Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The State Bank of India and its authorities, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 3249 of 2011, have invoked the intra-court appeal jurisdiction of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal.

3. The respondent no.1 in the present appeal moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank and its authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Clerk in the Bank against the vacancies published vide Advertisement No. CRPD/CR/2009-10/04. The petitioner claimed that he, despite having secured 131 marks, was not appointed, whereas the last candidate who had only 121 marks out of the total marks of 235 got employment.

4. In order to claim his appointment, the petitioner raised an issue that the respondent-Bank in the midst of the selection process introduced a minimum qualifying marks in interview, therefore the respondents changed the selection procedure itself which amounts to changing the rules of game as has been held in several judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The le