Judgment : (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.B. Talekar, for the petitioners; Adv. Mr. S.V. Adwant, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar, for respondent nos.4 to 6 / Intervenors. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. A very short issue is involved. Advertisement published on 27-2-2009, to fill in 20 vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Transmission), 62 vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Transmission), 6 vacancies in the cadre of Executive Engineer (Civil), and 15 vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil), in clause 5 laid down selection criteria. The said clause stipulates that selection against internal notification shall be on the basis of written test and personal interview, where academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs) and performance in personal interview shall be considered. The norm for shortlisting is stipulated in clause 6(8) and it reads as under: "The candidates will be shortlisted for Personal Interviews tentatively to be held during the month of May 2009, on the basis of performance in the Written Test. Taking into consideration the performance in the written test & Personal Interview, the select list will be prepared." Thus, for the purposes of personal interviews, the shortlisting was to be only on the basis of performance in written test. The select list was to be prepared taking into consideration the performance in written test and personal interview. 4. Adv. Mr. S.B. Talekar, for the petitioners, has pointed out that initially the written test conducted was of 100 or 150 marks which were to be scale down to 90. The interview was to carry 50 marks, but it was to be converted into 10 marks. Thus, total selection process was to carry 90 + 10 = 100 marks. According to him, this was later on modified and written test marks were further brought down to 60 and 10 marks were awarded for post-graduation qualification in Engineering, 15 marks for ACR, & 5 marks for experience. Thus, complete process of written test consisting of 90 marks earlier was subdivided into two & another norm was introduced. Performance in written test was restricted to only 60 marks and that new norm or factor was given weightage of 30 marks. He contends that though petitioners qualified in written test, they were not called for personal interviews because of the process of shortlisting followed. Performance in written test was restricted to only 60 marks and that new norm or factor was given weightage of 30 marks. He contends that though petitioners qualified in written test, they were not called for personal interviews because of the process of shortlisting followed. According to him for process of shortlisting, marks scored out of 90 were looked into and this was in deviation of the advertisement. 5. Adv. Mr. A.B. Kadethankar has appeared for respondent nos.4 to 6, who are permitted to intervene in the matter by this Court. However, it is apparent that all selected candidates are not joined as party respondents and even in petition, there is no relief claimed against the selected candidates. Adv. Mr. Talekar has explained how out of 102 posts advertised, only 86 posts have been filled in and hence, it is not necessary for the 3 petitioners to join all selected candidates. In this view of the matter, we have not heard Adv. Mr. Kadethankar on the merits of the controversy. 6. Adv. Mr. S.V. Adwant, for respondent nos.1 to 3, has explained the selection process by referring to Administrative Circular No. 152, dated 16-6-2009. He submits that allocation of 90 marks under different heads was done as per that circular. He has also submitted that the written test was conducted by an outside agency and marks secured by an individual candidate were never communicated to them. He relies upon Administrative Circular No. 143 dated 16-2-2009, to show that the method of filling in vacancies and internal notification therefor was made known well in advance. The selection against internal notification was to be done on the basis of written test and personal interview where academic qualifications, performance appraisal (ACRs) and performance in personal interview were to be considered. The guidelines for weightage for written test and personal interview were to be decided subsequently and this was expressly communicated. As per this notification, guidelines were later on decided and Circular No. 152 came to be issued. Though he does not dispute bifurcation of 90 marks as pointed out by Adv. Mr. Talekar, according to him, allotment of marks under individual heads is consistent with the aforesaid Administrative Circular and there is nothing wrong or arbitrary with it. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon judgments of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of VijendraKumar Verma Vs. Mr. Talekar, according to him, allotment of marks under individual heads is consistent with the aforesaid Administrative Circular and there is nothing wrong or arbitrary with it. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon judgments of Hon. Apex Court, in the case of VijendraKumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others, reported at (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 150, and in the case of BarotVijaykumar Balakrishna and others Vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and others, reported at (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 308, and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 4th March 2010, in Writ Petition No. 1717 of 2010, at Bombay. 7. The Administrative Circulars having Nos. 143 and 152 deal with selection process. The method of shortlisting is not dealt with in any of these circulars. The Circular No. 143 is prior to advertisement, while later Circular No. 152 is issued about four months after the advertisement. The norms to be adopted for selection are not in dispute before us. Only contention is about the variance effected mid-stream in the shortlisting norm. 8. We have already extracted the shortlisting norm above. It specifically and expressly communicates to every candidate that he would be shortlisted for personal interview on the basis of performance in written test. The performance in written test initially was of 100 or 150 marks and it was brought down to 90. By Administrative Circular No. 152, dated 16-6-2009, it was further brought down to 60. The remaining 30 marks (out of 90 marks) meant earlier for written test were assigned to postgraduate qualification, ACR and experience. Thus a new norm was added to judge performance before the stage of interviews. Shortlisting has been done by adding these marks to marks scored by an individual in written test ie by following a new norm. Thus, the shortlisting criteria has undergone change mid-stream. 9. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1717 of 2010 (supra) does not deal with change in norm of shortlisting. There, the question raised was about guidelines for weightage to written test and personal interview which was to be decided subsequently and the said aspect has only been looked into. It is not the case of respondents that a decision to change shortlisting norm pre-decided & communicated was taken or it could have been changed midstream. There, the question raised was about guidelines for weightage to written test and personal interview which was to be decided subsequently and the said aspect has only been looked into. It is not the case of respondents that a decision to change shortlisting norm pre-decided & communicated was taken or it could have been changed midstream. In the case of VijendraKumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others (supra), the advertisement itself mentioned that candidate should have basic knowledge of computer operation, and it appears that a Writ Petition was filed by appellant before Hon. Apex Court, seeking declaration that a new selection criteria was introduced mid-stream as notification declaring list of candidates successful in written test expected them to have knowledge of Microsoft Operating Systems & Microsoft Office. It was urged that the syllabus prescribed no such knowledge. Hon. Apex Court has dealt with this issue & negated the contention that there was any such change midstream. Again, a change in norm for shortlisting was not subject matter of consideration in this precedent. In the case of BarotVijaykumar Balakrishna and others Vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and others (supra), the issue considered is about introduction of minimum qualifying marks separately for viva voce after commencement of selection process. The consideration shows that Rule 12(3) mandated fixing of said marks in viva voce & personality test. Accordingly the omission to fix the same was rectified by informing the marks fixed to all candidates called for via voce test. Their marksheets were in sealed envelop & not available for perusal at the time of viva voce. Perusal of paragraphs 22, 24 and 25 show that the process followed did not enable the Members of the Interview Committee to gather knowledge about marks secured by an individual in written test. Hon. Apex Court in paragraph 22 of the judgment observed that what could have been objected would be the omission to specify the cut-off mark for viva voce in the advertisement and fixing it later on. It has been further observed that there was no connection between the "anomalies" and the fact that the cut-off mark for viva voce was fixed at a later stage, though before the commencement of the interviews and with due intimation to all the candidates. It has been further observed that there was no connection between the "anomalies" and the fact that the cut-off mark for viva voce was fixed at a later stage, though before the commencement of the interviews and with due intimation to all the candidates. It is, therefore, obvious that though change was mid-stream, it was a fair change introduced with due intimation in advance to all concerned. 10. Here, only document coming into existence after advertisement is Circular No. 152, dated 16-6-2009. It only deals with weightage & not shortlisting. By this circular, the broad syllabus for written test, as indicated in Annexure 'A' and Annexure 'B' therewith, has been specified. For written test, 60 marks have been allotted and 10 marks have been assigned for HR & F&A. 30 marks as stated above are to be for postgraduate qualification, for experience & for ACR. Its paragraph 3 states that the aggregate of the marks obtained in written test, Postgraduate qualification, Experience & ACR shall be done and candidates in ratio of 1:2 shall be called for personal interview as per existing Rules. Thus, it does not modify the shortlisting norm in clause 6(8) of the advertisement specified above. 11. In this situation, we direct respondent nos.1 to 3 to strictly adopt shortlisting norm as per Clause 6(8) of the advertisement and if after adopting that norm and after considering marks secured by the petitioners in written test, they qualify for being called for personal interview, they shall be called for personal interview. If after personal interview they succeed, the petitioners shall be appointed only if they are in position to displace any of the last selected candidate in their respective group. However, this direction shall operate only if & is subject to the condition that none of the selected candidate already occupying any of the posts is not required to be disturbed. 12. We direct respondents to complete this exercise within a period of four months from today. 13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition is, thus, partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.