IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1127 of 2011 Jagat Narayan Nayak son of late Babu Sitaram Nayak, 8 GM Road, Darbhanga, P.S.-Town, District- Darbhanga at present working as Tutor, Microbiology, Darbhanga Medical College, Darbhanga……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Additional Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. Principal, Darbhanga Medical College, Laheriasarai, Darbhagan. ……………….. Respondents ----------- 2. 1.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the part of the panel with respect to him, as contained in Annexure-4, by which the petitioner has been declared ineligible on the ground that he is above 57 years of age. The advertisement itself for the preparation of panel for the purpose of appointment on the tenure post of Senior Resident/ Tutor was published in the year 2009, in which the last date for receiving the applications was fixed as 31.12.2009 and in the advertisement itself by condition No.6, it was provided 2 that the maximum age of the applicant on 31.2.2009 (sic) should not be more than 57 years. The admitted position is that the petitioner did not challenge the said advertisement under condition No.6 of which he was not eligible to file the application. His application has now been rejected on the ground that he was more than 57 years of age on the relevant date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from condition No.6, there is condition no.7 also which provides that the application of only those candidates shall be considered whose date of superannuation is after 31.12.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner’s date of superannuation at the time of advertisement was 31.1.2014 and at present it would be 31.1.2017 and thus he qualifies under condition no.7. This Court is of the view that if a person participates in a selection process without challenging the advertisement under which he participated then on the rejection of his claim for being included in the panel, he cannot turn around and challenge the condition laid down in the advertisement. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that both conditions Nos. 6 and 7 ought to be read together and if the petitioner’s date of superannuation is after 31.12.2013, then on 3 that ground his case ought not to have been rejected merely because he is not eligible under condition No.6, is not acceptable. Both the conditions are separately mentioned and cannot be held to be inter-connected . However, the said issue could have been considered by this Court in a duly constituted writ petition challenging the advertisement itself but subsequently when the petitioner has failed to qualify in terms of the said advertisement, it cannot be said that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is on a non est ground, which is not to be found in the advertisement itself. The writ application is thus devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )