JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Standing Counsel, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Mizoram, who appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and also Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel who appears for the respondent No. 5. [2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Notification dated 22.02.2023 (Annexure – 8) and Order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure – 9) by which the respondent No. 5 has been selected and appointed to the post of Superintendent at NIT, Mizoram. The prayer made in the writ petition may be abstracted here-in-below:- “Your Lordship(s) may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice, call for the records, issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Superintendent Group-B should not be declared illegal and as to why the Notification No. NITMZ/R- 1-11/NT/2022/4072 dt.22.02.2023 should not be modified to that extent to as to why the Order No. NITMZ/R-1-11/NT/2022/4171 Dated 07.03.2023, should not be set aside and quashed and to why the Petitioner should not be appointed to the post of Superintendent Group-B, Non-Teaching Post at NIT Mizoram. After hearing the cause that may be shown by the parties to finally make the rule absolute and to direct the Respondent Nos 1-4 to immediately appoint the Petitioner to the post of Superintendent Group-B Non-Teaching Post at NIT Mizoram.” [3.] Brief facts of the case is that an employment notice for non-teaching posts including 1 (one) post of Superintendent (Unreserved) was floated by NIT, Mizoram on 08.07.2022 (Annexure – 5), wherein, the age limit prescribed was one not exceeding 30 (thirty) years. As regards the education qualification, it was prescribed that one has to possess first class bachelor’s degree or its equivalent from a recognized university or institute in any discipline or master’s degree in any discipline from a recognized university or institute with at least 50% marks or equivalent grade. Further, one is required to possess knowledge of computer applications, viz; Word Processing, Spread Sheet, etc. [4.] The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 along with other interested candidates applied for the lone post of Superintendent and the scheme of the selection of was through written test. Further, one is required to possess knowledge of computer applications, viz; Word Processing, Spread Sheet, etc. [4.] The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 along with other interested candidates applied for the lone post of Superintendent and the scheme of the selection of was through written test. After the submission of the application by interested candidates, the Notification was issued by NIT, Mizoram on 21.12.2022, notifying the list of eligible candidates to appear for competitive written examination through direct recruitment scheduled on 21.01.2023 (10 AM onwards). The name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 20 of the said list, but the respondent No. 5 was not included in the said list. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 submitted his representation to the Registrar, NIT, Mizoram (respondent No. 4) on 23.12.2022, stating that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) on 06.09.2022 on the subject “Grant Of Relaxation Of Upper Age Limit To Various Categories For Direct Recruitment To Central Civil Services/Posts” on the relaxation of age for 5 (five) years was permissible for departmental candidates. He, therefore requested the authority to re-consider his application in the light of the guidelines while enclosing a copy of his Scheduled Tribe Certificate for age relaxation. Upon considering his representation, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the competitive written examination and consequently, he came to be recommended for appointment to the post of Superintendent vide Notification dated 22.02.2023 and the petitioner was kept in the Panel List/Waiting List No. 1. The respondent No. 5, thereafter, came to be appointed to the post in question vide impugned Order dated 07.03.2023. [5.] Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has three fold arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, the respondent No. 5 is overaged and secondly, he has wrongly been given relaxation on being a departmental candidate and for being a scheduled tribe candidate on cumulative basis. The learned counsel submits that thirdly, respondent No. 5 does not possess a recognized degree in order to be considered for appointment as Superintendent in NIT, Mizoram. [6.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recruitment to the post of Superintendent and other non-teaching posts in NIT, Mizoram is governed by the NITs Non-Teaching Recruitment Rules, 2019 (Rules of 2019). [6.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recruitment to the post of Superintendent and other non-teaching posts in NIT, Mizoram is governed by the NITs Non-Teaching Recruitment Rules, 2019 (Rules of 2019). He submits that as per Rule – 5, candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Ex-Serviceman and other special categories of persons can be given reservation, relaxation of age limit and other concessions required in accordance with the Orders issued by the Central Government from time to time on the subject. He submits that for the post of Superintendent, the age limit prescribed for direct recruitment is 30 (thirty) years and which is relaxable for the departmental candidates up to 5 (five) years in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government. He submits that the date of birth of respondent No. 5 is 13.12.1986 and his age as on the date of advertisement would be 35 years 6 months and 25 days and on the last date of submission of the application, respondent No. 5 will again be almost 2 (two) months older. He, therefore, submits that even if age relaxation of 5 (five) years is to be given to respondent No. 5 by virtue of being a departmental candidate, he will still be overaged. [7.] The learned counsel further submits that the post advertised is an unreserved post and therefore, the respondent No. 5 cannot avail the benefit of age relaxation for being a Scheduled Tribe. He submits that respondent No. 5 cannot avail the benefit of age relaxation, both as a departmental candidate and as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. He submits that the law in this regard has been settled which is to the effect that one cannot have the benefit of cumulative age relaxation on account of being in government service and at the same time for belonging to a reserved category. He therefore submits that respondent No. 5 has been given the benefit of age relaxation on account of being a departmental candidate and in addition to that on account of being a Scheduled Tribe. The same not being permissible, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Orders should be set aside, and the petitioner be considered for the post, in view of being at Serial No. 1 of the panel list. The same not being permissible, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Orders should be set aside, and the petitioner be considered for the post, in view of being at Serial No. 1 of the panel list. [8.] In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following authorities:- (i). Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar , 1962 SCC OnLine SC 130, (ii). State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Kailash Chand Mahajan and Ors. , 1992 (SUPP) 2 SCC 351, (iii). Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. , (1997) 6 SCC 614 (iv). The Order dated 02.02.1999 of the Madras High Court in S.A. 119 of 1986 ( RM.AL. Visalakshi Achi (died) and 2 Ors. Vs. RM. Seenivasan and 3 Ors. ), (1999) (III) CTC 57 (v). The Judgment dated 29.10.2015 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6774 of 2015 ( Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ), (vi). Deepa E.V. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 680, (vii). United Air Travel Services Vs. Union of India , (2018) 8 SCC 141 (viii). Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2018) 11 SCC 352 (ix). Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission , (2019) 7 SCC 383 (x). Order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP-29690 – 2017 (O&M) ( Tarandeep Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. ), (xi). Judgment dated 13.12.2018 of the Bombay High Court (Full Bench) in WP(C) Nos. 5858 and 4530 of 2015 ( Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sunil Santosh Pawar and Anr. ). [9.] Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 submits that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the deficit in educational qualification is not the pleaded case of the petitioner and therefore, in absence of any pleading in this regard, the same cannot be raised at the time of hearing of the case. He also submits that even if the same is to be considered, the petitioner should have impleaded the institutions from where the respondent No. 5 had secured graduation, as a party respondents and including the University Grants Commission (UGC). He also submits that even if the same is to be considered, the petitioner should have impleaded the institutions from where the respondent No. 5 had secured graduation, as a party respondents and including the University Grants Commission (UGC). Therefore, the writ petition is also bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. [10.] The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the name of the respondent No. 5 did not figure in the list of eligible candidates for competitive written examination for the post of Superintendent published in the Notification dated 21.12.2022 and therefore, the respondent No. 5 submitted a representation to the respondent authorities concerned praying for age relaxation as permissible under the relevant rules and for allowing him to participate in the competitive written examination. The authorities, upon considering his representation, published a second list of eligible candidates for competitive written examination on 04.01.2023, wherein, the name of the respondent No. 5 appears at Serial No. 147. In terms of the said list, the respondent No. 5 participated in the selection process and was found to have secured the highest marks. The petitioner, however, has failed to challenge the said Notification dated 04.01.2023 and therefore, even on this ground, the writ petition will not be maintainable. [11.] Referring to the Rule – 5 of the Rules of 2019, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the same provides that nothing in the rules shall effect reservation, relaxation of age limit and other concession required to be provided for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Ex-serviceman and Other Special Categories of persons in accordance with the Orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard. He submits that this provision is only a non-obstante-clause having an overriding effect to all the provisions on the subject. It is therefore clear that the age limit of 30 (thirty) years for direct recruitment for the post of Superintendent is only relaxable by 5 (five) years as provided under the Rules itself and also as per the Orders issued by the Central Government. He submits that even the Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 has provided that age relaxation in different categories shall be as per Government of India norms in Paragraph No. 25 of the Advertisement under the heading “General Instructions and Information”. He submits that even the Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 has provided that age relaxation in different categories shall be as per Government of India norms in Paragraph No. 25 of the Advertisement under the heading “General Instructions and Information”. [12.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that insofar as the interpretation of the language of the rules and instructions are concerned, the rule of literal construction is the safest rule and going by the same, there cannot be two interpretations of the relevant provisions. He submits that the respondent No. 5 is, therefore, clearly eligible to avail for the age relaxation as provided by the rules for departmental candidates and for being a Scheduled Tribe candidate. He submits that the concession of age relaxation is only for the purpose of being included in a zone of consideration and it does not affect the merit of the selection. He submits that each candidate is assessed on basis of their performance in the competitive written examination without being given any additional marks for either being a departmental candidate or a reserved category candidate. He submits that the powers expressly given by the rules and the instructions would also include implied powers as well. The learned Senior Counsel reiterates the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the second list of eligible candidates to participate in the competitive written examination dated 04.01.2023 and that the petitioner along with others participated in the written examination which was held on 21.01.2023, without any objection. The results were declared on 24.01.2023, wherein, the respondent No. 5 was placed in the first position. Thereafter, he was given an offer of appointment on 22.02.2023 and appointed to the post on 27.02.2023. The respondent No. 5, after submitting his resignation from his earlier post as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) joined the post of Superintendent, in terms of the appointment letter. [13.] He submits that the petitioner filed his writ petition only on 24.07.2023, which can only be considered as an afterthought. At any rate, the petitioner having participated in the competitive written examination/selection process cannot now turn around to challenge the selection of the respondent No. 5 on the ground of having not being selected. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is only liable to be dismissed. In support of the submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following authorities:- (i). Union of India and Anr. Vs. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is only liable to be dismissed. In support of the submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following authorities:- (i). Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.M. Kokil and Ors. , 1984 (Supp) SCC 196 (ii). Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. Chief Minister and Ors. (2021) 8 SCC 1 (iii). Richa Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. , (2016) 4 SCC 179 (iv). State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and Anr. (1997) 9 SCC 662 (v). State of Kerala and Anr. Vs. N. M. Thomas and Ors. , (1976) 2 SCC 310, (vi). Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , (2010) 3 SCC 119 (vii). Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , (2008) 2 SCC 409 [14.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Standing Counsel, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Mizoram, submits that he adopts the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5. Referring to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondent No. 5 initially was excluded from the list of eligible candidates to sit for the competitive written examination but the respondent No. 5 submitted a representation on 23.12.2022 by referring to the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), Office Memorandums dated 24.10.1985 and 15.10.1987, wherein, age concession of 5 (five) years are allowed to departmental candidates in case of the posts which are exempted from the purview of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Besides this, reference was made to the DOPT Notification dated 07.03.1974, whereby, the age concession of 5 (five) years was available for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of appointment under the Government of India in respect of all posts filled up by direct recruitment. On the strength of the Office Memorandums, the representation of the respondent No. 5 was considered and the respondent NIT, Mizoram found the same to be acceptable as well as reasonable and accordingly, the respondent No. 5 was included in the second list dated 04.01.2023, which was issued in supersession of the earlier list. On the strength of the Office Memorandums, the representation of the respondent No. 5 was considered and the respondent NIT, Mizoram found the same to be acceptable as well as reasonable and accordingly, the respondent No. 5 was included in the second list dated 04.01.2023, which was issued in supersession of the earlier list. He submits that the petitioner withheld the issuance of the second list dated 04.01.2023 for reasons best known to him and that in the absence of a challenge to the same, the writ petition is not maintainable. He also submits that the selection was done purely on the basis of the performance of the candidates in the competitive written examination and under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the selection and in the appointment of the respondent No. 5. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition should be dismissed. [15.] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. From the projection made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner could have been allowed to participate in the competitive written examination for the post of Superintendent to be filled up by direct recruitment and recommended and appointed to the said post. The rules governing the recruitment for the post of Superintendent provides that the age limit for direct recruitment is 30 (thirty) years and the same is relaxable for the departmental candidates up to 5 (five) years in accordance of the instructions or Orders issued by the Central Government. This apart, Clause – 5, provides that nothing in the Rules of 2019 was affected reservations, relaxation of the age limit and other concession required to be provided for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Ex-serviceman and Other Special Categories of persons in accordance with the Orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard. It also provides that the rule shall not affect the recruitments already made but any appointment or promotion proposed to be made or made subsequent to the Notification of the Rules of 2019 will be governed by the said rules. It also provides that the rule shall not affect the recruitments already made but any appointment or promotion proposed to be made or made subsequent to the Notification of the Rules of 2019 will be governed by the said rules. [16.] The NIT, Mizoram, on 08.07.2022, floated an advertisement for the post of Superintendent Group – B amongst other posts and the number of posts advertised was 1 (one) post (unreserved). The age limit prescribed was that one should not exceed 30 (thirty) years of age. Apparently, because of the age prescription, the application of the respondent No. 5 was not accepted initially. However, when he submitted a representation seeking age relaxation as per the applicable guidelines issued by the DOPT and in view of being a Scheduled Tribe candidate, he was included in the list that was published on 04.01.2023. It is also not disputed that apart from the petitioner one more candidate who was found to be overaged was also included in the said list at Serial No. 148, while the respondent No. 5 was at Serial No. 147. Apart from 5 (five) years of relaxation clause given in the annexure to the Rules of 2019, the Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 at Paragraph No. 25 of the “General Instructions and Information” provides that age relaxation for different candidates shall be as per the Government of India instructions. It can be, therefore, seen that in terms of the Rules of 2019, the respondent, NIT, Mizoram had applied the DOPT Office Memorandums dated 24.10.1985 and 15.10.1987. The respondent, NIT, Mizoram has also placed reliance upon the Notification dated 07.03.1974 issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel & Administration Reforms. The same provides amongst others that for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, there shall be age concession of 5 (five) years for all the posts filled up by direct recruitment. [17.] As earlier noticed, the General Instructions and Information at Paragraph No. 25, provides age relaxation in different categories shall be as per the Government of India norms. Therefore, apart from age relaxation in respect of the departmental candidates, age relaxation for reserved categories has been provided. The question now would be whether such age relaxation can be availed on cumulative basis. Therefore, apart from age relaxation in respect of the departmental candidates, age relaxation for reserved categories has been provided. The question now would be whether such age relaxation can be availed on cumulative basis. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, wherein, there was a conflicting opinion and decision rendered by two co- ordinate Bench. Therefore, on a reference being made, the full Bench was constituted to examine the matter and to take a decision. It may be stated herein that reference was made because the Court had held that the benefit of age relaxation cannot be availed of for being a physically challenged applicant in addition to being a reserved category applicant on cumulative basis. In other words, age relaxation has to be applied on a non-cumulative basis. [18.] Per contra, a separate Bench of the same strength held that the benefit of age relaxation can be availed of on cumulative basis. The full Bench of the High Court, upon considering the reference that was made to it, answered the reference by holding that the benefit of age relaxation will have to be availed of as per the choice of the beneficiary and not on cumulative basis. However, in coming to such a conclusion, the full Bench had made it abundantly clear that the benefit of age relaxation will have to be on non-cumulative basis in absence of any indication in the Rules/Executive Instructions applicable to the case. [19.] Coming back to the present case, it may be seen that the Rules of 2019 provides that the relaxation upto 5 (five) years can be given to departmental candidates in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of India. Apart from this, Paragraph – 25 of the “General Instructions and Information” appended to the Advertisement dated 08.07.2022 provides that age relaxation in different categories shall be as per Government of India norms. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the Notification dated 07.03.1974 issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, which provides that age concession can be availed of to the extent of 5 (five) years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all posts filled up by direct recruitment. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the Notification dated 07.03.1974 issued by the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, which provides that age concession can be availed of to the extent of 5 (five) years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in all posts filled up by direct recruitment. [20.] Another aspect of the matter raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the post of Superintendant advertised is an unreserved post, the respondent No.5 having availed the benefit of age relaxation on account of being a Scheduled Tribe candidate cannot be considered against an unreserved post. He submits that in view of the age relaxation benefit, the respondent No.5 has to be considered against a reserved post only. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner placed his reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G & Pensioners, Department of Personnel & Training, wherein, it is stated that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates such as an age limit etc., larger than what is provided for general category candidates, the reserved candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies. However, in the present case, the fact remains that the post of Superintendant advertised is only one post and an unreserved post. There is no bar on the part of any categories of persons to apply for the post as long as they possess the requisite criteria. It is true that in case of more than one post being advertised with reservations for various categories of candidates insofar as reservation is concerned, migration to the other category such as the general category after availing the benefit of concession as regards fee, age relaxation etc would not be permissible but when there is only one post to be filed up, the restriction will not apply. [21.] It may also be seen here that the benefit of age relaxation availed by the respondent No.5 is for the purpose of being in the zone of consideration. Once admitted to the zone of consideration, the selection and appointment would be determined on the basis of performance in the competitive written examination. Therefore, reliance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. Once admitted to the zone of consideration, the selection and appointment would be determined on the basis of performance in the competitive written examination. Therefore, reliance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Gaurav Pradhan and Ors. (Supra) , Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana (Supra) and Deepa E.V. (Supra) is found to be misplaced. [22.] The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondent No.5 could not have been considered for the post of Superintendant since he did not possess the educational qualification as stipulated by the Rules of 2019. The learned counsel has questioned the acceptability of Bachelor of Science Degree in Aircraft Maintenance Engineer said to have been secured by the respondent No.5 from Singhania University as the University has earned recognition of UGC only vide Public Notice dated 01.05.2017. However, the fact remains that the petitioner apart from incorporating the testimonials of the respondent No.5 in the two additional affidavits filed on 12.10.2023 and 26.06.2024 has not challenged the deficit of respondent No.5 in educational qualification in the main writ petition with appropriate pleadings. There is also no such prayer to this effect which can be seen from the prayer made in the writ petition which has already been abstracted in paragraph No. ‘2’ of this judgment and order. Therefore in absence of a challenge made in this regard in accordance with the rules of pleadings, the same cannot be considered by this Court. Such being the case, the question of going into the issue of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties will also not arise. Accordingly in the case of Kailash Chand Mahajan and Ors. (Supra) , Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia (Supra) , RM.AL. Visalakshi Achi (died) and 2 Ors. (Supra) and Poonam (Supra) are found to be not relevant and hence they are not being discussed. [23.] It may further be noticed herein that the respondent No.5 came to be included in the list of eligible candidates for participation in the competitive written examination issued vide Notification dated 04.01.2023. The same is the very basis of selection and appointment of the respondent No.5. The petitioner however has not impugned the Notification dated 04.01.2023 in this writ petition, despite the same having been incorporated by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 16.08.2024. The same is the very basis of selection and appointment of the respondent No.5. The petitioner however has not impugned the Notification dated 04.01.2023 in this writ petition, despite the same having been incorporated by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 16.08.2024. The petitioner otherwise has questioned the inclusion of respondent No.5 in the zone of consideration for participation in the competitive written examination but as already stated, he has failed to challenge the Notification dated 04.01.2023 and instead has only challenged the outcome of the competitive written examination and the appointment order of the respondent No.5. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, challenge made only to the outcome of the selection process and the appointment given will render the writ petition to be not maintainable. [24.] Coming back to the Rules of 2019, it may be seen that Rule 5 provides as follows: “5. Saving: Nothing in these rules shall effect reservations, relaxations of the age limit and other concessions required to be provided for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Ex-servicemen and other special categories of persons in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government from time to time in this regard. These rules shall also not affect the recruitments already made; but any appointment or promotion proposed to be made or made subsequent to the notification of these Recruitment Rules will be governed by these Recruitment Rules.” [25.] From above abstract it can be seen that Rule 5 is nothing less than and non-obstante clause. The Apex Court in G.M Kokil and Ors. (Supra) in the given facts of that case held that a non-obstante clause is a legislative advice which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions. Rule 5 above clearly provides that reservations, relaxation of age limit and other concession as required to be provided to candidates belonging to Schedule Tribe amongst others could not be affected by any provisions of the Rules of 2019. Rule 5 above clearly provides that reservations, relaxation of age limit and other concession as required to be provided to candidates belonging to Schedule Tribe amongst others could not be affected by any provisions of the Rules of 2019. Under the circumstance and also having regard to the annexure to the Rules of 2019 for the post of Superintendant NIT, Mizoram, it cannot be said that undue consideration has been made to include the respondent No.5 in the zone of consideration. The respondent No.5 otherwise had secured the highest marks in the competitive written examination and has earned the place on merit. [26.] Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, the petitioner cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance on the selection and appointment of the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. [27.] In view of the above findings and conclusion, reference to the remaining authorities cited by the parties is found to be unnecessary. Parties are directed to bear their own cost.