ORDER

Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is challenging the order dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure P/9) whereby his representation for issuing the appointment order in view of the direction passed in W.P. No.9089/2022 has been considered and rejected by the respondents mentioning therein that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification as per Madhya Pradesh Janjateey Evam Anusuchit Jati Shikshan Samvarg (Seva Evam Bharti) Niyam, 2018 (for short, Rules 2018) which has been subsequently amended by way of gazette notification dated 24th June, 2019. The rejection has been made mainly on the ground that petitioner is not graduate in the relevant subject i.e. Hindi.

2 . Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order rejecting the appointment of the petitioner is illegal for the reason that petitioner in response to an advertisement (Annexure P/1) submitted an application for appointment to the post of Madhyamik Shikshak and as per the then existing rules i.e. Rules, 2018, the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Madhyamik Shikshak was shown in Schedule III attached with Rules, 2018 whereas the petitioner is having graduation degree with B.Ed. qualification. He, therefore, submits that petitioner has the requisite qualification as per the qualification mentioned in Rules 2018, but his appointment was cancelled in pursuance to the changes made in the required qualification by way of amendment in gazette notification dated 24.06.2019 according to which a graduate degree with the respective subject was required. He further submits that it is a settled principle of law that rule of game cannot be changed once the game has already started. He submits that the selection process had already started with the provisions of Rules, 2018 and as such, subsequent amendment i.e. amended rules 2019 is not applicable to the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that rules cannot be made effective retrospectively unless it is specifically provided so.

3. Shri Girish Kekre, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the submission and submitted that petitioner has applied for the post of Madhyamik Shikshak in hindi subject and as per the subsequent qualification shown by way of amended rules 2019, he must possess the graduation degree with the respective subject. Although, he submitted that in the graduation degree, hindi was one of the subject of the petitioner and the rules which were changed after the commencement of the game cannot be applied on the petitioner.

4 . Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that the advertisement (Annexure P/1) specifically contained that selection was to be made as per the provision of Rules, 2018 and the qualification prescribed for the Madhyamik Shikshak in Schedule III, Item No.II and petitioner having requisite qualification i.e. degree of graduation and B.Ed. degree, was selected. The Supreme Court in case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 has very categorically observed that in a recruitment process, selection criteria has to be prescribed in advance and rules of game cannot be changed afterwards, minimum qualifying marks for interview prescribed after the interview were over, held not permissible and subsequent amendment in the rules cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Para 27 of the said judgment is relevant which reads as under:-

27. "But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. Th