JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner following reliefs: (i) An appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents particularly respondent no.4. to send all the records pertaining to the publication of results dated 28.08.2018 through the internet in JSSC official site to this Hon’ble Court wherein all the petitioners having secured more than the marks of selected candidate, have not been declared to be successful for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher and thereafter be further pleased to direct the respondents particularly respondent no. 4 to consider case of the petitioners who has obtained 284 marks though last candidate who has score 280 has been selected in the General category has been finally selected. (ii) For the direction upon the respondent to stay the result published by the Jharkhand Staff selection commission dated 28.08.2018.. (iii). For issuance of writ in the nature of quo- warranto for asking the respondent no. 4 that under what circumstances and what authorities it has not selected present petitioner even after scoring much more marks than finally selected candidate. 3. The brief facts of the case is that an advertisement had been published by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred as JSSC)for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination vide Advertisement No. 10/2017 for filling up several post of teachers. The petitioner had filled the form for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher from the subject of Sanskrit and appeared in its main examination. The result of the examination was published on 03.07.2018 in which the petitioner's roll number was published as a successful candidate. Pursuant to the result, the successful candidates were directed to verify all their educational documents before the Commission. The petitioner appeared before JSSC and submitted all his documents for verification. The petitioner submitted one certificate issued by Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi dated 09.08.2018 which was issued by the Examination Controller of the said University which has clearly stated that said University issued Post Graduate Certificate in Sanskrit as Acharya and it is equivalent to as Master’s Degree in Sanskrit and its mode of education is Sanskrit only. After verifying and considering all the relevant documents, JSSC issued the final result on 28.08.2018 in which the petitioner's roll number was not published. After verifying and considering all the relevant documents, JSSC issued the final result on 28.08.2018 in which the petitioner's roll number was not published. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant application and also prays for stay of the result published and direction upon the respondent to publish revised result. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was published by JSSC for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher vide Advertisement No. 10/2017. Petitioner being eligible in all respect filled the form for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher from the subject of Sanskrit and appeared in main examination which was held on 08.03.2018 bearing Roll No.79091300644. The result of examination dated 08.03.2018 was published on 03.07.2018 in which petitioner's roll number was published as successful candidate and was further directed to verify all the educational documents before the commission. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before JSSC and verified all his documents regarding which Commission was satisfied and for some clarification petitioner submitted certificate issued by Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalay Varanasi dated 09.08.2018 which was issued by Examination Controller of the said University which has clearly indicated that said University issued Post Graduate Certificate in Sanskrit as Acharya and it is equivalent as Master’s Degree in Sanskrit and its mode of education is Sanskrit only. He further submits that after verifying and considering all the relevant documents, JSSC issued final result in which petitioner's roll number was not published. The Commission published the result in which it has been indicated that 280 marks is for general category in Sanskrit language. The candidates who have secured minimum marks of 280 have been finally selected and JSSC published individual scores of the candidates who appeared in the aforesaid examination. Thereafter, the petitioner checked his individual score of the examination on the official website of JSSC and was shocked by the fact that the petitioner has scored 284 marks in general category though the last candidate who was selected for the said post had been selected after scoring 280 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner checked his individual score of the examination on the official website of JSSC and was shocked by the fact that the petitioner has scored 284 marks in general category though the last candidate who was selected for the said post had been selected after scoring 280 marks. He further submits that the Commission published a list of those candidates whose candidature has not been considered by JSSC on technical grounds and in that list petitioner's name was not there thereafter petitioner rushed to the JSSC and narrated the above-mentioned fact but all went in vain and thereafter petitioner sent mail to the JSSC on 09.10.2018; however no response has been given by respondent till date and as such petitioner prays for stay of the result published and direction upon the respondent to publish revised result. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on its counter affidavit and submits that the employment Notice was advertised for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher and the required educational criteria was having Post Graduate degree in relevant subject. It was nowhere mentioned that any equivalent subject will be also considered for appointment and the certificate produced by the petitioner on the date of verification is not valid for consideration in view of the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement. He further submits that similar cases have also been found where degrees submitted by candidates in the zone of consideration were found to be different from what was mentioned in clause- 4 of the advertisement rendering their eligibility doubtful as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Hence, their results were kept pending and guidelines were sought regarding the acceptability of their degrees from the parent department which has sent the requisition i.e. Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no. 3763 dated 13.08.2018 and reminders were also sent by them to the concerned Department for providing guidelines. The Department of School Education and Literacy Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 12.04.2019 has provided the guidelines on the basis of the recommendation of high level committee that recommendation be made for appointments of those candidates only who are having Post Graduation degree in the concerned subject as advertised and no recommendation be made for those candidates who have Post Graduation degree in the ancillary subject. Learned counsel further submits that it would be evident from the perusal of the materials available on record that for appointment as a teacher for a subject Sanskrit, the essential qualification is Post Graduation degree in the concerned subject i.e. Sanskrit and it would be also evident from the perusal of materials available on the record that petitioner is having qualification of Post-Graduation degree in Acharya which is not valid for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in Sanskrit and as such petitioner is not eligible for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in Sanskrit in the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned counsel for JSSC further submits that it would be evident from the materials available on the record that nowhere it has been mentioned in the advertisement that the equivalent degree of Post-Graduation is also valid for consideration for appointment against the advertised posts and as such the instant Writ Application is not maintainable and the same is fit to be dismissed by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the relevant affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that the JSSC has come with an advertisement being advertisement No. 10 of 2017 for the Post Graduate Trained Teacher vide Post Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Examination 2017, inviting online application from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Post Graduate Teacher for different subject including the subject of Sanskrit which is the subject in question in the instant application. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner applied for the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in the subject of Sanskrit and appeared in the main examination and was declared a successful candidate. He was directed to get his educational documents verified to which the petitioner submitted certificate issued by Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi dated 09.08.2018 which was issued by examination controller of the said University which clearly indicated that the certificate was of Acharya, which according to the respondent was not valid in view of the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement. From records, it transpires that similar cases have also been found where degrees submitted by candidates in the zone of consideration were found to be different from what was mentioned in clause- 4 of the advertisement rendering their eligibility doubtful as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Hence, their results were kept pending and guidelines were sought regarding the acceptability of their degrees from the parent department i.e. Department of School, Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, which has sent the requisition, vide letter no. 3763 dated 13.08.2018. Reminders were also sent by the commission to the concerned Department to provide guidelines, It further transpires that the Department of School Education and Literacy Government of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 12.04.2019 has provided the guidelines. On the basis of the recommendation of high level committee, recommendation was made for appointments of those candidates only who have Post Graduation degree in the concerned subject as advertised and no recommendation was made for those candidates who are having Post Graduation degree in the ancillary subject. 7. It appears that Clause 4 of the advertisement No. 10/2017, stipulated about posts, pay scale and minimum educational qualifications, stipulating therein the minimum education qualification. For the post of Post Graduate Teacher, it was degree in post-graduation in the concerned subject, herein “Sanskrit”, with 50% marks with degree of B. Ed or equivalent, as technical education. 8. In the aforesaid factual background, the following question of law arises for consideration (i) Whether the candidates can be allowed to make departure from advertisement, so far as educational qualification is concerned? (ii) Can the Court of law make any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement? (iii) Whether the writ petitioner without assailing the advertisement can claim parity of their degree with the subject Sanskrit, as also the eligibility criteria, as has been fixed by the NCTE? 9. The aforesaid questions have been dealt with in detail concerning the same advertisement and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Kumar & Ors and The State of Jharkhand &Ors (in LPA No. 693 of 2019 and L.P.A. No. 734 of 2019) has held in 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26 as under:- “15. 9. The aforesaid questions have been dealt with in detail concerning the same advertisement and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Kumar & Ors and The State of Jharkhand &Ors (in LPA No. 693 of 2019 and L.P.A. No. 734 of 2019) has held in 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26 as under:- “15. It is also settled position of law that the Court of law cannot grant any relaxation in the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, as has been held by 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. 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. 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." 16. 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. (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. 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. Zoology as principal/main subject and not as a subsidiary or optional subject. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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”. 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." 18. It is also admitted fact that the appellants have shown themselves having obtained graduate/post graduate degree in 'History' at the time of filling up on-line application form. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality." 18. It is also admitted fact that the appellants have shown themselves having obtained graduate/post graduate degree in 'History' at the time of filling up on-line application form. On that pretext, they have been allowed to appear in the assessment/performance test, as per the process of selection, as stipulated in the advertisement, in which, they have been found to be successful and in consequence thereof, they have been directed to appear for verification of testimonials, as per the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. The examining body, at the time of screening of the application form vis-a-vis testimonials submitted by the writ petitioners-appellants of the one or the other candidates has found discrepancies in giving declaration with respect to having graduate/post graduate degree in the subject 'History', as per the advertisement. 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. 23. It is also admitted position that if the condition has been stipulated in the advertisements, it cannot be deviated in any way and if any deviation would be made it amounts to relaxation, which is not permissible in law, as per the law laid down in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission &Ors Vs. Kamini Devi (supra), wherein it has been held that if any decree is required in a particular subject at Graduate Level, the degree must be in the said subject by way of principal subject and not as a subsidiary subject. 26. Kamini Devi (supra), wherein it has been held that if any decree is required in a particular subject at Graduate Level, the degree must be in the said subject by way of principal subject and not as a subsidiary subject. 26. The issue has been raised by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants that the condition stipulated in the advertisement about making no equivalent clause is not proper but the said question cannot be allowed to be agitated at this stage since admittedly herein the writ petitioners-appellants have participated in the selection process by seeing the conditions, stipulated in the advertisement, by naked eyes and once found to be not eligible they cannot be allowed to turn around and question the advertisement, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585 . For ready reference, paragraph 15 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder as: "15.We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the Constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point.” "Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. reported in (1986) (supp) SCC 285, has held that if a candidate had appeared in the examination without protest, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 realizing that he would not succeed in the examination. Further reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marripati Nagaraja Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 522 wherein it has been held that if the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur, they did not question the validity of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority, therefore, they were estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process. In the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150 at paragraph 24 it has been held that "....All the candidates knew the requirements of the selection process and were fully aware that must possess the basis knowledge of computer operation meaning thereby Microsoft Operating System and Microsoft Office Operation. Knowing the said criteria, the appellants also appeared in the interview, faced the questions from the expert of computer application and has taken a chance and opportunity therein without any protest at any stage and now they cannot turn back to state that the aforesaid procedure adopted was wrong and without jurisdiction." 10. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the facts of the instant case which is also with respect to the same Advertisement No. 10 of 2017, I do not find any merit in the instant case; as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.A if any also stands disposed of.