JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer The instant intra-court appeal preferred by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the commission has been commanded to consider the case of the writ petitioner, respondent for selection to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in terms of advertisement no.21/2016. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under: 3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in the year 2016, an advertisement was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers vide Advertisement No.21/2016. The writ petitioner having requisite qualification for the same, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement in History & Political Science subject, the writ petitioner had successfully completed his course in the year 2007 and has been awarded Degree of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) – Major in History in 2nd Class with 53.58% marks. Further, the writ petitioner pursued his Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur National University and has been declared successful in the examination held in the year 2012 in 1st Class. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the writ petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and appeared in the written examination and after being declared successful in the written examination, he was called for verification of his certificates from 18.09.2018 to 01.10.2018, which the writ petitioner appeared along with his certificates for verification. After verification, a final list was prepared by the Commission, but surprisingly name of the writ petitioner was not included and the reason assigned for non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner was that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification as stated in Column 4(k) of the advertisement, meaning thereby, the writ petitioner was not a Graduate in Political Science subject. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019. 5. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner having requisite qualification for the same, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019. 5. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner having requisite qualification for the same, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement in History & Political Science subject, the writ petitioner had successfully completed his course in the year 2007 and has been awarded Degree of Bachelor of Arts – Major in History and also in Political Science as part of his FHS1 (Foundation Course in Humanities and Social Science). Further, the writ petitioner pursued his Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur National University and has been declared successful in the examination held in the year 2012 in 1st Class. 6. The writ petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and appeared in the written examination and after being declared successful, was called for verification of his certificates. After verification, a final list was prepared by the Commission, but surprisingly name of the writ petitioner was not included and the reason assigned for non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner was that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification as stated in Column 4(k) of the advertisement. 7. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that his candidature has not been considered, even though, he is fulfilling all the criteria as stipulated in the advertisement in question. The writ petitioner, in the aforesaid backdrop, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019. 8. The learned Single Judge, has called upon the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred as “Commission”), wherein, the claim of the writ petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) has seriously been disputed on the ground of non-availability of requisite educational qualification. It was contended therein that the respondent is a candidate for consideration of his candidature in the subject History/Social Science and the requirement for consideration of the candidature is that a candidate must have History and Political Science together in Graduate Level but in one subject, 45 per cent marks must be there. 9. The ground has been taken that the respondent is only having graduation in History, hence, he has not been considered to be eligible having no educational qualification as per the advertisement. 10. 9. The ground has been taken that the respondent is only having graduation in History, hence, he has not been considered to be eligible having no educational qualification as per the advertisement. 10. Learned Single Judge, however, has discarded the aforesaid plea on the ground that the writ petitioner since has studied Political Science as Foundational Course in Humanities and Social Science (FHS1) and hence, he has been considered to be fulfilling requisite qualification for appointment and accordingly, command has been issued upon the Commission to consider the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner. 11. The Commission, being aggrieved with the said direction, has preferred the instant appeal. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-JSSC 12. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the appellant- JSSC has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order that:- (i) The respondent-writ petitioner is not fulfilling the educational qualification, since, as per the advertisement, a candidate must have passed graduation in History and Political Science together and out of both the subjects, in one subject, minimum 45 per cent marks along with B.Ed Degree from recognized teacher training institution or equivalent. (ii) It has been submitted that History and Political Science must be a subject in the graduation level. The respondent-writ petitioner has not studied Political Science in the graduation level and merely on the ground that he has studied Political Science as part of Foundational Course in Humanities and Social Science (FHS1), hence, he is claiming eligibility as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement which has been considered to be not available but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact of availability of the condition in the advertisement, hence, the impugned order directing the Commission to consider the candidature of the respondent- writ petitioner, is absolutely improper and if the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner will be taken into consideration, the same will be said to be contrary to the condition stipulated in the advertisement. (iii) The Commission has also given an opportunity by issuing notice to the respondent-writ petitioner to satisfy regarding availability of the educational qualification of graduation having passed in History and Political Science but the said notice has not been responded and thereafter, the candidature of the present respondent-writ petitioner, has been rejected. (iii) The Commission has also given an opportunity by issuing notice to the respondent-writ petitioner to satisfy regarding availability of the educational qualification of graduation having passed in History and Political Science but the said notice has not been responded and thereafter, the candidature of the present respondent-writ petitioner, has been rejected. It is only thereafter, through e-mail, a communication has been made apprising the Commission of passing the Political Science as Foundational Course in Humanities and Social Science (FHS1). (iv) The ground, therefore, has been taken that the candidature since has been rejected which ought to have been challenged by the respondent-writ petitioner but having not done so. Further, the Political Science as a subject in the graduation level is required in terms of the condition stipulated in the advertisement and merely because, the writ petitioner has studied Political Science as Foundational Course in Humanities and Social Science (FHS1), the same cannot make the writ petitioner, respondent eligible in terms of the condition of advertisement. (v) Learned counsel has further submitted that there cannot be any consideration of a candidate contrary to the condition stipulated in the advertisement, otherwise, the same will amount to relaxation, which is not admissible. (vi) Learned counsel has further submitted that identical issue, however, with respect to the subject History had been taken into consideration by this Court, wherein, the claim of the candidate has been rejected which attained its finality by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is therefore a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. Arguments of the learned counsel for the Pvt. Respondent 14. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has defended the impugned order by taking the following grounds: - (i) Learned counsel while defending the impugned order has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the Commission to take the ground that he is having no subject in graduation level said to be there in the subject Political Science, since, as per the availability of course in IGNOU, a distance education course, Political Science is not being thought by way of independent subject, rather, as a foundational subject under FHS1. (ii) The writ petitioner-respondent is having with the said course in the graduation level and hence, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner respondent cannot be said to be proper. (ii) The writ petitioner-respondent is having with the said course in the graduation level and hence, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner respondent cannot be said to be proper. The aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and based upon the said consideration, if the direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. (iii) The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge has considered that no post was advertised for appointment of Assistant Teacher in History and Political Science, rather, the post was advertised for the post of graduate trained teacher in the subject History and Civics and as such, the requirement to have the Political Science in the graduation level, has rightly not been considered to be acceptable. (iv) Learned Single Judge, has also taken into consideration the issue of equivalence and has come to the conclusion that the degree as Political Science as a part of FHS1 and hence, if on consideration of the aforesaid, if the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent-writ petitioner is fulfilling the requisite qualification for appointment, cannot be faulted with. 15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned order therefore needs no interference. Analysis 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 17. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment, needs to refer herein the certain factual aspect which is relevant for better appreciation of the issue involved in the present case. (i) It is the case that in the year 2016, an advertisement was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers vide Advertisement No.21/2016. The writ petitioner having requisite qualification for the same, applied for the post of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement in History & Political Science subject, the writ petitioner had successfully completed his course in the year 2007 and has been awarded Degree of Bachelor of Arts – Major in History in 2nd Class with 53.58% marks. Further, the writ petitioner pursued his Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur National University and has been declared successful in the examination held in the year 2012 in 1st Class. Further, the writ petitioner pursued his Bachelor of Education from Jodhpur National University and has been declared successful in the examination held in the year 2012 in 1st Class. (ii) Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the writ petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and appointed in the written examination and after being declared successful, was called for verification of his certificates from 18.09.2018 to 01.10.2018, which the respondent appeared along with his certificates for verification. After verification, a final list was prepared by the Commission, but surprisingly name of the writ petitioner was not included and the reason assigned for non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner was that he did not fulfill the requisite qualification as stated in Column 4(k) of the advertisement. 18. The respondent is a candidate for consideration of his candidature for Teacher in History and Social Science in terms of advertisement no.21/2016. The requirement for the aforesaid subject, as has been enumerated in the advertisement is that such candidates who are willing to apply for the post of History and Social Science Teacher, is required to have subject, i.e., History and Political Science together at the graduation level, out of two subjects, in one subject, 45 per cent minimum marks is to be obtained, for ready reference, the relevant part of the advertisement is being referred as under:- 19. The respondent, writ petitioner has made an application in terms of aforesaid advertisement which has been brought on record in the paper book by way of Annexure-3, wherefrom, it is evident that the respondent has shown to be graduate in History from the Indira Gandhi National Open University, (IGNOU) Delhi. 20. It is, thus, evident that there is no reference of Political Science said to be at graduate level being furnished in the said application. 21. The certificate has also been appended as Annexure-4, wherein, Bachelor of Arts certificate has been given in Major in History. The marks-sheet has also been appended, wherein, it has been referred that the respondent is having degree of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) with Major in History. 22. The appellant-JSSC, on scrutiny of his application form and after finding that he is having no Political Science subject in the graduation level, has called upon the respondent by making a communication on 28.11.2018 asking the respondent to reply in that regard. 23. 22. The appellant-JSSC, on scrutiny of his application form and after finding that he is having no Political Science subject in the graduation level, has called upon the respondent by making a communication on 28.11.2018 asking the respondent to reply in that regard. 23. The respondent has not responded to the same and as such, vide decision dated 05.12.2018, his candidature has been rejected due to non-availability of subject Political Science at the graduation level. 24. The respondent, thereafter, on 20.12.2018 through e-mail has apprised the Commission that he is having Political Science as a Foundational Course. 25. It needs to refer herein that the last date of submission of application form was 15.03.2017. The document pertaining to Political Science at the graduation level, for the first time has been sent by the respondent on 20.12.2018, meaning thereby, the application which has been submitted by the respondent- writ petitioner was incomplete due to non-reference of the subject Political Science at the graduation level. 26. The specific condition has been stipulated in the advertisement that the application is required to be submitted strictly in terms of the condition stipulated therein. 27. It is, thus, admitted fact herein that the respondent-writ petitioner was having no educational qualification as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement having no Political Science subject at the graduation level, in one of the subjects, 45 per cent minimum marks must be there. 28. The respondent has tried to make out a case that he was having Political Science in the Foundational Course at the graduation level and as such, his candidature ought to have been considered. 29. But, we are dealing with the issue of recruitment and it is the bounded duty of the applicant to furnish the application form as per the terms and conditions of advertisement. Herein, the terms and conditions as required, are to be shown by the applicant of fulfilling the condition as contained therein. 30. 29. But, we are dealing with the issue of recruitment and it is the bounded duty of the applicant to furnish the application form as per the terms and conditions of advertisement. Herein, the terms and conditions as required, are to be shown by the applicant of fulfilling the condition as contained therein. 30. Herein, as per the condition stipulated, a candidate is to furnish the detail of subject at graduation level, i.e., History and Political Science, but, it is evident from the application form, reference of only History subject has been given and there is no reference of Political Science, therefore, this Court is of the view that on that count only, the application to be rejected, since the application will be said to be not in terms of the advertisement. 31. So far as the consideration of the case of the respondent that he is having Political Science as a Foundational Course from IGNOU is concerned, the issue has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 11 th September, 2023 in the case of Rini Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (L.P.A. No.464 of 2022) wherein, the issue was that what would mean the subject History, whether, the part of History or the History as a whole. This Court has decided the issue that when the word “history” is there then the same means the History as a whole not part of it, either the Medieval or Ancient or the Modern History. 32. Such finding has been given on the backdrop of the fact that the advertisement had been issued to appoint teacher and it is expected for the teacher of the Graduate Trained level to have the expertise in the subject. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:- “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. 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. 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.” 33. The judgment has been carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court being Civil Appeal No.2217/2218 of 2022. The Hon’ble Apex Court has declined to interfere with the order passed by this Court by dismissing the said SLP. 34. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid facts along with the legal issues and after adverting to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, from which, it has been found by this Court that the learned Single Judge has interpreted the advertisement contrary to the condition and spirit as contained therein. 35. 34. This Court, after having discussed the aforesaid facts along with the legal issues and after adverting to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, from which, it has been found by this Court that the learned Single Judge has interpreted the advertisement contrary to the condition and spirit as contained therein. 35. The learned Single Judge has made observation that no post was advertised for appointment of Assistant Teacher in History and Political Science, rather, the post was advertised for appointment on the post of graduate trained teacher in the subject History and Civics. But while, coming to such observation, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the part of the educational qualification as contained in 3rd column of advertisement making requirement therein that a candidate if willing to participate in the selection of teacher in the History and Social Science subjects, such students must be graduate in History and Political Science together. 36. The condition since has been stipulated in the advertisement which is under the exclusive domain of the State and as such, it is not available for the writ court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interpret by reading down it. 37. Learned Single Judge has also considered the issue on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thahira P. Vrs. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors. , reported in (2018) 6 SCC 446 . 38. We have considered the aforesaid judgment and found therefrom that the factual aspect of the said judgment is on the issue of equivalence and on consideration of the aforesaid issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court has concluded that the degree in Malayalam and Sociology was equivalent to a degree in Sociology awarded by the University. 39. So far as the consideration of the aforesaid judgment is concerned, we are of the considered view that the said judgment cannot be said to be applicable universally, rather, it is to be tested on the basis of surrounding facts. 40. Herein, it is not the case of the respondent-writ petitioner that the subject Political Science as Foundation Course is equivalent to the main subject of Political Science at the graduation level. 40. Herein, it is not the case of the respondent-writ petitioner that the subject Political Science as Foundation Course is equivalent to the main subject of Political Science at the graduation level. Further, if that be so, then, it was the bounden duty of the respondent to bring it to the notice of the Commission by disclosing the same in the application. 41. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the applicability of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thahira P. (supra) cannot be said to be proper. 42. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the aforesaid factual as well as legal issue, has quashed and set aside the order dated 19.01.2019 with a consequential direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, which according to our considered view, suffers from an error. 43. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.11.2019 as has been passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.536 of 2019, is hereby quashed and set aside. 44. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 45. Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands allowed. Rajesh Kumar, J.-I agree