana and has attained qualifying marks. He has also drawn attention to yet another certificate of October 2020 a single subject examination of Gujarati through National Institute of Open Schooling reflecting on page 39 and by referring to this, it has been submitted that Gujarati subject has already been cleared by petitioner at both the levels and as such, it is erroneous on the part of respondents to declare him as disqualified for appointment. Mr. Popat has further submitted that issue arose as to whether said certificate from Open Schooling is equivalent to examination of Standards 10th and 12th in the State of Gujarat and at that juncture, information which was sought for by petitioner has been answered by communication dated 2.11.2022, in which said certificate of marks held by petitioner to be treated as equivalent and by referring to yet another communication, even Gujarat Board has also treated the same as equivalent and as such it is not open for respondents to disqualify the petitioner at the fag-end of recruitment process. It has been further contended by Mr. Popat that this may be final year for petitioner on account of age limitations and and has such, if at this stage, no relief is granted then entire career of petitioner-aspirant in judicial appointment would be marred and as such has requested to extend the relief as prayed for. Mr. Popat has further submitted that even communication which is issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Elementary Education and Literacy to All Education Secretaries of the States and Union Territories about recognition to examination at primary and middle level courses conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling to be treated as eligible in the matters of admission and employment and as such, Mr. Popat has contended that certificate which petitioner is possessing are valid and cannot be discarded for considering eligibility of petitioner. Even these certificates are also being considered as eligible for Medical courses also and recognized by Medical Council of India and for that purpose has drawn attention to Annexure-P to substantiate his contention and as such Mr. Popat has submitted that there is hardly any unjustifiable reason for respondents to disqualify the petitioner in any form. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has then placed reliance upon the decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.8.2010 in Special Civil Application No.7406 of 2010 and has submitted that stand taken by petitioner deserves consideration and the reliefs prayed for deserve to be granted in the interest of justice. No other submissions have been made. 8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, with a view to ensure that stand taken by petitioner is justified or not, learned advocate representing the respondents Mr. Hemang Shah was given an advance copy and after going through, Mr. Shah has submitted that stand taken by petitioner is not only ill-founded but appears to be misdirecting the Hon’ble Court. Mr. Shah has indicated that petitioner has not cleared the examination, as required, and has cleared the examination in a simultaneous manner. It has been submitted that without subject of Gujarati, petitioner has cleared his Secondary Examination in the year 1992, whereas Senior Secondary Examination which he cleared undisputedly without subject of Gujarati in the year 1995 and further, undisputedly petitioner has cleared single subject of Gujarati at a much belated stage in April 2016 as well as in October 2020 respectively and as such, it cannot be said in any form that petitioner is fulfilling eligibility criteria as desired in the advertisement. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that petitioner has not cleared the examination from Center in the State of Gujarat and has cleared single subject of Gujarati from the Center at Haryana and as such, in no stretch of imagination, it can be assumed that petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility criteria. In fact, the Committee has gone into all these aspects and rightly declared the petitioner as ineligible and disqualified for the post in question. Learned advocate Mr. In fact, the Committee has gone into all these aspects and rightly declared the petitioner as ineligible and disqualified for the post in question. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that eligibility criteria which has been mentioned in the detailed advertisement for recruitment of District Judge (25%) in which has been it has been clearly mentioned that candidates shall specifically indicate if they have passed their Secondary as well as Higher Secondary examinations with subject of Gujarati (Higher Level/ 1st language at both stages). It has been further submitted that in the clause-5, it has been mentioned that if information so furnished by candidate is found to be false at any stage of recruitment process, their candidature will be liable to be rejected. Additionally, learned advocate Mr. Shah has also drawn attention that Clause-6 of the advertisement vide Annexure-A on page 29 is clearly indicating that while preparation of select list, marks obtained in Preliminary Examination (Elimination Test) as well as in the test of Gujarati language, shall not be taken into consideration while preparing the final merit list of candidates. Further Clause-10(d) would also clearly indicate that decision of High Court as to eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to preliminary examination, main examination and/or viva-voce test shall be final and no candidate to whom a certificate of admission, viz. e-call letter cum-admission slip has not been issued by recruiting authority, shall be admitted for examination concerned. So, Mr. Shah has submitted that stand taken by petitioner does not deserve to be encouraged. It has further been submitted that marks of candidate whose candidature has been rejected by High Court shall not be disclosed and these were the terms which were very much clearly indicated to all the candidates from the beginning who appeared, including the petitioner, and as such petitioner now cannot be turned around and try to raise any grievance. Hence, no case is made out by petitioner to call for any interference. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah has further submitted that law on the issue is amply clear that in the absence of any challenge to the terms of advertisement, no deviation can be found out by candidate and as such invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to indirectly dilute the effect of terms of advertisement is an attempt which deserves to be discouraged. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Hemang Shah has further submitted that law on the issue is amply clear that in the absence of any challenge to the terms of advertisement, no deviation can be found out by candidate and as such invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to indirectly dilute the effect of terms of advertisement is an attempt which deserves to be discouraged. It has further been submitted that language of Gujarati is an eligibility criteria and one has to possess the same with their respective SSC and HSC examinations. Manner and method in which petitioner has cleared Gujarati subject as a single subject from different center is not to be treated as falling within the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and even after this issue, the Hon’ble Committee of High Court after going through the details has specifically conveyed that petitioner is not qualified and as such, Mr. Shah has submitted that petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. It has further been contended that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to state before the Court that petitioner has cleared his Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations with subject of Gujarati. In fact, as per the requirement of eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement undispitedly petitioner is not possessing and that being the case, no writ to be issued nor reliefs to be granted to the petitioner. Even otherwise, petitioner has been found to be not eligible or qualified and as such, Hon’ble Committee has rightly taken a decision not to allow the petitioner for further process in the recruitment and by now, after said conclusion of process of recruitment, one candidate has already been selected and given actual appointment and as such, there is hardly any case made out by petitioner to call for any interference. Hence, learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material which has been placed on record, few circumstances are required to be considered before coming to an ultimate conclusion in the controversy on hand. 11. First of all the advertisement for direct requirement of District Judge (25%) has been published in detailed and the said advertisement is specifically containing certain terms which all the candidates have with open eyes adopted and entered into the recruitment process. 11. First of all the advertisement for direct requirement of District Judge (25%) has been published in detailed and the said advertisement is specifically containing certain terms which all the candidates have with open eyes adopted and entered into the recruitment process. In Clause No.1 about vacancy and pay scale it has been specifically stipulated that those candidates who possessed their Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Examination with subject of Gujarati Higher Level / First Language at both stages and it has been submitted that if the information so furnished by the candidates is found to be false at any stage of the recruitment process, their candidature would be rejected. The said Clause No.1(iv) reads thus as under:- "1(iv) While Filling Online Application Form, Candidates shall specifically indicate, if they have passed their Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Examination with subject of Gujarati Higher Level / First Language at both stages. If the information so furnished by the Candidates is found to be false at any stage of the recruitment process, their Candidature will be liable to be rejected." 12. Further in Clause No.5 pertains to scheme of examination and syllabus it has been clearly indicated that those candidates, who have not passed the requisite examination with the subject of Gujarati at Higher Level / First Language at both stages are required to pass a vernacular (Gujarati) Language Proficiency Test as described. The said Clause No.5(iv) reads as under:- "5(iv) In view of amended Rule-5, viz. Clause (aa) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-5 of "The Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005" Candidates who have not passed Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Examination with subject of Gujarati (Higher Level / First Language at both stages) are required to pass the vernacular (Gujarati) Language Proficiency Test as prescribed below and to secure minimum 40% Marks for being eligible for being called for Main Written Examination. Paper-III : Test of Gujarati Language : (50 Marks - 11/2 Hours) [For those Candidates, who have not passed Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Examination with subject of Gujarati (Higher Level/First Language at both stages)]" 13. Similar is the Clause No.5(v) which requires the eligibility as indicated since Clause Nos. Paper-III : Test of Gujarati Language : (50 Marks - 11/2 Hours) [For those Candidates, who have not passed Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Examination with subject of Gujarati (Higher Level/First Language at both stages)]" 13. Similar is the Clause No.5(v) which requires the eligibility as indicated since Clause Nos. (v) and (vi) are relevant to the controversy, the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder : "5.(v) To become eligible for Main Written Examination, the Candidate - has to secure 50% or more Marks in the Preliminary Examination (Elimination Test) and must have also passed their Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations with subject of Gujarati (Higher Level/First Language at both stages); OR has to secure 50% or more Marks in the Preliminary Examination (Elimination Test) and 40% or more Marks in the Test of Gujarati Language, in case they have not passed their Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations with subject of Gujarati (Higher Level/First Language at both stages). (vi) The Marks obtained by the Candidates in the Preliminary Examination (Elimination Test) as well as the Test of Gujarati Language shall not be taken into consideration for preparing the Final Merit of the candidates." 14. In Clause No.10 of General Instructions which are specifically indicated to all candidates the decision of the High Court as regards eligibility is to be treated as final. Clause No.10(d) deserves to be quoted hereunder:- "10(d) The decision of the High Court as to the eligibility of otherwise of a candidate for admission to the Preliminary Examination, Main Written Examination and/or Viva-voce Test, shall be final. No candidate, to whom a Certificate of Admission viz. 'e-Call-Letter-cum-Admission Slip' has not been issued by the Recruiting Authority, shall be admitted for the Examination concerned." 15. Similarly Clause No.10(m) and 10(n) are also relevant, same are reproduced hereunder:- "10(m) The Marks obtained by the Candidate concerned at various stages of the instant Recruitment Process shall be made available to the concerned candidates, by providing a link to a webpage on the HC-OJAS Portal with individual password (OTP-One Time Password), via SMS on his/her Registered Mobile Number, after the conclusion of the Selection Process. However, the Marks of the Candidate(s) whose candidature(s) has/have rejected by the High Court shall not be disclosed. However, the Marks of the Candidate(s) whose candidature(s) has/have rejected by the High Court shall not be disclosed. (n) Mere Success in the Test/Examination, shall not confer any right to Appointment, and no candidate shall be appointed to the post unless the Recruiting Authority and/ or Government is satisfied, after such inquiries, as may be considered necessary, that the candidate is suitable in all respects for Appointment to the post." 16. The aforesaid clauses are also indicating that the decision of the High Court as regards eligibility shall be final and the marks of the candidates whose candidature has been rejected by the High Court shall not be disclosed and even if a candidate has mere success in test / examination shall not confer any right of appointment. 17. Yet another clause is also sufficient enough to empower an authority to ascertain the shortcomings during the process and if found at any stage of recruitment even after appointment, the services can be terminated so this absolute power which is indicated in Clause No.10 (r) is to the effect that there is no vested right of appointment. The said clause reads as under:- "10(r) While applying Online for the post, the Applicant should ensure that he/she fulfills the eligibility and other norms mentioned above and that the particulars furnished by him/her are correct in all respects. In case it is detected at any stage of recruitment that a candidate does not fulfill the eligibility norms and/or that he/she has suppressed/twisted or truncated any material facts, his/her candidature will stand cancelled. If any of these shortcomings is detected even after Appointment, his her Service will be liable to be terminated. 18. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid terms with the advertisement which are well published as required are clearly indicating that the subject of Gujarati at a Higher Level / First Language at both stages is required not only at a Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Examination and this eligibility is clearly known to all candidates who participated in the recruitment process including the present petitioner. This clause does not envisage in any manner that such Gujarati subject can be cleared at a later point of time and may not be along with secondary or higher secondary. This clause does not envisage in any manner that such Gujarati subject can be cleared at a later point of time and may not be along with secondary or higher secondary. If meaning which is tried to be given as suggested by petitioner, same would defeat very object of such criteria and would violence to the language of said norms itself. 19. Now on the basis of this circumstance, a perusal of the documents which are attached by the petitioner are clearly indicating that undisputedly Secondary School Examination the petitioner has cleared in the year, 1992 without the subject of Gujarati and a xerox copy of the mark-sheet dated 31.05.1992 is produced by petitioner himself. This mark-sheet is nowhere indicating the subject of Gujarati. Similar is the position with respect to petitioner's Senior Secondary School Examination which is said to have cleared in the year, 1995 is also without the subject of Gujarati either at a Higher Level or at a First Instance. The said mark-sheet dated 08.08.1995 also reflects no subject of Gujarati. An attempt is made by the petitioner that since he has cleared his single subject Gujarati in the month of April, 2016 at Secondary School Examination from National Institute of Open Schooling and Senior Secondary School Examination in the month of October, 2020 from the said institute to be treated as eligible and this Senior Secondary School Examination which he said to have cleared in the month of October, 2020 a certificate thereof is issued on 02.03.2022 reflecting on page 39. So undisputed position is that the petitioner has not cleared his Secondary as well as Higher Secondary Certificate Examination along with the subject of Gujarati and as such ex facie the petitioner is not possessing eligibility criteria at all, apart from the fact whether the said subject of Gujarati was Higher Level or First Language at both stages. Hence, this Court is of the clear opinion that petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and there is absolutely no error committed by the Hon'ble Committee in not considering the petition for present recruitment process. 20. Hence, this Court is of the clear opinion that petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and there is absolutely no error committed by the Hon'ble Committee in not considering the petition for present recruitment process. 20. Yet another circumstance which is also not possible to be unnoticed by the Court is that at one stage the petitioner has contended that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Elementary Education and Literacy has circulated a communication dated 11.12.2002 to all Education Secretaries of the States but the subject contained in it is indicating that the same is relating to the recognition to the examinations at Primary and Middle Level Courses conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling and the instructions apparently are not exactly applicable or related to the present controversy in question. The aforesaid terms of the advertisements which were wide openly circulated and with open eyes all candidates have participated it would now not be open for the petitioner to raise grievance about the fact that his single subject of Gujarati clearance deserves to be considered as eligible and thereby to grant the relief as prayed for in the petition. In fact in the present petition the terms of the advertisements are not under challenge nor the reliefs are prayed in that direction and further there is no mala fides are alleged in any form and as such in considered opinion of this Court it is not open for the Court to tinker with the terms of advertisement which relates to eligibility. It is trite law that the High Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction cannot rewrite the terms or norms pertaining to recruitment. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that case is not made out by the petitioner. 21. Further from the assertion made in the petition on oath, we are also constrained to indicate that an assertion made in paragraph 10 are not only incorrect but are misleading to the Court on oath. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that case is not made out by the petitioner. 21. Further from the assertion made in the petition on oath, we are also constrained to indicate that an assertion made in paragraph 10 are not only incorrect but are misleading to the Court on oath. It has been clearly mentioned in the paragraph 10 that "he has already passed Secondary School Examination in April 2016, and Higher Secondary School Examination in October 2020 "with subject of Gujarati from National Institute of Open Schooling, an Institution under Ministry of Human Development (MHRD), Government of India and the same are equivalent to the certificates of SSC & HSC with Gujarati (Higher Level) Subject at both stages." This is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the record since said subject is not cleared with and as such we deprecate the practice adopted by the petitioner to misdirect the Court by twisting the facts which are quite contrary. Further, it is cardinal principle of construction of document which indicates that one must have regard in construing document not to the presumed intention of parties but to the meaning of words they have used. If two interpretations of document are canvassed, one which would gives effect and meaning to all its parts should be adopted and for the purpose, the words creating uncertainty in the document can be ignored. Now, here petitioner has tried to canvass that SSC and HSC he has cleared way back in the year 1992 and 1995 respectively and then, after several years in 2016, he cleared single subject of Gujarati and that to be understood to mean that he has cleared said subject with SSC and HSC examinations, which in no circumstance can be possible to be accepted. 22. With the aforesaid factual background which is prevailing on record, we are of the clear opinion that in the absence of any allegation of mala fides or glaring error or perversity Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of Selection Committee. Further the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction cannot issue the direction to make the appointments contrary to the eligibility requirement under the applicable terms. Further the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction cannot issue the direction to make the appointments contrary to the eligibility requirement under the applicable terms. Qualification and eligibility is something which is to be prescribed by an appointing authority and Courts are not to improve upon it and as said earlier, undisputed position is such where extraordinary equitable jurisdiction does not deserve to be exercised and this is well-propounded. 23. This being the proposition as we have observed that undisputed position is clearly indicating that there is no error committed by the respondent authority in taking decision against the petitioner, hence we are not inclined to entertain the petition nor a case made out to issue any writ. It is also being observed by us that illegality or irregularity which touches to the route of controversy about eligibility if detected can be taken care of at any stage and cannot be allowed to be perpetuated simply because the petitioner has been found a place within five candidates at a final round in recruitment process but moment this information has been noticed in our considered a right decision is taken by an authority not to allow the petitioner to proceed further in the recruitment process and the authority under the terms of advertisements is thoroughly justified in not disclosing the marks and these informations were very much within the knowledge of petitioner moment he participated from the initial stage and as such petitioner is bound by instructions and the norms pertaining to recruitment. Hence, it is not open for petitioner to raise this kind of unsustainable grievance. We see no irregularity or any illegality in the matter of present petitioner. Hence, petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 24. While parting with present order, a word of caution we may put to the petitioner that he should desist from making such averments on oath as has been mentioned in earlier paragraph and since he was an aspiring candidate, we desist ourselves from imposing cost. 25. With these observations, present petition is dismissed with costs as indicated above.