Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of W. P. No. 4877/2010(S) and W. P. No. 7925/2010(S). The core issue which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether in view of the fact that minimum qualifying marks which were prescribed for interview, were neither specified in the advertisement nor made known to the petitioners as well as other candidates, the process of selection for recruitment on the post of Security Sub Inspectors is vitiated in law. The petitioners in these writ petitions have, inter alia, c hallenged the validity of the order dated 22-1-2010 as well as order dated 23-1- 2010 by which the respondents No. 3 to 10 have been appointed on the post of Security Sub Inspectors. The petitioners also seek a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint them on the post of Security Sub Inspectors. In order to elucidate the controversy involved in the writ petitions, few facts need mention, which are stated infra. ( 2. ) A circular dated 20-8-2009 was issued directing recruitment on the post Security Sub Inspector from amongst the Departmental candidates. In the aforesaid circular minimum educational qualification as well as the standard of physical parameters were mentioned. The circular further prescribed that the candidates who qualify in the physical test shall be asked to appear in the written examination. The candidates who qualify in the written examination shall be called for interview. Thereafter, another circular dated 25-8-2009 was issued under which it was stated that total 26 posts of Security Sub Inspector shall be filled up. As per the schedule of recruitment, the last date of submission of applications was 15-10-2009. The physical test as well as written examination were scheduled to be held on 21-12-2009 and 11-1-2010 respectively. Admittedly, the petitioners in both the writ petitions cleared the physical test and were declared successful in the written examination. The petitioners were called for interview which was held on 22-1-2010. However, vide orders dated 22-1- 2010 and 23-1-2010 the respondents No.3 to 10 were appointed on the post of Security Sub Inspectors. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this Court. Mr. The petitioners were called for interview which was held on 22-1-2010. However, vide orders dated 22-1- 2010 and 23-1-2010 the respondents No.3 to 10 were appointed on the post of Security Sub Inspectors. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this Court. Mr. K. C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 while laying down the procedure for selection had not prescribed the condition of securing minimum qualifying marks i.e. 4 out of 10 marks in the interview. The minimum qualifying marks in the interview have been prescribed in the midst of process of selection which is beyond the power of Selection Committee. It is further submitted that document (Annexure-R-5) dated 1-8-2009 which prescribes minimum qualification marks for the written examination as well as interview has been prepared subsequently. It is also urged that condition of securing minimum qualifying marks in the interview was not notified to the candidates. It is further submitted that though 26 posts were initially advertised, yet only 8 posts were filled up and remaining posts were deliberately kept vacant which were filled up in the process of recruitment which was initiated subsequently. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court reported in Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa and others, (1987) 4 SCC 646 , Praveen Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2000) 8 SCC 633 , K. Manjusree vs. State of A. P. and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 , Himani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11, Tridip Kumar Dingal and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 1 SCC 768 and Amlan Jyoti Barooah vs. State of Assam and others, (2009) 3 SCC 227 . ( 3. ) ON the other hand, Mrs. Indira Nair, learned senior counsel submitted that the criteria for selection was fixed prior to initiation of process of selection on 1-8-2009 under which it was prescribed that a candidate has to secure minimum qualifying marks i.e. 40 out of 100 in the written examination and 4 out of 10 in the interview. It was also submitted that the candidature of all the candidates was uniformly assessed on the basis of same criteria. Vide circular dated 25-8-2009 it was mentioned that 26 posts of Security Sub Inspector shall be filled up. It was also submitted that the candidature of all the candidates was uniformly assessed on the basis of same criteria. Vide circular dated 25-8-2009 it was mentioned that 26 posts of Security Sub Inspector shall be filled up. ON scrutiny of the applications submitted by the candidates, 102 candidates were found eligible who were called for medical and physical test on 21-12-2009. Out of 102 candidates, 88 candidates appeared in the medical and physical test. Thereafter, 20 candidates appeared in the written examination on 11-1-2010. All the candidates secured more than minimum marks in the written examination and cleared the written examination. Thereafter, aforesaid 20 candidates were called for interview on 21-12-2010. Eight candidates, namely, respondents No. 3 to 10 were able to secure more than the minimum qualifying marks in the interview. Accordingly, their orders of appointment on the post of Security Sub Inspectors were issued. It was also submitted that interview is required to be held to assess the suitability of the candidate and the respondents No. 1 and 2 were well within their right to fix the minimum qualifying marks for interview. It is submitted that proceeding of selection on the post of Security Sub Inspector has been conducted in fair manner and the proceeding for selection do not suffer from any infirmity which may call for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, it is also submitted that in the subsequent process' of selection the petitioners No. 1 and 4 in W. P. No. 4877/2010 have been selected. In support of her submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. vs. Mahabir Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., (1981) 4 SCC 159 , Mohan Kumar Singhania and others vs. Union of India and others, (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 594, Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Narasingha Charan Mohanty and others, (1999) 1 SCC 465 , K. H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395 , Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Baloji Badhavath and others, (2009) 5 SCC 1 and also on the decisions of this Court reported in Pannalal s/o Govind Shinde vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2008 (1) MPLJ 325 . ( 4. ) HAVE considered the submissions made on both sides. ( 4. ) HAVE considered the submissions made on both sides. In K. Manjusree (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that minimum qualifying marks can be prescribed for written examination as well as for interview. However, such marks HAVE to be prescribed in advance before the process of selection commences. Once the process of selection has commenced, the requirement of minimum qualifying marks for the written examination as well as interview cannot be introduced as the same would amount to changing the rules of game, after the game is played. In Tridip Kumar Dingal (supra) it has been held that in the absence of any provision in the Rule, short-listing of the candidates can be done on the basis of administrative instructions and the minimum qualifying marks can be prescribed for written examination as well as for the interview provided that action is bona fide and reasonable. In Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and ors. vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and ors., (2011) 7 SCC 308 the Supreme Court has held that where statutory Rules prescribe, the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce, the same should be mentioned in the advertisement. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, I have perused the original record which is produced. Admittedly, in the instant cases there is no statutory requirement of prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the written examination as well as for the interview. The respondents No. 1 and 2 by resolution dated 1-8-2009 have fixed the minimum qualifying marks for the written examination as well as for interview. Thus, the minimum qualifying marks for written examination and interview have been prescribed before commencement of the process of selection. The advertisement was issued on 20- 8-2009. Thus, it is not the case where the requirement of obtaining minimum qualifying marks in the written examination and in the interview was introduced after the process of selection was commenced. ( 5. ) IN the circulars dated 20-8-2009 and 25-8-2009 the condition of securing minimum qualifying marks in the written examination as well as in the interview has not been mentioned. The candidature of the candidates was assessed on the basis of uniform criteria. The authority of the respondents to fix the qualifying marks for interview is not under challenge. IN Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and ors. The candidature of the candidates was assessed on the basis of uniform criteria. The authority of the respondents to fix the qualifying marks for interview is not under challenge. IN Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and ors. vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal and ors., (2011) 7 SCC 308 (supra) it has been held that where the Rule requires prescription of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce the same should be notified in the advertisement. Admittedly, as stated supra, there is no requirement of prescription of minimum qualifying marks for the written examination and for the interview in the statutory rules. The process of selection is fair and reasonable. It is not the case of the petitioners that there is any arbitrariness or bias in the process of selection. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any prejudice which has been caused to them by non-mentioning of minimum qualifying marks in the written examination and interview in the circulars. It is also not the case of the petitioners that any candidate who has not secured minimum qualifying marks in the interview has been given appointment. Thus, the petitioners have utterly failed to demonstrate the prejudice which has been caused to them on account of non-mentioning of minimum qualifying marks for the written examination as well as for the interview in the circulars. Besides that, the petitioners did not raise any objection before participating in the process of selection that minimum qualifying marks in the written examination and interview have not been mentioned in the circulars. The petitioners have participated in the process of selection. Thus, no case for interference with the process of selection, which has been undertaken by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Security Sub Inspectors, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. ( 6. ) IN the result, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.