JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the State Government established U.P. Live-Stock Development Board on 7.1.1999 which is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. A decision was taken to initiate selection proceeding on the post of Chief Executive Officer and thereafter, an advertisement was issued on 2.11.2017 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates to appear in the selection. 3. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017, the petitioner applied for vide application dated 24.11.2017. Qualification is B.V.Sc, Animal Husbandry, MBA and 30 years’ experience. Due to some personal reason, no selection proceeding could take place and another advertisement was issued on 2.6.2018 prescribing qualifications to apply with further stipulation that the candidates who applied in pursuance to the earlier advertisement dated 2.11.2017, are not required to apply for the same. In the advertisement published on 2.6.2018 qualifications were prescribed. 4. Challenging the selection, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an advertisement was issued on 2.11.2017 prescribing certain qualifications for selection and appointment and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner applied for, then during the pendency of the selection proceeding another advertisement issued prescribing other qualifications is not permissible in law and any selection made in pursuance thereof vitiates in law and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that in the advertisement issued on 2.6.2018 it was provided that it is in continuation to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017. 5. He next submitted that once the game started, rules of the game cannot be changed. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Chand Meena and others v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 484 . Paragraph 8 of the Judgment reads as under: "8. Having heard the parties, we have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of some of them and have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. Paragraph 8 of the Judgment reads as under: "8. Having heard the parties, we have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of some of them and have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. In our considered view, the issue noticed at the outset must be decided on the basis of settled law noticed by the learned Single Bench that recruitment process must be completed as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per Rules existing when the recruitment process began. In the present case, the Division Bench has gone to great lengths in examining the issue whether BPEd and DPEd qualifications are equivalent or superior to CPEd qualification but such exercise cannot help the cause of the respondents who had the option either to cancel the recruitment process if there existed good reasons for the same or to complete it as per terms of advertisement and as per Rules. They chose to continue with the recruitment process and hence they cannot be permitted to depart from the qualification laid down in the advertisement as well as in the Rules which were suitably amended only later in 2011. In such a situation, factual justifications cannot change the legal position that the respondents acted against law and against the terms of advertisement in treating such applicants successful for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III who held other qualifications but not the qualification of CPEd. Such candidates had not even submitted separate OMR application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.III which was essential as per the terms of advertisement." 6. Further reliance has been placed on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55 . Para 27 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission. Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect: "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules." 7. On the other hand, S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 2.11.2017, the decision was taken not to proceed with further selection and thereafter, fresh advertisement was issued on 2.6.2018 prescribing qualifications as per the Rules applicable to the said selection, therefore his submission is that the advertisement issued on 2.6.2018 is not a corrigendum to the advertisement issued on 2.11.2017 nor it is in continuation of the advertisement issued on 2.7.2017. Therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. 8. He further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Therefore, the submission advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. 8. He further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 9. He next submitted that the candidature of the petitioner was considered on merits in compliance of the judgment passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 24516 of 2018 and the petitioner was not found fit to be selected in the said selection proceedings. 10. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the record of the writ petition, impugned selection challenged in the present writ petition and the law-reports relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he does not have requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement dated 2.6. 2018. 12. Initially, the selection proceeding was initiated in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 2.11.2017. The petitioner applied for but due to some reason, the selection could not be finalized. 13. The appointing Authority again issued an advertisement on 2.6.2018 inviting applications from eligible and qualified candidates having requisite qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner was not required to apply as per the condition imposed therein. When his candidature was not non-suited then he filed Writ Petition No.24516 of 2018 titled 'Dr. Janardan Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Animal Husbandry, Lucknow & Anr.' wherein the following order was passed: "It has been stated by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the advertisement, the Government reserves the right to relax the essential qualification/ experience as a special case and considering the exemplary work done by the petitioner, he deserves to be considered for grant of relaxation, for the reason that though he is having a Bachelor’s Degree in Veterinary Science in Animal Husbandry, however he is not having Master’s Degree in Veterinary Science to his credit. He has further stated that in the earlier selection, all the candidates who had made applications, were called for interview. He has further stated that in the earlier selection, all the candidates who had made applications, were called for interview. Drawing attention of this Court to the Minutes of the Board of Directors of U.P. Livestock Development Board, which have been annexed as annexure3 to the writ petition, it has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is the Selection Committee which can grant relaxation to deserving candidates. We have been informed that interview for the post in question i.e. the post of Chief Executive Officer of U.P. Livestock Development Board is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. 29.08.2018. In these circumstances, we direct that petitioner shall be provisionally permitted to participate in the interview for the post in question. We further direct that the Government/ Selection Committee, as the case may be, shall consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of relaxation and depending upon the outcome of the said consideration, his candidature shall be considered in accordance with law. Respondents will file their counter affidavit by the next date of listing." 14. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the candidature of the petitioner was considered on merits and he was not found fit to be selected. 15. In regard to the controversy on the point of change of rules during the course of initiation of selection proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig and others reported in (1991)1 SCC 544 has held in paragraph 6 of the judgment as under: "6. When the selection process has actually commenced and the last date for inviting applications is over, any subsequent change in the requirement regarding qualifications by the University Grants Commission will not affect the process of selection which has already commenced. Otherwise it would involve issuing a fresh advertisement with the new qualifications. In the case of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, this Court has observed: It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Otherwise it would involve issuing a fresh advertisement with the new qualifications. In the case of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, this Court has observed: It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. The Court further observed that: Since the amending rules were not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover, as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force, the amended Rules could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment.”. 16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter has held in the case K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 in paragraph 25 of the judgment which is quoted hereinbelow: "25. When the Administrative Committee placed the merit lists and Selection List before Full Court, apparently objections were raised on two grounds. One related to the failure to provide the minimum of 50%, 40% and 35% marks for interviews, on the interpretation of resolution dated 30.11.2004 read with earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002. The second objection was that even though the Administrative Committee had resolved that the marks for written examination would be 75 and interview would be 25, at the time of tabulating the marks, the marks secured (out of 100 marks) in the written examination had been taken into account without scaling it down with reference to a maximum of 75 marks. The Full Court therefore, appointed a Sub-Committee of two Judges to examine the matter and prepare a fresh merit list and selection list. The Sub-Committee examined the matter and submitted a revised merit list by incorporating two changes. Firstly, while tabulating the marks, it scaled down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, in proportion to a maximum of 75 marks so that the final marks were with reference to a base of 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview as resolved on 30.11.2004. Firstly, while tabulating the marks, it scaled down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, in proportion to a maximum of 75 marks so that the final marks were with reference to a base of 75 marks for written examination and 25 marks for interview as resolved on 30.11.2004. Secondly, it applied the minimum percentage of 50%, 40% and 35% for OC, BC, SC/ST even in regard to interviews and consequently, eliminated those who secured less than the minimum in the interview from the process of selection. The final selection list was prepared with reference to the fresh merit list prepared by incorporating the said two changes. " 17.The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case selection proceeding is initiated in pursuance to an advertisement prescribing certain qualifications and if there is change in the rules of the game, the same cannot be applied for in a selection proceeding initiated in pursuance to the advertisement issued at earlier point of time. Here in the present case, the selection was initiated by issuing an advertisement on 2.11.2017 which could not be completed and thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued on 2.6.2018 with liberty that those candidates who have applied in pursuance to the earlier advertisement, are not required to apply for consideration of claim for selection, therefore, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the mid-selection, the qualification prescribed for selection was changed, cannot be accepted because in the earlier advertisement dated 2.11.2017, the qualification was prescribed on the basis of existing rules at the relevant point of time and thereafter, by issuing fresh advertisement on 2.6.2018, the qualification was prescribed in accordance with the existing rules for the selection and appointment on the post in question. 18.In regard to submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidates who applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017, were permitted for consideration of their candidature, therefore, the advertisement issued on 2.6.2018 may be treated to be corrigendum to the earlier advertisement and the qualification prescribed under the advertisement dated 2.6.2018 cannot be made basis of selection, in this regard, this Court holds that on perusal of both the advertisements, it is well established that subsequent advertisement dated 2.6.2018 is not a corrigendum to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017. In fact, the selection proceedings initiated in pursuance to the advertisement dated 2.11.2017 could not be finalized and thereafter, fresh advertisement was issued on 2.6.2018 prescribing certain qualifications, therefore, the submission advanced in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rules of the game was changed in midway of selection, is not acceptable. The advertisement dated 2.6.2018 is a separate advertisement prescribing certain qualification. The qualification prescribed therein is not fulfilled by the petitioner, therefore, no case is made out by the petitioner. 19. After overall consideration of the law reports referred above as well as the facts and circumstances narrated above, no ground is made out for interference by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.