JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel along with Mr. A. K. Azad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. 2. The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the appellants, assailing the Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6284/2021, thereby allowing the writ petition and directing for consideration of the case of the respondent no. 1 for appointment as Graduate Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, basing on her merit so obtained in the selection process so held. 3. The facts in brief requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: - The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide an advertisement dated11.09.2020 had invited applications from intending and eligible candidates for filling up of vacant posts of Graduate Teachers (Science & Arts) in provincialised High/Higher Secondary Schools in the State. In terms of the said advertisement, an intending candidate for the post of Graduate Teacher was to have a Graduate and/or Post-Graduate degree from a recognized University with least 50% marks in either Graduation or Post- Graduation (or its equivalent) along with B. Ed degree. The intending candidate also was required to have acquired Secondary TET qualification with 60% marks in each paper for Un-reserved category candidate and 50% marks for Reserved category candidate. The said advertisement also provided for relaxation of the upper age limit for various categories. The upper age limit was relaxed up to 40 years for Un-reserved category, 42 years for Ex-servicemen, 43 years for OBC/NOBC and 45 years for ST (P)/ST (H) candidates as on 01.01.2020, in terms of the provisions of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 02.09.2020.It was further stipulated that the relaxation would be applicable only to those candidates, who had attained the necessary educational or other qualification prior to crossing of the existing upper age limit of 40 years. The respondent no. 1 herein, contends that she being eligible in terms of the qualification set out in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, had submitted her application in pursuance thereof. The respondent no. 1 herein, contends that she being eligible in terms of the qualification set out in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, had submitted her application in pursuance thereof. It is further contended that the appellants herein had published the District Level Combined List for preparation of the merit list for the Cachar district and therein, the name of the respondent no. 1 was included for final selection. Thereafter, the appellants herein, had published district wise final selection list for the post so available in various districts in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, including for the vacancies so identified in the district of Cachar, category wise. In the final list so published for the district of Cachar, the name of the respondent no. 1 was not included. On enquiry, the respondent no. 1 was given to understand that she was not included in the final select list under SC category on the ground of overage, inasmuch as, she having obtained her TET qualification after attaining the age of 40 years, she would not be eligible to the relaxation of upper age limit as provided for in the advertisement in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020. Being aggrieved, on account of non inclusion of her name in the final select list as prepared for the vacancies identified for the district of Cachar for Scheduled Caste community candidates, the respondent no. 1 approached the writ Court by way of instituting WP(C) No. 6284/2021. The learned Single Judge, on considering the issues arising in the writ petition was pleased vide order dated 29.04.2022 to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the appellants herein, to consider the case of the respondent, herein, for appointment as Graduate Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, basing on the merit position obtained by her in the said selection process. The appellants being aggrieved had instituted the present intra-court appeal. 4. The challenge in the present intra-court appeal being to the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022; passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6284/2021, the operative portion thereof, being relevant, is extracted herein below: - “ 19. In the instant case, it would be seen that the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2020 had categorically raised the upper Age limit for entry into the State Government services for Grade-III and IV posts. In the instant case, it would be seen that the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2020 had categorically raised the upper Age limit for entry into the State Government services for Grade-III and IV posts. In that respect raised the upper limit for general categories from 38 to 40 years; for SC & ST from 43 years to 45 years; for OBC/MOBC from 40 years to 43 years; for Ex-servicemen from 40 years to 42 years and for persons with disabilities from 40 years to 50 years. This was the policy in vogue. However, in the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2020, the Government limited the applicability of the said policy by restricting the candidates who obtained the qualification within 40 years. There was an apparent mistake committed by the Government as already held hereinabove for which an ambiguity arose. Under such circumstances, the Government issued the Corrigendum to remove the mistake as well as the ambiguity. It is therefore in the opinion of this Court the Corrigendum is clarificatory in nature thereby clarifying the position and makes explicit what was implicit. 20. In view of the above observations as the petitioner had the qualification of TET prior to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for appointment in terms with the score obtained in the TET Examination. 21. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly held that the TET qualification acquired by the petitioner, prior to the recruitment process, has to be construed to be meeting the eligibility criteria, and therefore, while the rejection of the petitioner in the recruitment process is set aside, the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Graduate Teacher as per the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 shall be duly considered based upon her position in the merit list be offered expeditiously and in any case within an outer limit of 45 days from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is submitted to the respondent No. 5, i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati.” 5. Assailing the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022; passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6284/2021, Mr. Assailing the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022; passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6284/2021, Mr. R. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants has at the outset, submitted that the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 was issued by incorporating therein, the stipulations so made in the OM dated 02.09.2020; and the selection held in pursuance thereof, was also held by adhering to the stipulation as contained in the said OM. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that the final merit list for the various district of the State including the district of Cachar, was also prepared by adhering to the said stipulation as contained in the OM dated 02.09.2020. Mr. Majumdar has further submitted that on publication of the final select list for various districts including the district of Cachar, the appointment letters to the selected candidates were issued on 05.02.2021. 6. Mr. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department has submitted that after the appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, the Personnel Department had issued a corrigendum on 20.02.2021, deleting the prescription with regard to the date when an intending candidate is required to acquire the educational and other qualifications for being eligible to avail the relaxation of age, existing in the OM dated 02.09.2020. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that the corrigendum dated 20.02.2021 would have no application, insofar as, the selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 is concerned, inasmuch as, the selection process, including the issuance of appointment orders to the selected candidates were completed before the issuance of the said corrigendum. 7. Mr. Majumdar has further submitted that the respondent no. 1 in the writ petition having projected that person securing lower marks than her in the selection process of being issued with appointment orders, she ought to have impleaded the persons securing lower marks than her in the selection process in the writ petition, for presenting a challenge to the selection process. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that in absence of any selected candidates being arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition, no relief would be mandated to be extended to the respondent no. 1 in the matter. 8. Mr. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that in absence of any selected candidates being arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition, no relief would be mandated to be extended to the respondent no. 1 in the matter. 8. Mr. Majumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department by referring to the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2021, has submitted that the learned Single Judge while drawing his conclusions in the matter had ignored the specific contention raised by the appellants herein, in the affidavit filed in the matter, to the effect that all the selected candidates were issued with appointment orders on 05.02.2021. Mr. Majumdar further submits that on account of the fact that the learned Single Judge had not reckoned the said contention of the appellants, the direction for appointment of the petitioner as a Graduate Teacher in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, basing on the merit position obtained by her in the selection process came to be issued, which is clearly erroneous. Mr. Majumdar has submitted that on the date, the appellant had acquired her TET qualification, she had admittedly crossed the age of 40 years and accordingly, in terms of the stipulations made in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, the respondent no. 1 was rightly construed to be not an eligible candidate by the appellants for being included in the final select list. 9. Mr. Majumdar has further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the “Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules 2018”, an intending candidate for recruitment as a Graduate Teacher in a provincialized school, in addition to possessing the educational and professional qualification as set out in Schedule 3 of the said Rules is also required to acquire the TET qualification. The advertisement dated 11.09.2020, having mandated that such educational and other qualification to be so acquired by the intending candidate before crossing the age of 40 years, the respondent no. 1 herein, having admittedly crossed the age of 40 years as on the date she had acquired the TET qualification, she was not be eligible to avail the relaxation of upper age limit for SC category candidates to 45 years, as on 01.01.2020. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 herein cannot be deemed to be an eligible candidate for being considered for selection against the vacancies so advertised vide the advertisement dated 11.09.2020. 10. Mr. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 herein cannot be deemed to be an eligible candidate for being considered for selection against the vacancies so advertised vide the advertisement dated 11.09.2020. 10. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel has further submitted that the writ petition having been so filed after the conclusion of the selection process and as contended, the selection having been made strictly in accordance with the stipulations in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 and the Rules of 2018, the subsequent corrigendum dated 20.02.2021, issued by the Personnel Department on 20.02.2021 having no application with regard to the selection process in question, the respondent no. 1 herein, was not mandated to be considered as an eligible candidate in the selection process. Moreover, the writ petition having been so instituted without impleading any of the selected candidates, no relief being permissible to be so granted to the respondent no. 1 herein, the writ petition was called to be dismissed. 11. Per contra, Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the delay in acquiring of the TET qualification by the respondent no. 1 was on account of the fact that the holding of TET examination was delayed by the authorities and the respondent no. 1, who had applied in the year 2017, could appear in the said TET examination only in the year 2020 and accordingly, the TET qualification as acquired by the appellant is to be deemed to have been so acquired by her with retrospective effect w.e.f., the date of her application so made in the year 2017. Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, has further submitted that on the date of issuance of the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, the respondent no. 1 herein had already acquired her TET qualification and she being otherwise eligible as regards the prescription of educational and professional qualification in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, considering the corrigendum as issued by the authorities on 20.02.2021; and the same having a retrospective effect, there was no bar in considering the case of the appellant for appointment against the vacancies so advertised vide the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, considering the merit position obtained by her in the selection process. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that although the respondent no. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that although the respondent no. 1 as on 01.01.2020 had crossed the age limit of 40 years, she was eligible to the relaxation of upper age limit up to 45 years in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020, more particularly, in view of the subsequent corrigendum dated 20.02.2021, deleting the stipulation in the OM dated 02.09.2020, of such relaxation being applicable only to candidates who had attained the necessary educational and other qualification prior to crossing of their existing upper age limit of 40 years. 12. In support of his submission, Mr. Roy Choudhury has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited & Ors., Vs Ram Gopal , reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225 13. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that the learned Single Judge vide the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022, had considered all the aspects in the matter and had thereafter, drawn his conclusions therein and the respondent no. 1 being entitled to be extended with the relaxation of upper age limit to 45 years being a SC candidate, in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020, no error had occasioned in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the case of the respondent no. 1 for appointment as a Graduate Teacher, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 in terms of the merit position obtained by her in the selection process. Mr. Roy Choudhury has accordingly submitted that the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022, would not call for any interference by this Court. 14. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The facts as noticed herein above is not disputed. The advertisement dated 11.09.2020, issued for recruitment of Graduate Teacher while laying down the requisite qualifications mandated to be possessed by the intending candidate, had also laid down the following criteria: - "2. A candidate must not be less than 18 years of age and not more than 40 years for unreserved category, 42 years for Ex-Servicemen, 43 years for OBC/ MOBC and 45 years for SC/ST(P)/ST(H) and 50 years for Persons with Disability (PwD) as on 14 January, 2020 as per Govt. Office Memorandum vide No. ABP.6/2016/51 Dated 02/09/2020. A candidate must not be less than 18 years of age and not more than 40 years for unreserved category, 42 years for Ex-Servicemen, 43 years for OBC/ MOBC and 45 years for SC/ST(P)/ST(H) and 50 years for Persons with Disability (PwD) as on 14 January, 2020 as per Govt. Office Memorandum vide No. ABP.6/2016/51 Dated 02/09/2020. This relaxation shall be applicable only to those candidates who have attained the necessary educational or other qualifications prior to crossing of their existing upper age limit of 40 years. The eligible candidates shall apply online in the official website from Midnight of 15/09/2020 to Midnight of 30/09/2020. No offline application will be accepted in this regard." 16. A perusal of the said criteria would go to reveal that in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020, the relaxation of upper age limit in respect of various categories was permissible to be availed by an intending candidate, provided, such candidate had attained the necessary education and other qualifications prior to crossing of the existing upper age limit for the recruitment in question. Insofar as, candidates belonging to the SC candidate category is concerned, the upper age limit was relaxed up to 45 years. The respondent no. 1 submitted her application in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 after noticing the said criteria pertaining to relaxation of upper age limit. No objection was raised by the respondent no. 1 in the matter while submitting her application. 17. The respondent no. 1 herein, had applied for appearing in the TET examination in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the matter on 31.07.2017. The concerned authorities had not conducted the TET examination in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31.07.2017. Thereafter, further advertisement for the purpose was issued on13.11.2019. Ultimately, the TET examination for Graduate Teacher was held on 19.01.2020. The respondent no. 1 participated in the said TET examination and on qualifying therein, she was issued with the certificate on 23.07.2020. In the advertisement dated 11.01.2020, the cut-off date with regard to the age qualification was prescribed as 01.01.2020. Admittedly, as of 01.01.2020, the respondent no. 1 had crossed the existing upper age limit of 40 years mandated for Reserved category candidates. The date of birth of the petitioner was disclosed as 23.04.1975. The respondent no. In the advertisement dated 11.01.2020, the cut-off date with regard to the age qualification was prescribed as 01.01.2020. Admittedly, as of 01.01.2020, the respondent no. 1 had crossed the existing upper age limit of 40 years mandated for Reserved category candidates. The date of birth of the petitioner was disclosed as 23.04.1975. The respondent no. 1 having crossed the age of 40 years as on 01.01.2020, she would be eligible to participate in the selection process only in the event she fulfills the requirement for being extended with the relaxation of upper age limit in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020. The respondent no. 1 admittedly, having not fulfilled the requirement of the OM dated 02.09.2020 was clearly ineligible for participation in the recruitment process initiated vide the advertisement dated 11.09.2020. 18. It is to be noted that on the date of issuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2017, for scheduling the Secondary TET examination, the respondent no. 1 had crossed the age of 40 years. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as set out in the advertisement dated 11.09.2020 and she cannot be held to be a candidate eligible for recruitment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020. 19. The Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department had issued a corrigendum dated 20.02.2021, with the following stipulations: - "Inviting the reference of this Department's Office Memorandum ??. ??? 06/2016/51 dated 02-09-2020, it is clarified that the second sentence of paragraph No. 3 (three)" This relaxation shall be applicable only to those candidates who have attained the necessary educational or other qualifications prior to crossing of their existing upper age limit of 40 years" shall be deleted from the said Office Memorandum." 20. The learned Single Judge by holding that the corrigendum dated 20.02.2021, was clarificatory in nature and accordingly, would have retrospective effect w.e.f. the date of issuance of the OM dated 20.09.2020, had proceeded to hold the respondent no. 1 to be eligible for consideration for appointment in terms of the merit position obtained by her in the selection process. 21. The learned Single Judge by holding that the corrigendum dated 20.02.2021, was clarificatory in nature and accordingly, would have retrospective effect w.e.f. the date of issuance of the OM dated 20.09.2020, had proceeded to hold the respondent no. 1 to be eligible for consideration for appointment in terms of the merit position obtained by her in the selection process. 21. The said conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge, in our considered view would not be sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the said corrigendum, dated 20.02.2021, modifying the earlier OM dated 02.09.2020, admittedly, was issued after the recruitment process had come to an end with the issuance of the appointment letters to the selected candidates on 05.02.2021. Even if, it is held that the corrigendum dated 20.02.2021 was clarificatory in nature and accordingly, would have retrospective effect from the date the original OM i.e. the OM dated 02.09.2020 had come into effect, the corrigendum having been so issued after the selection process was taken to its logical conclusion and appointment effected in the case of selected candidates, the respondent no. 1 was not entitled to be extended the benefit of the corrigendum dated 20.02.2021. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1, in our considered view was not entitled to be granted any relief in the matter by the writ court 22. Having drawn the above conclusions, we also find from the materials brought on record that the respondent no. 1 had submitted her application in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020, without raising any objection to the eligibility criteria as set out therein, in terms of the OM dated 02.09.2020. Accordingly, it would not be now permissible for the respondent no. 1 to raise any grievance in this connection, after conclusion of the selection process. Further, the appellants having brought on record in the writ proceedings that appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates on 05.02.2021, the respondent no. 1 failed to implead selected candidates, atleast, those candidates who had scored lower marks than that scored by her in the selection process. For the lacuna as noticed, we are of the considered view that the writ petition instituted by the respondent no. 1, herein, did not mandate a consideration on merits. 23. At this stage, we take note of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no. For the lacuna as noticed, we are of the considered view that the writ petition instituted by the respondent no. 1, herein, did not mandate a consideration on merits. 23. At this stage, we take note of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 in the case of Ram Gopal (supra) 24. On a perusal of the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the ratio thereof would not advance the case of the respondent no. 1 herein. 25. In view of the facts and circumstances as arising in the present proceeding, we are of the considered view that the claim made by the respondent no. 1 in writ petition being WP(C) No. 6248/2021 would not have mandated acceptance and the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the appellants herein, to appoint the respondent no. 1 as a Graduate Teacher in terms of the merit position obtained by her in the selection held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11.09.2020. 26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6248/2021, would mandate an interference and accordingly, the same is set aside. 27. The writ petition being WP(C) No. 6248/2021 filed by the respondent no. 1 herein stands dismissed. The instant writ appeal accordingly, stands allowed.