1. This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

          "7.1.That, the notesheet annexure P/10 dated 19.04.2012 kindly quashed.

          7.2 That, the respondents kindly directed to select the petitioner on the post of Patwari and send him training and grant all consequence of benefit including seniority at par with the candidates whose name mentioned in the order dated 10.07.2012 annexure P/13.

          7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the rules regarding Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008, the respondent-State of M.P. issued an advertisement for filling up of the post of Patwari. Petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications. Petitioner applied for the post of Patwari and appeared in the selection process. The result of petitioner was declared in which he secured merit position at Serial No. 9 in the open unreserved category. Petitioner also submitted a computer diploma certificate issued by Chhattisgarh University, Raipur. However, since the case of petitioner was not considered by respondents, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5360/2011 which was decided by order dated 16.09.2011 wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation of petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent-Collector, Tikamgarh and without properly considering the representation of petitioner, on 16.4.2012, through some officer/employee sitting in the office of the Superintendent of Land Records asked certain questions from petitioner regarding the computer peripherals. Petitioner replied to the said questions and also typed the matter as directed. Despite above facts, the respondents rejected the application of petitioner by a note-sheet dated 19.04.2012. It is further submitted that once petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications and as per the Rules/ Advertisement regarding the Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1), there is no procedure prescribed for conducting an interview of the candidate. It is further submitted that petitioner possesses the qualification of DCA from Chhattisgarh University, Raipur, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already held that the PGDCA/DCA certificates issued by Chhattisgarh University, Raipur are valid certificates and constitute the requisite educational qualification as per Clause 1.8 of the Advertisement/rules regarding selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that the candidates namely Sheetal Arya, Sourabh Rawat, and Sourabh Gupta whose names appear at Serial Nos. 14, 15, and 26 in the merit list have been selected and appointed as Patwari and they also possessed the qualification of DCA from Chhattisgarh University, Raipur, however, despite being similarly situated, petitioner has been discriminated against. It is further submitted that candidate Sheetal Arya, Sourabh Rawat, Sourabh Gupta have been appointed on the basis of similar order which has been passed in the case of petitioner in W.P. No.1606/2011. It is further submitted that rejecting the case of appointment of petitioner by impugned note sheet dated 19.4.2012 is without jurisdiction because under the Rules and as per advertisement Committee cannot be constituted and they cannot take interview because the selection process is prescribed as per the merit list prepared by Vyapam and once petitioner has been selected by Vyapam and secured the merit position at Serial No.9 then respondents cannot supersede the right of petitioner while selecting less meritorious candidates and denying petitioner from selection by adopting the different procedure of interview and practical examination, especially without considering the fact that the interview and practical examination has not been mentioned in the rules /regulation/ advertisement regarding the Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1). It is further submitted that action on the part of respondent is not only without jurisdiction but it is also violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State submitted that Commissioner had issued a general direction dated 2.4.2012 to the Collector on the basis of order dated 21.1.2011 passed in W.P. No.841/2011 and order dated 08.04.2011 passed in W.P. No.2871/2010.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Rules regarding Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 prescribe the minimum qualification which are as under:



6. Petitioner is having the DCA certificate from Chhattisgarh University District Raipur (Annexure P/4). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Sharma and others v. State of M.P. reported in 2011 (3) M.P.L.J. 148 has held as under:

          ''23. In view of the foregoing discussion in the opinion of this Court the action taken by the respondents to pass the order Annexure P/1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on account of possessing the diploma in Computer Application or Post Graduate course from the aforementioned Universities is hereby quashed. If the petitioners possess the certificate from the aforementioned Universities it may be examined in the light of the observations made by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs and if they found place in the merit list the petitioners be sent for training. Similarly the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the candidature of the petitioners or hold them ineligible on account of not having valid registration in the employment exchange is also quashed. Accordingly all these petitions are allowed and disposed of with the following directions:

          (1) The order passed by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P/1 dated 15-1-2010 and the orders issued in this respect derecognizing the certificates issued by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M.P.), Bhoj University, Bhopal (M.P.), Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal (M.P.), Chhattisgarh University Raipur, Dr. C.V. Raman University Bilaspur, University of Technical Science Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Doon International University Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and do not have the educational qualification as per clause 1.8 is hereby quashed.

          (2) The respondents may examine the genuineness of the certificates issued by the various Universities of the State of Madhya Pradesh and they may ascertain the fact that those Universities have been established under any of the Act as specified under section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. If it is found that those Universities have been established under the said Act, the certificates issued by the various Universities in the State of Madhya Pradesh be treated as valid.

          (3) The respondents are directed to scrutinize the cases of those petitioners whose certificates have been issued by various Universities at Chhattisgarh State after 11-2- 2005 in the light of para 64 and 65 of the judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) and the appropriate orders be passed in this regard.

           (4) The judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) shall be applicable prospectively only on those certificates issued by the universities after the date of the said judgment i.e. 11-2-2005.

          (5) The impugned order issued by the authorities treating the petitioners to be ineligible on account of not having the valid registration in the employment exchange in the district concerned is hereby quashed.

          (6) The district authorities shall be at liberty to examine and to verify the genuineness of the documents of the educational and other qualifications.

          (7) It is also made clear here that the respondents shall take appropriate steps in view of the foregoing direction within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order along with the representation, if any.

          (8) In view of the foregoing directions and on scrutiny if the petitioners find placed in the merit list/selection panel then they be sent for patwari training irrespective to the availability of posts.

          (9) It is further made clear here that if the posts have been filled up by the person below in the merit on account of passing the order impugned then appropriate orders may be passed in this regard by giving an opportunity to those candidates who have already sent for training or otherwise, it is the discretion of the respondents to adjust them by creating the posts, if any.

          (10) In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs"

7. The perusal of record reveals that petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications and as per the Rules/ Advertisement regarding the Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1), there is no procedure prescribed for conducting an interview of the candidate. Petitioner possesses the qualification of DCA from Chhattisgarh University, Raipur, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already held that the PGDCA/DCA certificates issued by Chhattisgarh University, Raipur are valid certificates and constitute the requisite educational qualification as per Clause 1.8 of the Advertisement/rules regarding selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1). The rejection of case of appointment of petitioner by impugned note sheet dated 19.4.2012 is without jurisdiction because under the Rules and as per advertisement Committee cannot be constituted and they cannot take interview because the selection process is prescribed as per the merit list prepared by Vyapam and once petitioner has been selected by Vyapam and secured the merit position at Serial No.9 then respondents cannot supersede the right of petitioner while selecting less meritorious candidates and denying petitioner from selection by adopting the different procedure of interview and practical examination, especially without considering the fact that the interview and practical examination has not been mentioned in the rules /regulation/ advertisement regarding the Selection of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1).

8. Petitioner has participated in the selection process carried out by Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board, Bhopal and secured merit position at Serial No.9 in unreserved category and is having the qualification of DCA from recognised University i.e. Chattisgarh University Raipur. No procedure has been prescribed such as taking interview and for practical examination in the selection process whereunder Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P/1) was held. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Another reported in 2008 (3) SCC 512, para 30 to 35 has held as under:

          "30. It was found that the Selection Committee had moderated the written examination marks by an addition of 2% for all the candidates, as a result of which some candidates who did not get through the written examination, became eligible for viva voce and came into the list. Secondly, the Selection Committee prescribed for selection, a minimum aggregate of 600 marks in the written examination and viva voce which was not provided in the Rules and that resulted in some of the names in the list of 27 candidates being omitted. This Court held neither was permissible. Dealing with the prescription of minimum 600 marks in the aggregate this Court observed: (Umesh Chandra case [(1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] , SCC pp. 735-36, para 14) "14. ... There is no power reserved under Rule 18 of the Rules for the High Court to fix its own minimum marks in order to include candidates in the final list. It is stated in Para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 4363 of 1985 that the Selection Committee has inherent power to select candidates who according to it are suitable for appointment by prescribing the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate in order to get into the Delhi Judicial Service. ... But on going through the Rules, we are of the view that no fresh disqualification or bar may be created by the High Court or the Selection Committee merely on the basis of the marks obtained at the examination because Clause (6) of the Appendix itself has laid down the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the written papers or in the aggregate in order to qualify himself to become a member of the Judicial Service. The prescription of the minimum of 600 marks in the aggregate by the Selection Committee as an additional requirement which the candidate has to satisfy amounts to an amendment of what is prescribed by Clause (6) of the Appendix. ... We are of the view that the Selection Committee has no power to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate different from the minimum already prescribed by the Rules in its Appendix. We are, therefore, of the view that the exclusion of the names of certain candidates, who had not secured 600 marks in the aggregate including marks obtained at the viva voce test from the list prepared under Rule 18 of the Rules is not legal."

          31. In Durgacharan Misra [(1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] this Court was considering the selection under the Orissa Service Rules which did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks to be secured in viva voce for selection of Munsifs. The Rules merely required that after the viva voce test the State Public Service Commission shall add the marks of the viva voce test to the marks in the written test. But the State Public Service Commission which was the selecting authority prescribed minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test also. This Court held that the Commission had no power to prescribe the minimum standard at viva voce test for determining the suitability of candidates for appointment of Munsifs.

          32. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 720] this Court observed that "the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced". In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game had been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.

          33. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the Selection Committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview.

          34. It was submitted that Administrative Committee and Interview Committee were only delegates of the Full Court and the Full Court has the absolute power to determine or regulate the process of selection and it has also the power and authority to modify the decisions of the Administrative Committee. There can be no doubt about the proposition. The Administrative Committee being only a delegate of the Full Court, all decisions and resolutions of Administrative Committee are placed before the Full Court for its approval and the Full Court may approve, modify or reverse any decision of the Administrative Committee. For example, when the Resolution dated 30-11-2004 was passed it was open to the Full Court, before the process of selection began, to either specifically introduce a provision that there should be minimum marks for interviews, or prescribe a different ratio of marks instead of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview, or even delete the entire requirement of minimum marks even for the written examination. But that was not done.

          35. The Full Court allowed the Administrative Committee to determine the method and manner of selection and also allowed it to conduct the examination and interviews with reference to the method and manner determined by the Administrative Committee. Once the selection process was completed with reference to the criteria adopted by the Administrative Committee and the results were placed before it, the Full Court did not find fault with the criteria decided by the Administrative Committee (as per Resolution dated 30-11-2004) or the process of examinations and interviews conducted by the Administrative Committee and Interview Committee. If the Full Court had found that the procedure adopted in the examinations or interviews was contrary to the procedure prescribed, the Full Court could have set aside the entire process of selection and directed the Administrative Committee to conduct a fresh selection. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 was approved. It did not find any irregularity in the examination conducted by the Administrative Committee or the interviews held by the Selection Committee. The assessment of performance in the written test by the candidates was not disturbed. The assessment of performance in the interview by the Selection Committee was not disturbed.

9. It is settled position that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced and in the present case, the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed but they were changed after the game had been played and the result of the game was declared. Commissioner Land Records, Gwalior has issued order dated 2.4.2012 for prescribing different procedure for interview and practical examination which has not been mentioned in the rules regarding selection by way of Patwari Examination, 2008 (Annexure P-1) which is contrary to the settled position as mentioned above. That is unacceptable and impermissible.

10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid law, the petition stands allowed and disposed of in the following manner:

          (i) Impugned note-sheet dated 19.4.2012 is hereby quashed;

          (ii) The respondents are directed to appoint petitioner on the post of Patwari at par with similarly situated persons and give him all consequential benefits as seniority and increments except back-wages on the principle of "no work no pay" after examination of the correctness and genuineness of the DCA mark sheet from Chattisgarh University, Raipur; and

          (iii) The said direction contained in para (ii) above would be complied by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11. Pending interlocutory application (if any) is disposed of.