JUDGMENT J&K Services Selection Board -- respondent No. 3 in the writ petition on hand vide Advertisement Notice No. 08 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010 invited ap­plications from eligible candidates, amongst otheres, for the available posts of Management Executive/Counselor in the Labour and Employment Depart­ment. The Advertisement Notice indi­cated the advertised posts to be State Cadre posts, number of post to be 18 with 04 earmarked for Reserved Back­ward Area (RBA) category, 09 posts un­der Open Merit Category and rest of the posts under different reserved catego­ries. The qualification prescribed for the post was shown as MBA or Masteres in Social Work with first preference to MSW. 2. Petitioner with Masters in Busi­ness Administration Degree from Punjab Technical University applied for the advertised post and so did the re­spondent No. 6 having Masters in So­cial Work to her credit. Both-petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied under Reserved Backward Area (RBA) cat­egory. 3. The Advertisement Notice in paras VI (b), 10 85 13 laid down procedure for selection as under: Para IV Procedure for Selection (a)............................................. "(b) The prescribed qualification re­flect the bare minimum requirement of the job and mere possession thereof does not entitle the candidates to be called for interview Ordinarily the Board shall restrict the number of applicants to be admitted to oral/writ­ten test to at least five times the num­ber of vacancies after doing the pre­liminary screening n the basis of marks obtained in the prescribed qualification and grant weightage for the additional qualification beneficial for the job to be undertaken in accor­dance with the criteria prescribed by the Board for the purpose. The inter­view/ viva voce which carries 20 points is intended to judge the mental cali­ber of a candidate and an assessment of, not only his intellectual qualifies but also social traits and his interest in current affairs. Some of the quali­ties to be judged are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical expositions, balance of judgment, variety and depth of inter­est, ability for social cohesion and leadership, intellectual and moral in­tegrity." "10. Recruitment and Selection: (i) The Board shall finalize the selec­tions after holding such tests of ex­aminations, as may be prescribed under rules, or if there are no such rules, as the Board may consider nec­essary...... 13. Procedure of Selection by the Recruitment Board. HI. Recruitment and Selection: (i) The Board shall finalize the selec­tions after holding such tests of ex­aminations, as may be prescribed under rules, or if there are no such rules, as the Board may consider nec­essary...... 13. Procedure of Selection by the Recruitment Board. HI. The Board shall, ordinarily, restrict the number of applicants for oral and/ or written test, as the case may be, to at least five times the number of va­cancies on the basis of academic merit in the qualifying examination con­verted into points on porata basis out of the total points allocated for the basic eligibility qualification and grant of weightagefor the higher quali­fication in the discipline concerned to be allowed in the manner and to the extent as the Board may deem appro­priate for according due consideration to the merit and proficiency in higher qualification: Provided that the Board may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, con­duct a written test for short listing the candidates for admission to the oral test and for purpose of selection of candidates." 4. Respondent-Board vide its notifi­cation dated 05.10.2011 laid down se­lection criteria for the advertised posts including the post of Management Ex­ecutive/Counselor. The relevant part of the notification needs to be noticed. It reads: - "6. Eligibility for the post of Manage­ment Executive/Counselor. "MBA or Master in Social Work with preference to MSW" 7. Criteria of selection for the post of "Management Executive/ Counselor" shall be as under: - 1.MBA60 Points (on pro rata Basis) 2.Master in Social work with first preference in MSW80 Points (on Pro rata basis) 3.Viva Voce20 Points Total100 Points However, due to clerical error in place of "Management Executive/Coun­selor" "Labour Inspector" got inserted in the notification. 5. Criteria of selection for the post of "Management Executive/ Counselor" shall be as under: - 1.MBA60 Points (on pro rata Basis) 2.Master in Social work with first preference in MSW80 Points (on Pro rata basis) 3.Viva Voce20 Points Total100 Points However, due to clerical error in place of "Management Executive/Coun­selor" "Labour Inspector" got inserted in the notification. 5. Respondent-Board subsequently vide its notification No. SSB/Sel/Secy/012/143-48 dated 23.01.2012 revised selection criteria for the post of Man­agement Executive/Counselor as un­der:- Name of the DepartmentName of the PostAdvertisement NoticePrescqualificationCriteria approved by the BoardPoints Labour & EmploymentManagement Executve/Counselor08 of 2010MBA or masters Social Work with first preference to MSWMBA65 Prorata Masters in Social rata Work70 Prorata M. Phil in Line05 (across the Board) Ph.D (after M. Phil)05 (across the Board) Ph.D (Direct)10 (across the Board) Viva 20 Total100 In the revised criteria 65 points (on pro-rata basis) were fixed for MBA De­gree as against 60 points in selection criteria notified on 05.10.2011 and for Masters in Social Work 70 points (on pro-rata basis) were fixed as against 80 points in selection criteria notified on 05.10.2011. As the eligibility criteria/selection criteria notified on 05.10.2011 was followed for short list­ing the candidates, the respondent-Board decided not to act upon the re­vised criteria notified on 23.01.2012, as according to the Board, it would not be permissible to modify the notified se­lection criteria in the middle of the selection process. The Board instead decided to follow the selection criteria notified on 05.10.2011. The decision of the Board was reflected in the Notice No. SSB/Adm./1288-98/12 dated 24.04.2012. 6. The aspirants for the post of Man­agement Executive/Counselor includ­ing the petitioner appeared for inter­view before the selection committee as per the interview schedule notified on 24.04.2012. The Board uploaded the select list on its website wherein peti­tioner, respondent No. 5 and 6 were shown to have secured 62.51 points, 66.88 points and 65.09 points respec­tively. As respondent No. 6 ahd 65.09 points as against 62.51 points obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 was fourth candidate in order of merit under RBA Category. She was selected under RBA Category. Peti­tioner, therefore, was out of the race and not selected against the post for which he had applied. 7. As respondent No. 6 ahd 65.09 points as against 62.51 points obtained by the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 was fourth candidate in order of merit under RBA Category. She was selected under RBA Category. Peti­tioner, therefore, was out of the race and not selected against the post for which he had applied. 7. Petitioner questions the selec­tion criteria followed by the respondent-Board while making the selection as also the Notification dated 24.04.2012 whereby selection criteria notified vide Notification dated 23.01.2012 was with­drawn on the grounds set out in the petition. He seeks quashment of Noti­fication No. SSB/Adml./2626-39/2011 dated 05.10.2011 read with public Notice dated 27.04.2012 insofar as it re­lates to the post of Management Execu­tive/Counselor under Reserved Back­ward Area category. Challenge is also thrown to the selection of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as Management Execu­tive/Counselor under RBA category. Respondent-Board is sought to be di­rected to make de novo selection for the post of Management Executive/Coun­selor under RBA Category in accor­dance with the criteria notified vide Notification dated 23.01.2012 in terms of Section 13 of the Subordinate Ser­vices Selection (Recruitment) Rules, 1992. 8. The main plank of petitioner's case is that respondents by changing the selection criteria duly notified on 23.01.2012 have converted the petitioner's merit into demerit and engineered his exclusion from the se­lect list. It is pointed out that petitioner in terms of the selection criteria noti­fied vide Notification No. SSB/Sel/ Secy/012/143-48 dated 23.01.2012, would have secured 66.55 points as against 62.51 points computed as per the selection criteria notified vide No­tification dated 05.10.2011. 9. The respondent-Board resists the writ petition on the grounds that the Board while cancelling eligibility crite­ria notified vide Notification dated 23.01.2012 acted in accordance with law, inasmuch as, any change in eligi­bility criteria in the middle of selection process would not be permissible and would result in avoidable litigation. It is pleaded that as the petitioner par­ticipated in the selection process and did not question the selection criteria laid down vide Notification dated 05.10.2011 or the Notification dated 27.04.2012, whereby revised eligibil­ity criteria notified vide Notification dated 23.01.2012 was withdrawn and instead subjected himself to selection process, he cannot question the selec­tion criteria and the Notification dated 27.04.2012 resorting the selection cri­teria fixed vide Notification dated 05.10.2011, only because he has failed to make the grade. 10. 10. The respondent No. 6 in her reply points out that she having regard to Master in Social Work Degree to her credit, had an edge over the petitioner who admittedly has Master in Business Administration Degree. Respondent No. 6, in this regard, refers to Advertise­ment Notice where in the para laying down eligibility criteria for the post of Management Executive/Counselor, the respondent-Board has expressly provided that a candidate with Masters in Social Work Degree would have pref­erence over a candidate with Masters in Business Administration Degree, though, later also would be eligible for the advertised post. It is pointed out that Advertisement Notice No. 08 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010 expressly provided that, in case of, State Cadre/Divisional Cadre posts selection criteria would be published in due course and that the Board, accordingly, vide Notification dated 05.10.2011 laid down the selec­tion criteria for the aforesaid post. It is pleaded that though the Board revised selection criteria for the post of Man­agement Executive/Counselor vide Notification dated 23.01.2012, yet the revised selection criteria was with­drawn as Board found it impermissible to revise the criteria in the middle of selection process. The respondent No. 6 claims to have been duly selected for the advertised post under RBA Category and to have a right to be appointed against the post. The respondent No. 5 stayed away from the proceeding and is set ex parte. 11. I have gone through the plead­ing as also the record available on the file and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. The Advertisement Notice No. 08 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010 laid down eligibility criteria as well as selection criteria for few of the advertised posts, namely, Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, Forester and Forest Protection Force Inspector. As regards other, State/Di­visional Cadre post including Manage­ment Executive/Counselor only eligi­bility criteria was laid down and it was decided to notify selection criteria in due course. The eligibility criteria pre­scribed for the post of Management Ex­ecutive/Counselor, while declaring a candidate with Masters Degree in Business Administration or Masters in Social Work eligible for the post ex­pressly provided that a candidate with Masters Degree in Social Work would be given preference. 13. The Board notified the selection criteria amongst others for the post of Management Executive/Counselor vide Notification dated 05.10.2011. 13. The Board notified the selection criteria amongst others for the post of Management Executive/Counselor vide Notification dated 05.10.2011. The Board having regard to its decision to give preference to a candidate with Masters in Social Work Degree could have laid down that, in the event, a candidate with Masters in Social Work is pitted against a candidate with Mas­ters Degree in Business Administra­tion, the former would be selected irrespective of merit. The Board, how­ever, did not exercise such option. It instead provided some extra points to the Masters Degree in Social Work in terms of selection criteria notified on 05.10.2011. MBA Degree was to earn marks out of 60 marks on pro-rata ba­sis while the Masters in Social Work was to earn marks out of 80 marks earmarked for the Degree on pro-rata ba­sis. To illustrate, a candidate with MBA Degree with 60% marks in MBA would earn 36 points, while a candidate with Masters Degree in Social Work with 60% marks would earn 48 points. The petitioner with 80.85% marks in MBA would get 48.51 points while respondent No. 4 with 67.20% marks in MSW would get 53.76 points. The mechanism was evolved to give effect to the Board deci­sion to give preference to a candidate with Masters Degree in Social Work. Petitioner is not aggrieved of the aforesed mechanism /methodology pre­scribed by the Board. 14. The Board vide Notification No. SS/Sel/Secy/012/143-48 dated 23.01.2012, made a change in the se­lection criteria, if fixed 65 marks for the MBA Degree (on pro -rata basis) and 70 points for Masters Degree in Social Work. A candidate having MBA with 60% marks would get 39 points and ; candidate having Masters Degree in Social Work would get 42 points. The petitioner with 80.85 marks in MB would get 52.55 points. The responder No. 4 with 67.20% marks would get 47.04 points. The petitioner obvious would have a better chance to get selected in case the revised selection criteria notified on 23.01.2012 was followed by the Board. However, as already pointed out the Board vide Notification dated 27.04.2012 revoked/withdrew the revised selection criteria notified on 23.01.2012 and restored the selection criteria initially notified on05.10.2011, on the ground that change in selection criteria in mid stream was not permis­sible under law. 15. However, as already pointed out the Board vide Notification dated 27.04.2012 revoked/withdrew the revised selection criteria notified on 23.01.2012 and restored the selection criteria initially notified on05.10.2011, on the ground that change in selection criteria in mid stream was not permis­sible under law. 15. The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the Board to stick to the selection criteria notified on 05.10.2011 as it has obliterated all chances of his selection and pushed him to 5th position in the order of merit under RBA category. 16. It is well settled law that once selection process is initiated and se­lection criteria notified, it cannot be changed in mid stream unless the Ad­vertisement Notice is recalled and se­lection process abandoned, so that all the aspirants for the advertised posts are able to compete and participate in the selection process, fully aware of the eligibility criteria as also the selection criteria to be followed by the Board. The Board made its intention clear, while advertising the posts and notifying eli­gibility criteria that the selection cri­teria would be notified in due course. It thereafter notified the selection criteria. It was not permissible for the Board to change the selection criteria in the middle of the selection process. In the circumstances, it was not open to the Board to issue Notification dated 23.01.2012, making significant changes in selection criteria. If the Board realized its mistake and recrified it by Notification dated 27.04.2012, it cannot be faulted on any ground set out in the petition. There, in the circum­stances, is no option but to accept the stand taken by the Board that adherence to Notification dated 23.01.2012, would have been unwarranted/illegal and resulted in unnecessary and un­avoidable litigation. The petitioner seeks to build up his case on action of the Board that was impermissible un­der Law. The decision taken by the Board to follow its duly notified selec­tion criteria on 05.10.2011, is not per­son specific and does not only affect the petitioner. It is likely to have a nega­tive fall out on other candidates with MBA Degree for the advertised posts. It treats them all equally and does not single out the petitioner for any hos­tile discrimination. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be heard complain­ing about an action that is in tune with law, but incidentally affect his prospects to get selected as Management Execu­tive/Counselor in the Labour and Em­ployment Department of the State Gov­ernment. 17. It treats them all equally and does not single out the petitioner for any hos­tile discrimination. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be heard complain­ing about an action that is in tune with law, but incidentally affect his prospects to get selected as Management Execu­tive/Counselor in the Labour and Em­ployment Department of the State Gov­ernment. 17. Petitioner responded to the Ad­vertisement Notice No. 08 of 2010 dated 24.12.2010, fully aware of the eligibil­ity criteria laid down therein. He did not feel aggrieved with the decision taken by the Board of the indenting department to give preference to a can­didate with MSW Degree over a candi­date with MBA Degree. The Board de­cided to notify the selection criteria for the post of Management Executive/ Counselor as also other State/Divi­sional Cadre posts in due course. Peti­tioner felt satisfied with said decision and did not question it before any Fo­rum. The Board notified selection cri­teria vide Notification dated 05.10.2011. Petitioner again did not call in question the selection criteria so notified on any ground whatsoever. He instead decided to participate in the selection process. The Board notified the revised selection criteria vide his Notification dated 23.01.2012. It a few months, therafter, notified its decision vide Notification dated 27.04.2012 to recall/withdraw the revised selection criteria and follow the selection crite­ria initially laid down as notified on 05.10.2011. Petitioner again opted not to question the Notification dated 27.04.2012 in appropriate proceedings before a Competent Court. He accepted it without demur and participated in the selection process. It is pertinent to point out that while the Board notified its decision to recall revised selection criteria notified on 23.01.2012 ab-ini-tio, on 24.04.2012, it fixed 7th May, 2012 dated of interview for the petitioner and other candidates under RBA Category. There was enough time for the peti­tioner to question the notification dated 24.04.2012, before the Competent Court. Petitioner conveniently ignored the matter and did not take any notice of Notification dated 27.04.2012, admit­tedly published in a newspaper having largest circulation in Kashmir Prov­ince. The petitioner woke up only after he did not find place in the selection list. There was enough time for the peti­tioner to question the notification dated 24.04.2012, before the Competent Court. Petitioner conveniently ignored the matter and did not take any notice of Notification dated 27.04.2012, admit­tedly published in a newspaper having largest circulation in Kashmir Prov­ince. The petitioner woke up only after he did not find place in the selection list. Petitioner after having frittered away, all the opportunities that came in his way to question different steps taken by the respondent-Board includ­ing its decision reflected in Notifica­tion dated 27.04.2012 cannot throw challenge to the selection process and invoke extraordinary and equitable writ jurisdiction of the Court only after he did not make the grade. 18. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is held to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dis­missed. 19. Interim direction if any is re­called. This clears desk for the respon­dents to act on the recommendations made by the Board.