Qualifications prescribed in the statutory rules take precedence over the advertisement, and any change in qualifications during the selection process does not affect the process if it has already commenced.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the State Government established U.P. Live-Stock Development Board on 7.1.1999 which is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. A decision was taken to initiate selection proceeding on the post of Chief Executive Officer and thereafter, an advertisement was issued on 2.11.2017 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates to appear in the selection.

3. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017, the petitioner applied for vide application dated 24.11.2017. Qualification is B.V.Sc, Animal Husbandry, MBA and 30 years’ experience. Due to some personal reason, no selection proceeding could take place and another advertisement was issued on 2.6.2018 prescribing qualifications to apply with further stipulation that the candidates who applied in pursuance to the earlier advertisement dated 2.11.2017, are not required to apply for the same. In the advertisement published on 2.6.2018 qualifications were prescribed.

4. Challenging the selection, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an advertisement was issued on 2.11.2017 prescribing certain qualifications for selection and appointment and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner applied for, then during the pendency of the selection proceeding another advertisement issued prescribing other qualifications is not permissible in law and any selection made in pursuance thereof vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that in the advertisement issued on 2.6.2018 it was provided that it is in continuation to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017.

5. He next submitted that once the game started, rules of the game cannot be changed. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand Meena and others v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484. Paragraph 8 of the Judgment reads as under:

"8. Having heard the parties, we have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of some of them and have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In our considered view, the issue noticed at the outset must be decided on the basis of settled law noticed by the learned Single Bench that recruitment process must be completed as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per Rules existing when the recruitment process began. In the present case, the Division Bench has gone to great lengths in examining the issue whether BPEd and DPEd qualifications are equivalent or superior to CPEd qualification but such exercise cannot help the cause of the respondents who had the option either to cancel the recruitment process if there existed good reasons for the same or to complete it as per terms of advertisement and as per Rules. They chose to continue with the recruitment process and hence they cannot be permitted to depart from the qualification laid down in the advertisement as well as in the Rules which were suitably amended only later in 2011. In such a situation, factual justifications cannot change the legal position that the respondents acted against law and against the terms of advertisement in treating such applicants successful for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III who held other qualifications but not the qualification of CPEd. Such candidates had not even submitted separate OMR application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III which was essential as per the terms of advertisement."

6. Further reliance has been placed on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55. Para 27 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow