JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. - This writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak under Multi Lingual Education Programme in the district of Kandhamal. 2. Brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to the advertisement no.5899 dated 6.8.2013 by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for engagement of Sikshya Sahayak under Multi Lingual Education Programme in various tribal dominated districts of the State. For governing the recruitment system the government has come out with the resolution dated 6.8.2013 issued in the name of the His Excellency Governor of the State and the procedure for selection has been made therein. Provision has been made for selection to be made on the basis of the merit i.e. on the basis of percentage of marks with proficiency in tribal language of the community as would be evident from clause 5.3 of the resolution dated 6.8.2013 and further in clause 5.3(a) it has been provided that merit list will be prepared based on the total percentage of marks secured by the candidates in HSC examination, Higher Secondary(+2) examination and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (C.T.) examination. Petitioner being a qualified unemployed ST youth after getting matriculation and intermediate examinations passed and getting completed C.T. training having possessed language proficiency in Kui language made an application for consideration of his candidature. Petitioner has also submitted Physically Handicapped certificate being 55% locomotor disable, to that effect certificate has been issued by the authority dated 3.11.2006. After submission of application form, name of the petitioner found place in the eligible list who were called for documents verification and accordingly documents of the petitioner was verified and was called for to appear in the written test for language proficiency test, petitioner appeared and answered properly, final merit list was prepared and separate merit list was prepared for physically handicapped candidates but name of the petitioner does not contain therein still remained vacancy for the physically handicapped candidates. 3. Grievance of the petitioner that only those candidates who has secured more than 18 marks in language proficiency test have been selected and their names have been inserted in the provisional merit list, as such it has been submitted that marks on account of educational qualification has been segregated and thereby petitioner was not found to be successful. 3. Grievance of the petitioner that only those candidates who has secured more than 18 marks in language proficiency test have been selected and their names have been inserted in the provisional merit list, as such it has been submitted that marks on account of educational qualification has been segregated and thereby petitioner was not found to be successful. According to the petitioner resolution dated 6.8.2013 which has been issued in the name of His Excellency Governor of Odisha contains procedure for selection and accordingly the said procedure was to be made on the basis of the marks secured in the educational qualification with language proficiency test but the authorities have selected the candidates on the basis of marks secured in the written examination which the authority cannot do due to the following reasons : (i) Once the authorities have come out with an advertisement based upon resolution governing recruitment process, prescribing certain terms and conditions for consideration of the candidates, the same cannot be changed once process commenced. (ii) The Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) has issued a guideline dated 28.10.2013 for language proficiency test which prescribes that written test will carry 50 marks and the candidates who have fulfilled the eligibility criteria will be called for for the test, minimum qualifying marks in the written test will be 18. According to the petitioner prescription of minimum qualifying marks as 18 has not been provided in the resolution dated 6.8.2013, based upon which recruitment process has been inserted but that has been inserted by an authority of the State of Odisha and as such it cannot be said to be a decision taken by the State of Odisha since it is not in the name of His Excellency Governor of Odisha. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 . 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 . 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party-State has appeared and filed detail counter affidavit, basing reliance of various paragraphs of the same it has been submitted that since recruitment as Sikshya Sahayak has been decided to be made for the remote tribal area of the State, hence persons knowing multi language will be engaged for imparting education in remote area of the State and as such OPEPA has taken decision for selection of candidates on the basis of the percentage of marks with proficiency in tribal language of the community and accordingly cut of marks has been fixed so that candidates knowing Multi Lingua has to be engaged, hence action of the authority is justified. 6. It has been submitted that the petitioner has secured 16 marks out of 50 and minimum marks has been fixed as 18 which was the cut-off marks of the guideline dated 28.10.2013 hence the petitioner has not been selected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. The fact which has been raised by the petitioner is that once the resolution has been issued by the Government of Odisha in the name of His Excellency Governor of Odisha for recruitment of Sikshya Sahayaks the same cannot be changed, to decide this the conditions are necessary to be seen as mentioned in the resolution dated 6.8.2013 are : "Clause-5.3 : The selection shall be made only on merit basis i.e. on the basis of percentage of marks with proficiency in tribal language of the community. Clause 5.3(b) : In respect of ST candidates of the same tribal community having the qualification of +2 Science/Arts/Commerce or its equivalent examination declared by appropriate authority with CT training, the merit list will be pared based on the total percentage of marks secured by the candidates in HSC examination, Higher Secondary (+2) examination and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (C.T.) examination." From perusal of these two conditions selection has to be made only on the basis of the merit i.e. on the basis of marks with proficiency in tribal language of the community. This suggest that selection has to be made on the basis of the aggregate marks of educational qualification and marks secured in proficiency test in tribal language. It is further evident from clause 5.3(b) that merit list will be prepared based on the total percentage of marks secured by the candidates in HSC examination, Higher Secondary(+2) examination and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (C.T.) examination. If provision of Clause 5.3 will be read together with clause 5.3(b), decision which was taken for deciding suitability of candidates is the marks of educational qualification with proficiency in tribal language. Thus aggregate marks on these both heads has to be considered for the purpose of preparing mark list. 9. Petitioner has participated being a physically handicapped candidate but not selected approached this Court. The State Project Director,OPEPA has come out with the guideline as contained in Annexure-A/4 annexed to the counter affidavit filed by the State dated 28.10.2013 wherein following provision has been made. "The written test will carry 50 marks and will contain questions on Composition, Translation from Odia to Tribal language and from tribal language to Odia and Grammar. The examination will be of 01 hour's duration from 11.30 A.M. to 12.30 A.M. All the applicants who have fulfilled the eligibility criteria will be called for the Test. The minimum qualifying marks in the written test will be 18 (36% of the full marks of 50)." Thus the Director, OPEPA has inserted one condition in the original resolution dated 6.8.2013 by way of corrigendum and on the basis of that resolution suitability of one or the other candidates has been decided, petitioner has been given 16 marks which was less than the minimum mark by virtue of guideline dated 28.10.2013, hence not selected. 10. Petitioner has raised two questions : (i) As to whether the condition which has been contained in the original resolution dated 6.8.2013 can be altered once selection process commenced ? (ii) Can the Director, OPEPA insert any additional condition in the resolution dated 6.8.2013 which has been issued in the name of His Excellency Governor of Odisha and as such same is the taken by the Government, hence Director, OPEPA in individual capacity has no authority or power to alter, addition or subtract any condition in the decision taken by the Government. 11. 11. So far as first question is concerned, selection process will be said to be commenced the date when advertisement was issued and selection will be said to be concluded when offer of engagement is issued in favour of one or the other candidates. In this case, advertisement was issued on 6.8.2013 which was on the basis of the resolution dated 6.8.2013 making certain condition regarding mode of application and engagement etc. in which provision has been made for preparation of merit list and testing suitability of one or the other candidates on the basis of the aggregate marks i.e. marks on the basis of educational qualification and the proficiency test in tribal language. In the resolution no minimum marks has been prescribed rather there is no bifurcation of marks for testing suitability of one or the candidates. Specific stipulation has been made in the resolution dated 6.8.2013 merit list will be prepared based on the total percentage of marks secured by the candidates in HSC examination, Higher Secondary (+2) examination and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (C.T.) examination. According to the petitioner he is eligible and if the authorities would have followed the method of preparation of merit list, he would have been selected but the authorities in the midst of the selection process has come out with a decision having issued by the Director, OPEPA dated 28.10.2013 and the method of selecting candidate has been changed by fixing minimum cut-off marks and the said mark has been fixed as 18 i.e. 18 marks secured in the written test out of full marks of 50 is the minimum cut-off marks. This condition is not there in the resolution dated 6.8.2013. Rule is settled that once selection process started the authorities cannot change method of selection of candidate, this is due to various reason that if anything is to be amended or modified, that will give effect to prospectively not retrospectively because of the reason that candidates who have already participated in the selection process after knowing condition mentioned in the advertisement, they think that selection has been made on the basis of said condition. However, it is also settled that selection committee can evaluate in method of selection if not prescribed in the resolution or the advertisement published or issued for the post in question, but if the selection procedure has already been fixed, selection committee cannot changed the same. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3714 wherein at paragraph-13 it has been held : "Thus, law on the issue can be summaries to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva voce." Thus it is settled that if there is no procedure prescribed by the Rule and there is no impediment in law, competent authority may prescribe procedure for the post and minimum Bench Marks in written test as well as for viva voce. In this case, procedure for selection has already been fixed in the resolution dated 6.8.2013 which was published on 6.8.2013 and the Director, OPEPA has changed the procedure which cannot be said to be in consonance with the proposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above. 12. Situation might be changed if there is no terms and condition or the method of selection is not mentioned, when there is specific condition mentioned for criteria for selection, same cannot be changed in midst of selection process. Reference may be may to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra SRTC and others v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others reported in (2001)10 SCC 51 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph-5 held : "It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the games of the rules 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. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the Circular Orders dated 24.6.1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside." In the case of P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India reported in (1984)2 SCC 141 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held : "This Court was considering the validity of a selection process under the ICAR Rules, 1977 which provided for minimum marks only in the written examination and did not envisage obtaining minimum marks in the interview. But the Recruitment Board (ASRB) prescribed a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the interview also. This Court observed that the power to prescribe minimum marks in the interview should be explicitly and cannot be read by implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. This Court held that as there was no power under the Rules for the Selection Board to prescribe the additional qualification of securing minimum marks in the interview, the restriction was impermissible and had a direct impact on the merit list because the merit list was to be prepared according to the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates at written test and interview. This Court observed : "44?.. Once an additional qualification of obtaining minimum marks at the viva voce test is adhered to, a candidate who may figure high up in the merit list was likely to be rejected on the ground that he has not obtained minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test. To illustrate, a candidate who has obtained 400 marks at the written test and obtained 38 marks at the viva voce test, if considered on the aggregate of marks being 438 was likely to come within the zone of selection, but would be eliminated by ASRB on the ground that he has not obtained qualifying marks at viva voce test. This was impermissible and contrary to Rules and the merit list prepared in contravention of Rules cannot be sustained." In view of the said stipulation as indicated hereinabove, action of the authorities cannot be said to be justified in not selecting the petitioner by taking into consideration the guideline dated 28.10.2013, hence first question raised by the petitioner has got substance. 13. 13. So far as the second question regarding jurisdiction of the Director, OPEPA in making alteration in the condition of the resolution dated 6.8.2013 of suitability of one or the other candidates, it is settled that authority of the state Government is not authorized to take any decision regarding decision having been taken by the State Government. Resolution dated 6.8.2013 has been issued in the name of His Excellency Governor of Odisha as such resolution dated 6.8.2013 will be said to be order passed by the State Government. It is settled that individual functionary of the State Government has got no power to make any alteration or addition in the decision taken by the State Government. Since resolution dated 6.8.2013 has been passed and issued in the name of His Excellency Governor of Odisha, implied meaning is that same has been approved by the Cabinet of the State as required under Article-166 of the Constitution of India, hence any addition or alteration can only be made adopting the same procedure the basis upon which resolution has been passed and it is not the jurisdiction of individual authority in making any correction, alteration, addition without resorting to the said procedure. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to discuss the power of President or the Governor as conferred under Articles 77 and 166 of the Constitution of India and has been pleased to state that if order is passed by the authority not in accordance with Article 77(1) and (2) or Article 166(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, order cannot be said to be in consequence with conformity with the constitutional process. This judgment appears relevant in the context of the case because of the reason that the resolution dated 6.8.2013 has been issued in the name of His Excellency Governor of the State said to be passed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and the Governor has been empowered under Article 166(3) to make rules for more convenient transaction of the business of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business. Thus, there cannot be any confusion that if the order has been passed by the State Government in the name of His Excellency Governor of the state, it can only be altered, modified, reviewed or rejected by the same process. In this writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged engagement already made or not challenged the entire selection process rather he has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sikshya Sahayak for the district of Kandhamal in pursuance to the advertisement under Anenxure-1, hence without making any comment upon the selection already made case of the petitioner deserves to be considered. 14. Accordingly, the matter is remitted before the competent authority to take decision regarding candidature of the petitioner in the light of the resolution dated 6.8.2013 if he will be found to be eligible and suitable on the basis of the parameters fixed therein, consequently order shall be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Final Result : Disposed Of