JUDGMENT : ARIJIT BANERJEE, J. 1. The writ petitioner challenges an order dated January 5, 2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Circuit Bench at Port Blair), dismissing her original application being OA No. 351/00873/2023. 2. An application for addition of party was filed in connection with the original application by the present respondent No. 7. The learned Tribunal allowed such application and impleaded the present respondent No. 7 as a party respondent in the original application. 3. The short facts of the case are that a Vacancy Notice dated May 10, 2023, was issued by the Directorate of Education, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair, for recruitment of candidates to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (in short PGT) in different subjects and mediums. The writ petitioner applied for the post of PGT (Biology). 4. In the advertisement dated May 10, 2023, the following educational and other qualifications were prescribed :- “8 Educational and other 1. Post Graduate Teacher: qualifications (Arts/Science/Mathematics/Commerce/ prescribed for direct Home Science) recruits Essential: 1. Master’s Degree from recognised University in the subject concerned. 2. Bachelor’s Degree in Education from recognized University. 3. Should have studied the concerned subject as a main subject both in Under Graduate and Post Graduate level. 4. Should have studied in the concerned medium at Secondary/Senior Secondary level. Desirable 1. Doctorate Degree in the subject concerned. 2. Three years teaching experience from a recognized Institution.” 5. Under the general conditions of the Vacancy Notice, Clause 20 reads as follows:- “20. All educational qualifications should be obtained in the chronological order. Qualifications mandatory for pursuing further higher studies should invariably in sequential years and weightage of marks shall be worked out accordingly. No weightage of marks is allowed for overlapping qualification/degree/diploma etc.” 6. After receiving applications from aspiring candidates, the respondents published a list of shortlisted candidates. The writ petitioner’s name did not figure in that list. The reason assigned was that she possesses over-lapping qualifications, which is not permitted under Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice. 7. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs :- “a. An order quashing/setting aside the clause 20 of the advertisement vide vacancy notice dated 10 th May, 2023 according which the respondent authorities published vacancies to fill up the posts of PGT for various subjects and in different stream. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs :- “a. An order quashing/setting aside the clause 20 of the advertisement vide vacancy notice dated 10 th May, 2023 according which the respondent authorities published vacancies to fill up the posts of PGT for various subjects and in different stream. The applicant who was eligible for appointment to the post of PGT (Biology) applied for the post of PGT (Biology). b. An order/orders/direction/directions directing the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the applicant by giving weightage to all the degrees and qualification of the applicant as per the marking system prescribed in the advertisement ignoring clause 20 of the same and if she comes within the zone of consideration, she may be given appointment to the post of PGT (Biology). c. An order/orders/direction/directions directing the respondent authorities to appoint the applicant to the post of PGT (Biology). d. An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to grant all consequential and monitory benefits to the applicant. e. An order directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law.” 8. Before the Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the writ petitioner that once degree course is offered by a university duly approved by the University Grant Commission (in short UGC), such degree cannot be ignored by any authority, even if a person has acquired such qualification by over-lapping i.e. by doing the course simultaneously with another course. Therefore, it was argued, Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice is bad in law. 9. On behalf of the respondent authorities, it was argued relying on the decision in the case of Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2252 of 2020 that setting the eligibility criteria is within the domain of the employer and no candidate can complain of the same. The applicant submitted her application with full knowledge of Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice. Having been unsuccessful, she cannot now challenge the said condition. 10. On behalf of the added respondent/private respondent it was urged that once a person participates in a process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, such person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. Having been unsuccessful, she cannot now challenge the said condition. 10. On behalf of the added respondent/private respondent it was urged that once a person participates in a process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, such person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. In this connection, learned advocate for the private respondent relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Saroj Kumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2009. 11. The learned Tribunal after noting the arguments of the parties dismissed the original application with the following observations:- “8. Since, the applicant was aware about the conditions and participated in the selection process, it cannot be said that the respondents while preparing the list of eligible candidates have travelled beyond the conditions stipulated in the vacancy notice. After remaining unsuccessful, admittedly, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. 9. At the outset it to mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aunpal Singh v. State of UP (2020) 2 SCC 173 held that, “a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.” Further, in the case of Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2020) 2 SCC 25 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “party cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate. The Unselected candidates cannot press into service a part of the 1978 rules while accepting the 2015 rules by taking part in the selection process, thus one cannot blow hot and cold. Such a selective adoption is not permissible under the law.” 10. In the present case, it is noticed that undisputedly the applicant after finding that she has not been selected due to overlapping of her education qualification has raised the grievance in respect to clause 20 prescribed in the vacancy notice dated 10.05.2023.” 12. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us assailing the order of the learned Tribunal. 13. Ms. Nag, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner primarily argued that Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice or any clause similar thereto is not there in the Recruitment Rules. The said clause being contrary to or de hors the Recruitment Rules is a nullity. Any selection process must strictly adhere to the applicable Recruitment Rules. No condition for recruitment and no eligibility criterion can be stipulated which runs contrary to the Recruitment Rules. The said clause being contrary to or de hors the Recruitment Rules is a nullity. Any selection process must strictly adhere to the applicable Recruitment Rules. No condition for recruitment and no eligibility criterion can be stipulated which runs contrary to the Recruitment Rules. Any such condition or criterion would be illegal. Mere participation by a candidate in the selection process would not debar him/her from challenging such illegal condition/criterion and the selection process. In this connection, learned advocate relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (i) Ranajit Kumar Meher vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2017 (4) SCC 568 , paragraph 2. (ii) State of Punjab and others vs. Anita and others, reported in 2015 (2) SCC 170 , paragraph 12. (iii) Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and another, reported in 2014 (8) SCC 644 , paragraph 28. (iv) Abhimeet Sinha and others vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna and others, reported in 2024 (5) Scale 820, paragraph 19. 14. Learned advocate then submitted that the petitioner did her B.Ed course and M.Sc course simultaneously. The B.Ed course she did by physically attending classes and the M.Sc she did through correspondence course. B.Ed is not an academic course but a professional course, as is clarified by the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. Therefore, there was no bar to the petitioner doing the M.Sc and B.Ed courses simultaneously in an over- lapping manner. 15. Appearing for the Administration, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel, submitted that there in nothing illegal about Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice. Prescribing the conditions for making application in connection with a recruitment process is within the exclusive domain of the employer. The conditions so stipulated may include a condition which is not spelt out in the Recruitment Rules and is not in any manner contrary to or inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules provide broad guidelines. The manner or procedure of recruitment is not spelt out in the Recruitment Rules. In the present case, by including Clause 20 in the Vacancy Notice, the authorities have done nothing wrong. 16. The Recruitment Rules provide broad guidelines. The manner or procedure of recruitment is not spelt out in the Recruitment Rules. In the present case, by including Clause 20 in the Vacancy Notice, the authorities have done nothing wrong. 16. Learned advocate further submitted that in any event, having participated in the selection process and having been unsuccessful, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the selection process or Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice of which she had fully knowledge at all material times. 17. Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned advocate, relied on the following decisions:- (i) Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Kochi and others vs. AArya K. Babau and another reported in (2019) 8 SCC 587 , paragraph 12. (ii) R. Leela Bhai vs. K. R. Valsala Devi and others reported in 2008 SCc OnLine SC 1962, paragraph 4. (iii) Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344, paragraph 65. 18. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the private respondent, adopted the submission made on behalf of the Administration. He also emphasised that the method of recruitment is exclusively the prerogative of the Executive. In the present case the authorities have not acted contrary to the Recruitment Rules in any manner. 19. Learned advocate further drew our attention to the guidelines notified by the UGC in April, 2022. The following portion of the guidelines was highlighted by the learned counsel: “ Guidelines 1. A student can pursue tow full time academic programmes in physical mode provided that in such cases, class timings for one programme do not overlap with the class timings of the other programme. 2. A student can pursue tow academic programmes, one in full time physical mode and another in Open and Distance Learning (ODL)/Online mode; or up to two ODL/Online programmes simultaneously. 3. Degree or diploma programmes under ODL/Online mode shall be pursued with only such HEIs which are recognized by UGC/Statutory Council/Govt. of India for running such programmes. 4. Degree or diploma programmes under these guidelines shall be governed by the Regulations notified by the UGC and also the respective statutory/professional councils, wherever applicable. 5. These guidelines shall come into effect from the date of their notification by the UGC. of India for running such programmes. 4. Degree or diploma programmes under these guidelines shall be governed by the Regulations notified by the UGC and also the respective statutory/professional councils, wherever applicable. 5. These guidelines shall come into effect from the date of their notification by the UGC. No retrospective benefit can be claimed by the students who have already done two academic programmes simultaneously prior to the notification of these guidelines.” Learned counsel argued that the said guidelines came into effect in April, 2022, much after the petitioner acquired her B.Ed and M.Sc degrees. Therefore the relaxation permitted by the said guidelines would not be applicable to the petitioner and would not enure to her benefit. 20. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. 21. As noted above, the short point urged by the writ petitioner is that in the Vacancy Notice, no eligibility criterion or other condition could be included which is not to be found in the applicable Recruitment Rules. Learned advocate relied on the decision in the case of Ranajit Kumar Meher, (supra). In that case, the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court contended that although he did not possess the qualification stipulated by the applicable Recruitment Rules, he possessed the qualification as per advertisement issued inviting applications for the concerned post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there cannot be any appointment in violation of the Rules. Qualification is to be seen with regard to the Rules and not the advertisement inviting applications. 22. In State of Punjab and others vs. Anita and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Government Instructions in question were in violation of the statutory process and selection and appointment postulated under the applicable Recruitment Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “ even if the above Government Instructions would have bestowed the validity on the selection process, through which the private respondents came to be appointed, the same could not have been acceded to, since Government Instructions in violation of the statutory rules, are a nullity in law.” 23. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that “the executive orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that “the executive orders cannot supplant the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such executive orders/instructions can only supplement the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.” 24. In Abhimeet Sinha and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the principle of estoppel cannot override the law. The Hon’ble Court reiterated the principle enunciated in its earlier decision in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. Union of India reported in (2019) 7 SCC 17, wherein it was held :- “However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction o f statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. The constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.” 25. In our considered opinion, the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, have no manner of application in the facts of the present case. This is because, we find no inconsistency or contradiction between the applicable Recruitment Rules which we have gone through and Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice. Recruitment Rules do not generally prescribe the detailed procedure for conducting a selection process. Generally a committee is constituted by the recruiting authority which works out the mechanism for holding the process of selection. 26. In the present case, there was such a committee. In fact, Clause 21 of the vacancy notice stated that “ in any matter not specified above shall be decided by the Recruitment Committee of Education Department/Higher Power Selection Committee of the Department whose decision shall be final and binding on all those issues.” 27. It is the prerogative of the recruitment committee or the recruiting authority to formulate the procedure to be followed for the purpose of recruitment. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer. 28. It is the prerogative of the recruitment committee or the recruiting authority to formulate the procedure to be followed for the purpose of recruitment. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer. 28. In the present case, the Directorate of Education, Port Blair, in its wisdom, decided that no weightage of marks would be allowed for over- lapping qualifications/degrees/diplomas etc. This in no manner has any conflict with any provision of the applicable Recruitment Rules. This clause in fact, may have very good rationale behind it. Generally, if a person undertakes two courses simultaneously, albeit one physically and one through correspondence course, it is very difficult to devote sufficient time to both the courses. This is likely to result in that person not achieving the desired level of learning which he may perhaps have achieved, had he/she concentrated on one course. For a teacher, it is of utmost important that he/she has not only earned a degree/diploma but has actually learnt the subject in question. It is also to be noted that the UGC guidelines, prior to April, 2022 did not permit a candidate to undertake two courses simultaneously. 29. In our considered view, the conditions in the Vacancy Notice including Clause 20 thereof, supplement the Recruitment Rules and do not supplant such Rules. Recruitment Rules have left certain areas untouched insofar as a selection process is concerned. The recruiting authority is free to use its discretion in such area so long as its decision and conditions stipulated in the notice inviting applications, are not in conflict with the substantive provisions of the Recruitment Rules and are not otherwise arbitrary or unreasonable. 30. We are also of the view that this is not a case where the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the validity of Clause 20 of the Vacancy Notice or assail the selection process. With full knowledge of Clause 20 in the Vacancy Notice, the petitioner put in her application before the competent authority. After being unsuccessful, she tried to contend that had Clause 20 not been there in the Vacancy Notice, she would have succeeded and would have been selected. No candidate in a selection process can be permitted to adopt such a course of action. After being unsuccessful, she tried to contend that had Clause 20 not been there in the Vacancy Notice, she would have succeeded and would have been selected. No candidate in a selection process can be permitted to adopt such a course of action. Of course, if there is patent illegality going to the root of validity of the selection process, a candidate who has participated in the selection process may still be entitled to question the same. But that is not the case here. I find no illegality in the selection process. 31. General speaking, a person who participates in a process of selection with full knowledge of the eligibility and other conditions, should be barred from challenging the process. Otherwise, it would amount to permitting that person to blow hot and cold. A candidate may take a chance by participating and then, if not successful, challenge the process. This would not only be speculative but also a dishonest course of action. 32. One may take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Leela Bhai (supra), where it was contended that the advertisement issued in connection with a selection process, prescribed higher qualification for candidates than were prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was perfectly in order to do so. The advertisement had been issued for all the candidates and therefore the contention of the appellant that he was being discriminated against, was meritless. 33. We may also note the very recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others (supra). In that case after referring to some of its earlier decisions on the scope of interference by the Court in a selection process for public employment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :- “thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.” 34. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this writ application. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this writ application. The writ application being WP.CT/9/2024 stands dismissed. 35. The observation in this judgment shall not in any manner affect the right of the petitioner to seek promotion in accordance with the applicable Rules. 36. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 37. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities. I agree. Sugato Majumdar, J.