Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 on the post of X-ray Technician by order dated 21st November, 2007 passed by the Principal, Maharani Luxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as “the College”). The other orders impugned in the writ petition are dated 23rd April, 2008 passed by the Principal of the College rejecting petitioner’s representation observing that he did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of X-ray Technician and the letter dated 12.11.2007 issued by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, U.P. Lucknow permitting the Principal of the College to appoint a person having experience in Radiotherapy on the post of X-ray Technician.

2. It is contended that by advertisement, (Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition) dated 27th August, 2007, the post of X-ray Technician in the scale of 4500-7000 was advertised. The requisite qualification mentioned in the advertisement, for the said post, is:

^^ek/;fed f’k{kk ifj"kn m0iz0 ds bUVjehfM;V foKku lfgr ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ,oa m0iz0 esfMdy QSdYVh ls ,Dljs VSDuhf’k;u dk fMIyksek /kkjd**

3. The petitioner claims to possess requisite qualification for the post of X-ray Technician as advertised, and says that respondent No. 5 does not possess the said qualification.

4. The Principal of the College, however, in a conspicuous and illegal manner sought permission from Director General, Medical Education and Training, U.P. by his letter dated 7.11.2007 to fill in the said post of X-ray Technician from a person possessing experience in “Radiotherapy”. Such permission was granted by Director General vide letter dated 12.11.2007. Subsequently, by order dated 21st November, 2007, respondent No. 5 was appointed on the post of “X-ray Technician”. When the petitioner moved representation, the same was not attended to, hence he filed writ petition No. 12747 of 2008 which was disposed of by judgment dated 5.3.2008 directing respondent No. 3 i.e. Principal of the College to decide petitioner’s representation, which has been rejected by order dated 23rd April, 2008 observing that the post of “X-ray Technician” is basically utilized for discharging duties of “Radio Therapy”, and, since the petitioner had no experience of “Radio Therapy” hence he could not be appointed.

5. It is thus evident that though the post of “X-ray Technician” was advertised on 27th August, 2007 but later on during the course of selection, the Principal on his letter dated 7.11.2007 was permitted to deviate from the terms of advertisement and fill in the post of X-ray Technician by a person having experience in Radiotherapy. This permission was granted by Director General. Besides the question as to whether respondent No. 5 possess requisite qualification for appointment on the post of X-ray Technician and whether the conditions as mentioned in the advertisement can unilaterally be changed the eligibility condition in its entirety by the authorities concerned one more question up for consideration in this case and whether the Director General has any such power to alter the qualification prescribed for a particular post and all these questions will ultimately answer the ultimate issue whether the selection impugned in this writ petition has been validly made.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that under the Rules, the qualification prescribed for X-ray Technician is same as advertised and it was not open to the respondent on their own to change the requisite qualification. He drew attention of this Court to paras 7 and 25 of the writ petition wherein he has said specifically that the respondent No. 5 did not possess the requisite qualification which reads:

“7. The in the aforesaid certificate neither the name of the State is mentioned nor any date of issuing a certificate is mentioned and the aforesaid certificate has no concern with the eligibility c