Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, C.J.—These L.P. appeals are preferred against a common order made in SWP Nos.2154/2012, 2393/2012, 2419/2012, 2467/2012, 2485/2012, 2531/2012, 2709/2012, 1166/2013 & 43112014 dated 2811.2014 whereby allowing the writ petitions seeking to quash Notice dated 06.09.20’12 and corrigendum dated 20.09.2012 and directing the Services Selection Board to go ahead with the selection process of candidates for the post of Accounts Assistant in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No.07 of 2010 elated 12.11.2010 and complete the same within one month. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of these appeals are stated thus: The Services Selection Board by advertisement notice No.07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 invited applications for various posts including 872 posts of Accounts Assistant for various Districts in the pay scale of 5200-20200. The minimum qualification required was graduation. The criteria fixed for selection was 70 points for graduation (pro-rata basis), 10 points for post graduation (pro-rate basis) and 20 points for Viva voce. The writ petitioners having the requisite qualification for the post of Accountants Assistant applied pursuant to the advertisement notice under open merit category. After short- listing, the writ petitioners were interviewed. Thereafter provisional select lists for the post of Accounts Assistant for the District Cadre Jammu and Samba were notified on 26.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 respectively in which writ petitioners were shown as provisionally selected for the post of Accounts Assistant. But before the provisional select list could be acted upon, the Services Selection Board issued Notice No.SSB/Set/Say/12/2337-43 dated 06.09.2012 revising the criteria for the post of Accounts Assistant. The revised criteria reads thus:— “i. Graduation in any line (excluding B.Ed) 70 pts (pro-rata) ii. Post Graduation in line i.e., MA/M.Sc. Maths, M.Com M.A. Eco., 10 pts (pro-rata) MA/M.Sc. STs, MBA, MIB or MFC” The Services Selection Board by issuing Corrigendum vide No.SSB/Sel/Secy/012/2576-80 dated 20.09.2012 modified the eligibility criteria and decided to conduct written test for determining the merit of the candidates and merit secured in such written test was decided to be the eligibility condition for appearing in the viva voce ignoring the provisional selection list already notified as stated supra. Having aggrieved by the said action, the writ petitioners filed writ petitions challenging Notice elated 06.09.2012 and Corrigendum dated 20.09.2012. Having aggrieved by the said action, the writ petitioners filed writ petitions challenging Notice elated 06.09.2012 and Corrigendum dated 20.09.2012. The Services Selection Board in the reply affidavit filed before the writ court stated that some of the candidates, who failed to make the grade for short-listing filed SWP No.586/2011 before the Srinagar Wing of this Court questioning consideration of B.Ed qualification by pleading that the same was not relevant for the post of Accounts Assistant. It was further stated that while disposing of the writ petition the Writ Court observed that prima facie it appears that B. Ed degree has not even the least relationship with the post of Accounts Assistant and directions were issued to the Services Selection Board to re-look into the whole issue and take a fresh decision and in pursuance of the said direction after re-examining tile whole selection process the criteria for the post of Accounts Assistant was rationalized by notification dated 06.09.2012 and corrigendum dated 20.09.2012. It was further contended that writ petitioners cannot claim appointment merely because their names figured in the provisional select lists. 3. The learned Single Judge by relying on a decision of Hon’ble tile Supreme Court reported in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P, (2003) 3 SCC 512 held that once the entire selection process was completed introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview which is not mentioned in the Recruitment Rules would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was over and the writ petitions were allowed with a direction to the Services Selection Board to go ahead with the selection process for the post of Accounts Assistant excluding B.Ed qualification in pursuance of Advertisement Notice No.07 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 and complete the same within one month. Against the order of the Writ Court, the Services Selection Board has preferred these appeals. 4. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy.AG appearing for the appellants argued that the impugned orders challenged before the Writ Court were issued on the basis of the liberty granted by the learned single Judge in terms of order made in SWP No.586/2011 dated 30.04.2012 and the Services Selection Board is willing to implement any order, which may be passed by this Court as it deem appropriate. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. D.C. Raina, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the respondents and other counsels appearing for the respondents, argued that the appellants are relying upon judgment of the Srinagar wing ignoring the fact the provisional selection lists were drawn based on the earlier notification issued and it was not in tune with the Recruitment Rules and tile judgment relied on by the learned Deputy Advocate General is only to exclude B.Ed degree while assessing additional qualification and none of the respondents, whose names were included in the provisional select lists published, as stated supra, are possessing B.Ed degree and insofar as the conduct of the appellants is concerned, even during pendency of the writ petitions, Advertisement Notice No.03 of 2012 dated 28.12.2012 was issued by the Services Selection Board i.e., after about 08 months from the date of judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court which is dated 30.04.2012, inviting applications for various posts numbering 3193 including 05 posts of Accounts Assistant, which is mentioned at S.No.27. In the said notification also the qualification prescribed is any degree in graduation and the additional qualification for giving weight-age is mentioned as PG degree and no written test was proposed. Therefore, the appellants are not justified in taking a contrary stand in these appeals. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. It is not in dispute that advertisement Notice No.7 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 was issued by the Service Selection Board inviting applications for various posts including 872 posts of Accounts Assistant in the State and District Cadre. Short-listing was adopted based 011 graduation and PG. degrees and on the basis of short list of the candidates, interviews were held for 20 marks. Based on the assessment of merit, provisional select lists were drawn and also published on 26.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 for district Cadre Jammu and Samba respectively wherein the writ petitioner-respondents were shown to have been provisionally selected. Before the select list could be implemented, a writ petition (SWP No.586/2011) came to be preferred by some candidates before the Srinagar wing of this Court questioning consideration of B.Ed qualification as preferential qualification for the post of Account Assistant. Before the select list could be implemented, a writ petition (SWP No.586/2011) came to be preferred by some candidates before the Srinagar wing of this Court questioning consideration of B.Ed qualification as preferential qualification for the post of Account Assistant. The said writ petition was disposed of by the writ court on 30.04.2012 directing the appellants herein to re-consider the whole issue and take a decision within a period of two weeks so that the selection process is taken to its logical end. In compliance to the said direction issued following decisions were taken by the committee:— “1. The SSG should revisit the whole criteria adopted for short listing the candidates for the posts of Accounts Assistants in both the Divisions and award marks to Graduation strictly as per tile norms. The %age of marks in the Graduation would be given weightage without awarding any marks to the B.Ed being a higher qualification and not relevant to the subject/post. 2. Additional marks shall be awarded to the qualification which are relevant to the subject and possession of which would have a bearing on the discharge of duties by a particular selectee. To elucidate this point, if the qualification prescribed for the post of J.E. is both three years diploma and degree in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical engineering etc, weightage can be given to higher qualification like M.Tech in the relevant subject/discipline. Similarly, additional marks can be awarded for Graduation/Post Graduation B.Ed/M.Ed qualifications while making selection of the Teachers in the School Education Department. 3. It was also decided that the Finance Department would review tile Kashmir Subordinate Accounts Services (KSAS) Rules, 1961 and specify the requisite qualification besides updating the schedules.” 8. Thereafter the Services Selection Board issued a notification elated 06.09.2012 revising the criteria for the post of Accounts Assistant and corrigendum dated 20.09.2012, modifying the eligibility criteria without even revisiting the Rules decided to conduct written test to determine the merit of the candidates in place of the academic merit i.e., academic merit of 70 points for written test. Thereafter the Services Selection Board issued a notification elated 06.09.2012 revising the criteria for the post of Accounts Assistant and corrigendum dated 20.09.2012, modifying the eligibility criteria without even revisiting the Rules decided to conduct written test to determine the merit of the candidates in place of the academic merit i.e., academic merit of 70 points for written test. The said notification and corrigendum were challenged by the writ petitioners and the learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that the criteria came to be challenged after publication of the provisional select lists, allowed the writ petitions and after quashing notice dated 06.09.2012 and corrigendum dated 20.09.2012 directed the appellants to go ahead with the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement notice No.7 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 excluding B.Ed qualification and complete the same within a period of one month. The learned Single Judge has noticed a very important fact namely, as to whether the rules of selection can be changed during middle of the selection or at the end of the selection. In this case the selection process was commenced and completed by drawing provisional select lists. Appointment order alone was not issued to the selected candidates. A similar issue arose before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported (2013) 12 SCC 600 (J&K Institute of Management, Public Administration and Rural Development v. Renu Balan and Ors.), wherein it was held that norms applicable for selection as per the Recruitment Rules should be strictly complied with and modification of recruitment rule by Court is impermissible and it is improper on the part of the High Court to direct amendment or relaxation of recruitment rules. In the decision reported as 2014 (13) SCC 644 (Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Jadish Chandra Singh Bora and Another) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that change of Norms/Principles/Rules applicable during recruitment process is impermissible, unless the same is stated in the advertisement or in the Rules. In the Decision reported as AIR 2011 SC 2829 (Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna and Others v. Modh Vinaykurnar Dasrathlal and Others), it has been held that the advertisement issued having not mentioned about cut off marks for viva voce though the Rules provided for the same introduction of cut off marks by the PSC before interviews started not justified. In the decision reported as (2009) 4 SCC 555 (Mohd. In the decision reported as (2009) 4 SCC 555 (Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and Others), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that deviation from the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement notice is impermissible and recruitment must be conducted according to prescribed educational qualifications. Learned Single Judge also relied on a decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported as (2003) 3 SCC 512 (K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.) for the said proposition i.e., the change of norms during middle of the selection is impermissible. 9. Apart from the said decisions of the Supreme Court, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for some of the private respondents, that in the subsequent selections made pursuant to notification dated 28.12.2012, norms were not changed and the appellants followed the norms based on which select lists were published as per notice issued on 12.11.2010. 10. In such circumstances, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court and direct the appellants to implement the judgment of the Writ Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. L.P. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.