JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for appointments on the post of Poshan Sakhis, which was to be done in different Panchayats of Nirsa Block and further for issuance of appointment letters in view of their selection and in view of the merit lists prepared as per Annexure-3. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. There was an advertisement for appointment to the post of Poshan Sakhis in all 67 panchayats of Nirsa Block, issued under the signature of respondent No. 3. In terms of the said advertisement, the petitioners applied for the post of Poshan Sakhis in their respective panchayats. Petitioners submitted all their respective documents to the concerned authorities in presence of the elected members of Panchayat i.e. Mukhiya, Samiti Members, Ward Members and other villagers and on the basis of application received from different candidates for the said posts of Poshan Sakhis for the respective panchayats and after due consideration and after adopting the procedure inscribed therein, a merit list was screened out by the four members Committee comprising of respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the system and formula adopted by the learned Member Committee, petitioner No. 1 was given rank-1 for being appointed to the post of ‘Poshan Sakhi’ for the Angabari Centre vide merit list dated 29.12.2015 and also because she hails from OBC Category. Similarly, petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also given rank-1 for being appointed to the post of ‘Poshan Sakhi’ for the Anganbari Centre mentioned in their respective Angabari Centre vide merit list prepared by the four member Committee of the competent Authorities, which is apparent from Annexures- 4, 5 and 6 of the present writ application. It is the further case of the petitioners that subsequently, on the basis of the marks obtained and being selected for appointment to the post of ‘Poshan Sakhi’ through an advertisement published in the local daily newspaper, namely, Dainik Jagran dated 08.05.2016, these petitioners were called along with their original certificates for verification on 12.05.2016. It is the further case of the petitioners that subsequently, on the basis of the marks obtained and being selected for appointment to the post of ‘Poshan Sakhi’ through an advertisement published in the local daily newspaper, namely, Dainik Jagran dated 08.05.2016, these petitioners were called along with their original certificates for verification on 12.05.2016. In pursuance to the said advertisement, all the petitioners appeared before the competent authorities of the respondents on 12.05.2016 but till date no action has been taken from side of the respondents for issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of ‘Poshan Sakhi’. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of appointment letters, as the respondents are sitting tight over the matter, passing no orders regarding issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that as the petitioners have been selected by the Committee duly constituted by the Deputy Commissioner as per the Rules, they are entitled for appointment to the said post i.e. Poshan Sakhis. Learned counsel submits that they have secured higher marks and are duly qualified for the said post and as such, there is no occasion to turn down their candidatures for the said post and this Court may give a direction to the Deputy Commissioner for issuance of appointment letters as they have duly qualified. 6. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned JC to SC-IV, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rai submits that merely preparation of merit list does not entitle the petitioners for appointments. Mr. Rai further submits that a new rule is in existence vide government letter No. 872 dated 01.04.2016, para 2(ii) of which says that in case of tie of marks, the candidates who have secured maximum marks in matriculation examination has been given the preference in the merit list for selection to the post of Poshan Sakhis and as per the new Rules, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment to the post of Poshan Sakhis. 7. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. 7. The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Mahesh Tewari submits that already there was a rule in existence and the appointments of the petitioners were in accordance to the existing rule. In order to strengthen his arguments, Mr. Mahesh Tewari relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Md. Sohrab Khan Vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors., reported in JT 2009 (2) SC 666, in which the Hon’ble Court has held that, “Selection Committee cannot go behind advertisement. No interference with the impugned judgment called for.” In the instant case, even in the advertisement no such rule was mentioned. 8. Be that as it may, in view of the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. It is a settled principles of law that rules of game cannot be changed, when the game is over. In this regard reliance can be had to the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 1470 and Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 . In the instant case, when the selection process is complete, the respondents have come-out with a new rule, which is not permitted in the eyes of law. In view of the settled propositions of law and in view of the admitted fact that the petitioners have duly been selected in accordance with law and their names find place in the merit list, there is no occasion for the respondents to deny the issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, rules, guidelines, I hereby direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps for issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.