ORDER : Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for Telangana State Public Service Commission for Social Welfare Department, for Education Department and respondent-Residential Societies. 2. The Telangana State Public Service Commission issued notification No.29 of 2017 on 2.6.2017 calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Principal (School) in the schools run by the Social Welfare, Backward Classes Welfare, Minorities Welfare and Tribal Welfare, and Residential Educational Institutions Societies. 3. Petitioners responded to this notification and participated in the recruitment process. They claimed to have passed main examination. They were called for certificate verification. After verification of certificates, they were disqualified from further selection process. Hence, these writ petitions. 4. In W.P.No.10170 of 2019 petitioners are challenging the recruitment notification per-se and the reasons assigned to reject the candidature of the petitioners for further selection process. In W.P.Nos.19127, 19230 and 19863 of 2019 petitioners are challenging sub paragraph 4-‘B’ of the recruitment notification and rejection of their candidature by referring to experience gained by teaching to Degree college students and/or experience prior to Post Graduation qualification. 5. The personal particulars of the writ petitioner and reasons for rejection of the applications of petitioners is tabulated as under: Sl No. and W.P.No. Name of the petitioner Educational qualifications Experience Reasons for rejection 1. WP No.10170/19 1) Brahmachary B.Com., - 2002 B.Ed., - 2003 M.A., - 2012 Worked as SGT from 09.06.2005 and promoted as HM of primary school having administrative duties Administrative experience in primary school is not considered as valid Administrative experience. 2) P.Sathish B.A., - 2006 B.Ed., 2008 Worked as Degree college lecturer for 5 Teaching experience as Lecturer in degree PG-MA – 2009 years 16 days, and also worked as HM having admn.duties for a period of 3 years 11 days college is not treated as valid teaching experience. 3) G.Srimathi BA – 2005 PG-MA – 2007 Ph.D - Worked as Degree College lecturer cum vice principal for 3 years 3 days; worked as Contract residential teacher for a period of 5 years 7 months 12 days administrative experience as Vice Principal is not considered as valid 4) Ch.Ramesh B.Sc.- 1992 B.Ed., - 1999 M.Ed., - 2007 Worked as Jr.College Lecturer for 4 years and also worked as Lecturer (M.Ed.,) for about 9 years Does not have administrative experience W.P.Nos.19127, 19230 and 19863 of 2019 : 5.1. The individual particulars of petitioners and reasons for rejection of their candidature are extracted in the table below: Sl No. and W.P.No. Name of the petitioner Educational qualifications Experience Reasons for rejection 1.WP No.19127/19 1) T Karuna M.Sc (Chemistry) B.Ed Head Mistress: 9.3.2013 to 5.4.2017; Teaching Experience: Degree College Lecturer from 2002 to 2013 Teaching experience in a Degree college is not valid. 2. WP No.19230/19 Gollena Mahesh M.Sc (Botany) B.Ed Degree College Lecturer from 2008 Teaching Experience in Degree College can not be considered. No Administrative Experience 3. WP No.19863/19 Hanmanth Ashok M.A (Arts) 2015 B.Ed Worked as Post Graduation Teacher= 2.6.2007 to 2.6.2010; School Assistant= 6/2010 to 7/2012; Eng.College:2016- 2017; Head Master: 6/2012 to 4/2016 Petitioner secured Post Graduation in 2015. Teaching Experience prior to 2015 can not be counted. B.Ed and Eng.College experience can not be considered. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS IN W.P.No.10170 of 2019: 6.1. That qualification prescribed in the recruitment notification is ex facie without power or jurisdiction. The School Education in India is governed by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTD) Regulations, 2014 (for short Regulations, 2014) notified under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and instructions issued from time to time by the National Council, and also the Right to Education Act, 2009 (for short the Act, 2009). Learned counsel would submit that Regulations 2014 prescribe qualifications for the post of Head Master in primary and high schools, similar to the qualifications prescribed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and School Assistant i.e., Degree with Bachelor of Education. Only for the Senior Secondary/ Intermediate Teachers/Lecturers, Post Graduation with Bachelor of Education is prescribed. Instant recruitment is to the post of Principal/Head Master in the schools run by the respondent societies. Therefore, the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE alone should be applied. There is no justification to prescribe higher qualifications than what is stipulated by the NCTE Regulations. 6.2. He would further submit that the schools and junior colleges are governed by different set of curriculum and there are separate Boards which regulate the functioning of the schools and Intermediate colleges. Schools have a different set-up compared to junior colleges. Thus, prescribing the teaching experience as Lecturer in junior college and administrative experience in the junior college has no correlation to the requirement of schools run by the respondent educational institutions. Schools have a different set-up compared to junior colleges. Thus, prescribing the teaching experience as Lecturer in junior college and administrative experience in the junior college has no correlation to the requirement of schools run by the respondent educational institutions. It amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. 6.3. He further submitted that in the schools run by State Government, there is no post of Post Graduate Teacher. A Secondary Grade Teacher teaches classes in primary school and School Assistant teaches to higher classes. The qualification prescribed is Graduation with Bachelor of Education. Thus, to work as Secondary Grade Teacher and School Assistant a person need not have Post Graduation. When there is no requirement of Post Graduation as per Regulations, 2014 and provisions of Act, 2009 and the service rules governing the State Government employment, there is absolutely no justification to the respondent societies, which are established by the State Government, to prescribe the work experience as Post Graduate Teacher to be eligible to compete to the post of Principal. Further, there is no justification to equate Post Graduate Teacher in the schools to that of Junior Lecturer in the junior colleges. A post graduate teacher or a School Assistant teaches students up to 10th class whereas junior lecturer teaches students prosecuting Intermediate course of study. This clearly shows respondents deliberately prescribed qualifications which are irrelevant and have no nexus to the job profile of a Principal and to restrict the zone of consideration. 6.4. He further submitted that TSPSC exceeded its jurisdiction and competence to prescribe common eligibility criteria to the posts borne in different societies. Each of the respondent societies are independent bodies. They have their own recruitment regulations/By-Laws. The qualifications and eligibility criteria prescribed to hold the post of Principal in the schools run by respective societies are different and distinct. Learned counsel relied on the averments made in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the relevant by-laws to demonstrate different qualifications prescribed by the respondent societies. He submitted that TSPSC could not have prescribed common eligibility criteria and common recruitment examination to the post of Principal in separate societies when the recruitment criteria is different from society to society. Therefore, holding a common selection is per se illegal. 6.5. He submitted that TSPSC could not have prescribed common eligibility criteria and common recruitment examination to the post of Principal in separate societies when the recruitment criteria is different from society to society. Therefore, holding a common selection is per se illegal. 6.5. He further submitted that in Telangana Tribal Welfare Educational Society the only method of recruitment to the post of Principal is by promotion and there is no direct recruitment method prescribed therein. The by-laws governing the 7th respondent have not prescribed requirement of administrative experience. Therefore prescribing such qualification and making direct recruitment to the post of Principal in the 7th respondent society is ex facie illegal. 6.6. He further submitted that in the respondent societies higher qualifications are prescribed for direct recruitment when compared to qualification prescribed for promotion to the very same post and that amounts to discrimination. When recruitment is to the same post, there cannot be different qualifications for different methods of recruitment. 6.7. He further submitted that while prescribing five years teaching experience as Post Graduate Teacher, there is no justification to deny five years teaching experience as a Contract Resource Teacher. In Kasthruba Gandhi Balike Vidyalya (KGBV) residential schools, Contract Resource Teacher is a post which discharges similar duties and responsibilities as that of Post Graduate Teacher and requires same qualifications. Therefore, ignoring the service rendered as Contract Resource Teacher is per se illegal. 6.8. He further submitted that the recruitment notification has not explained what is meant by terms ‘Post Graduate Teacher’ and ‘Junior Lecturer’. In the absence of explaining what is meant by these terms, the TSPSC was acting arbitrarily and rejecting the eligibility of School Assistants. The School Assistants have gained experience after acquiring post graduation qualification and they teach to same category of students a Post Graduate Teacher teaches. Therefore designation has no relevance. Ignoring experience gained by School Assistant even with Post Graduation amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. 6.9. According to learned counsel for petitioners recruitment to a post must be in accordance with the Rules/ Regulations/By-laws governing the posts on the date of notification. Any changes effected to the Rules/Regulations/By-laws after the notification can have no bearing on the process of recruitment set in motion. 6.9. According to learned counsel for petitioners recruitment to a post must be in accordance with the Rules/ Regulations/By-laws governing the posts on the date of notification. Any changes effected to the Rules/Regulations/By-laws after the notification can have no bearing on the process of recruitment set in motion. In support of his contention that the ‘rules of the game cannot be changed after game has started’, he placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, (2001) 10 SCC 51 . 6.10. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the principles of ‘estoppel’ and ‘approbate and reprobate’ are not attracted while challenging the recruitment notification. If the notification is vitiated per se, merely because the candidate participated in the recruitment is not a ground to deprive them to avail extraordinary remedy and writ petition is maintainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam and others Vs Sanjeev Kumar and others, 2020 SCCOnline SC 448. 6.11. No person already working as Head Master of a School or as Principal of a College would opt to the service of Head Master/ Principal of the Schools run by the respondent societies. Further, administrative experience gained as Principal of a Junior College has no nexus to hold the post of Principal in the Schools run by respondent societies. It amounts to arbitrary prescription of eligibility criteria. 6.12. He would submit that no cut off date was prescribed for producing the experience certificate and TSPSC went on extending the experience criteria making eligible candidates who acquired eligibility after the last date of submission of applications and that amounts to illegal selection process. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL SRI P.GIRI KRISHNA: 7.1. Having received the application and permitted the petitioner to write examination, it is not open to TSPSC to reject the candidature of petitioner for further selection process. 7.2. It is illegal to restrict teaching experience to High School or Junior College and ignore teaching experience gained while teaching Degree students. It amounts to discrimination, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. When petitioner gained better teaching experience by teaching Degree students that experience can not be ignored. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL SRI BHARAT CHANDRA MADAS: 8. 7.2. It is illegal to restrict teaching experience to High School or Junior College and ignore teaching experience gained while teaching Degree students. It amounts to discrimination, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. When petitioner gained better teaching experience by teaching Degree students that experience can not be ignored. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL SRI BHARAT CHANDRA MADAS: 8. While reiterating the submissions urged by learned counsel Sri P.Giri Krishna, he would submit that teaching experience gained in any manner cannot be ignored. He further submitted that the recruitment notification did not specify that teaching experience has to be only after Post Graduation and therefore experience gained prior to Post Graduation cannot be ignored. Further, petitioner worked as Post Graduation Teacher from 2007 to 2010 and as School Assistant from 2010 to 2012 cumulatively 5 years which is sufficient to gain eligibility. LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 9.1. Learned Additional Advocate General raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petitions. According to learned Additional Advocate General, with eyes wide open petitioners participated in the selection process and when they were disqualified for further selection process on the ground that they are not fitting into the eligibility criteria, these writ petitions are filed. Having participated in the selection process, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the very recruitment notification. Petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate and are estopped from contesting the recruitment notification. 9.2. In support of this contention, learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the following decisions: Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar and others, (2010) 12 SCC 576 ; Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2014) 16 SCC 187 ; D.Sarojakumari vs. R.Helen Thilakom and others, (2017) 9 SCC 478 ; and Anupal Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2020) 2 SCC 173 . 9.3. He has further submitted that the eligibility criteria to hold the post of Principal and method of recruitment, in the respective societies were not similar. On review of the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment, the Hon’ble Chief Minister suggested to amend the criteria with reference to minimum qualifications and experience. On the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the Societies have deliberated the desirability to review and standardize the method of recruitment and eligibility criteria. On review of the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment, the Hon’ble Chief Minister suggested to amend the criteria with reference to minimum qualifications and experience. On the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the Societies have deliberated the desirability to review and standardize the method of recruitment and eligibility criteria. A Committee of senior officers was formed comprising of Commissioner and Director of School Education, Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Joint Director (Services), office of the Commissioner and Director of School Education and Secretary, Telangana State Residential Educational Institutions Societies, to make recommendations on the amendments required to be carried out for recruitment of teachers in the residential schools. The Committee deliberated on various aspects and furnished its report. The School Education Department forwarded the report to the Scheduled Caste Development (RS) Department. The Department in turn forwarded the report to the Secretary, TSWREIS requesting to examine the same and furnish the revised proposals. The proposals were deliberated. He would therefore submit that much before the recruitment notification was issued, the process was set in motion to standardize eligibility criteria and method of recruitment to the post of Principal in the schools run by the respondent societies. Decisions were arrived on the revised common qualifications. Based on the decisions arrived, the Special Chief Secretary to Government SC Development Department addressed letter to the TSPSC requesting to initiate process of recruitment to fill the vacancies in the posts of Principals. 9.4. By relying on paragraph-V of the recruitment notification, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the Clause is very wide in its application and it takes note of not only the bylaws but also orders/instructions issued by the Government and decided by the Commission from time to time which govern the recruitment. Therefore, the present recruitment is not only governed by the by-laws that were in force earlier but also governed by the subsequent decisions taken by the societies and the orders and directions issued by the Government from time to time and reflect the intendment of the employer. He would submit that as is evident from the letter of the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, School Education Department addressed to Secretary, TSPSC on 01.04.2017, all the societies have adopted the common by-laws. 9.5. He further submitted that the conditions of eligibility as applicable to the post of Principal do not violate, the NCTE Regulations. He would submit that as is evident from the letter of the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, School Education Department addressed to Secretary, TSPSC on 01.04.2017, all the societies have adopted the common by-laws. 9.5. He further submitted that the conditions of eligibility as applicable to the post of Principal do not violate, the NCTE Regulations. The NCTE has prescribed minimum qualifications to hold a post and there is no restriction in prescribing higher qualifications than what is stipulated by NCTE. The bar is against lowering the qualifications below what is prescribed by NCTE. 9.6. He justified the eligibility criteria by contending that it is for the societies to prescribe what qualifications are required to hold a post. It is within the competence of the employer to prescribe lower qualifications and eligibility criteria and to exclude candidates possessing higher qualifications. 9.7. He would submit that mere participation in the selection process do not vest indefeasible right to claim to permit them for further selection. Only such if the candidates who fulfill the eligibility criteria alone entitled to participate in the further selection process. When recruitment notification prescribes particular eligibility criteria the candidate must fulfill the criteria. What criteria is relevant is for the employer to decide and Court cannot interfere in such aspects. 9.8. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the decisions relied by the learned counsel for petitioners have no application to the facts in issue in this case and are clearly distinguishable. 10. The issues for consideration are: 1. Whether recruitment notification is vitiated on the ground that the eligibility criteria prescribed is contrary to the service by-laws of the respective societies ? 2. Whether stipulating experience as a Post Graduation Teacher in a High School or a Junior Lecturer in a Junior College only as eligibility criteria is illegal ? and 3. Having participated in the selections in pursuant to the recruitment notification, can petitioners challenge the very recruitment, merely because they are not selected ? PREFACE: 11. Before considering the issues it is pertinent to note peculiarity of recruitment to public employment. Two important aspects of public employment are: (1) it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe eligibility criteria and method of selection; and (2) the employer must ensure that all eligible candidates get opportunity to participate in the selection process. PREFACE: 11. Before considering the issues it is pertinent to note peculiarity of recruitment to public employment. Two important aspects of public employment are: (1) it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe eligibility criteria and method of selection; and (2) the employer must ensure that all eligible candidates get opportunity to participate in the selection process. Corollary to these two aspects, two important parameters of recruitment to a public employment are: (i) the selection process must be transparent and fair and (ii) the candidate’s right to seek public employment is that opportunity to participate in the selection is enabled and is assured that fair selection process is conducted. It does not extend to appointment as a matter of course merely because he is adjudged suitable. ISSUE NO.1: 12. There are two aspects on this issue. Firstly, whether the recruitment notification and steps taken by the respondents would amount to ‘changing the rules of the game after the game has started’; and secondly, whether the recruitment notification is vitiated on the ground that it was contrary to the relevant provisions of the service by-laws/ regulations. CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME: 13. On the first aspect, learned counsel for petitioners laid great emphasis on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharastra State Road Transport Corporation (supra). Briefly noted, after the commencement of selection process, the selection committee, arbitrarily allotted 25% marks to personal interview in such a manner that the marks obtained in the driving test lost significance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “5……. Instead, it would have been well open to the High Court to have declared that the criteria sought to be fixed by the circular dated 24-6-1996 as the sole determinative of the merit or grade of a candidate for selection long after the last date fixed for receipt of application and in the middle of the course of selection process (since in this case the driving test was stated to have been conducted on 27-11-1995) cannot be applied to the selections under consideration and challenged before the High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, 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. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, 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.” 14. Any organized sport is governed by the set of rules and guidelines in which the game has to be played. The sportsman prepares for the game based on the rules, which regulate the game and plans his tactics by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent. Thus, after the game starts, if the organizers change the rules of the game, it probably suits one of the participants in the game and affects the other person’s game plan. Therefore, is the saying, ‘not to change the rules of the game after the game has started’. Extending this principle to the service jurisprudence, particularly with reference to the recruitment, it means, after the recruitment process has commenced, if the employer changes the method of recruitment, eligibility criteria, and other important parameters of selection, which impacts the selection process, it may affect the candidate’s ability to perform in the selection process. Further, having found that they are not qualified or not capable of effectively participating in the selections, as per the terms specified in the recruitment notification, others may not have responded to the recruitment notification. If only changed criteria was notified earlier, even they would have applied. Therefore, after recruitment process is set in motion, the employer should not alter the eligibility criteria and/or method of selection, which may impact the selection process drastically. For example, in a recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer in the State Government service, the qualification prescribed is obtaining Post Graduation with first division and maximum age of eligibility as 45 years. Looking at the qualifications prescribed, a person with second class Post Graduation Degree and/or person, who has crossed 45 years, may not have applied as he was not eligible at the threshold itself. Looking at the qualifications prescribed, a person with second class Post Graduation Degree and/or person, who has crossed 45 years, may not have applied as he was not eligible at the threshold itself. After the last date for receipt of applications is over, if the employer reduces minimum eligibility criteria to that of second class Post Graduation Degree and increases the age of eligibility to 50 years, without extending time to apply, it will certainly deprive those candidates falling into this bracket, and gives undue advantage to others who have applied in anticipation of such relaxation. Further, while the recruitment notification envisage written examination and viva-voce and selection is based on overall performance in both, after the notification, if employer changes the criteria of selection by dispensing with both and notifies selection based on marks secured in SCC only, it amounts to changing ‘the rules of the game after the game has started’. 15. In the following decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court considered the scope of the principle ‘not to alter the criteria for selection in the middle/after the process of selection has commenced’. 15.1. In G.Swarna Gouri and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, G.A.D., and others, 2006 (2) ALT 664 (D.B.), one of the issues considered by the Division Bench of this Court was, whether the subsequent decision of the Government fixing the upper age limit of eligibility for direct recruitment from the date of eligibility mentioned in the recruitment notification, is valid in law and would it amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has started. On reviewing the precedent decisions, on the scope of individual’s right to seek public employment and the competence of the employer to prescribe appropriate conditions of recruitment, Division Bench held as under: “64. We, therefore, reject the submission of the contesting respondents that as a matter of absolute rule there can never be an alteration of the rules governing the recruitment process in the midstream. From an examination of the various decisions referred to above, we understand the legal position to be that the rules governing the recruitment process cannot be altered in the mid-stream in such a way as to affect the rights of the candidates participating in the selection process to their detriment. From an examination of the various decisions referred to above, we understand the legal position to be that the rules governing the recruitment process cannot be altered in the mid-stream in such a way as to affect the rights of the candidates participating in the selection process to their detriment. By the expression "detriment" we mean altering in such a way by which some or all of the otherwise eligible candidates are rendered unfit for appointment on some count or the other. 65. Alteration of the rules such as the one in question before us making some more candidates eligible to participate in the selection process falls into a different category. No authority is placed before us to establish that even such an alteration is legally impermissible. Therefore, we conclude that the contesting respondents did not have any indefeasible and legally enforceable right, to be appointed, merely because they participated in the selection process, pursuant to the 1st notification dated 21-11-2003. This we say on the authority of a Constitutional Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash (supra). We also conclude that there is no prohibition in law preventing the State from altering the process of selection in the midstream as long as such an alteration did not render any one of the otherwise eligible candidates ineligible to participate in the selection process. All that the alteration in question sought to achieve is to enable some more candidates also to participate in the selection process. The power to make such alteration is within the power of the State as observed by the Supreme Court in Jai Singh Dalal's case cited (supra).” (emphasis supplied) 15.2. In Secretary, A.P.Public Service Commission vs. B.Swapna and others, (2005) 4 SCC 154 , the applicant before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) claimed to be the first person in the waiting list. At the time of preparing selection list, system of maintaining waiting list for one year was in force. According to her, after the selections were over, system of maintaining waiting list was dispensed with and without appointing her fresh recruitment was resorted to. The APAT gave directions in her favour. In a writ petition filed by the Public Service Commission challenging the directions of APAT, the Hon’ble High Court held that un-amended Rule 6 was applicable, i.e., to maintain and operate waiting list. Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court. The APAT gave directions in her favour. In a writ petition filed by the Public Service Commission challenging the directions of APAT, the Hon’ble High Court held that un-amended Rule 6 was applicable, i.e., to maintain and operate waiting list. Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the relevancy of not changing eligibility criteria after notification was issued. Paragraph-14 reads as under: “14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka [ (1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC 727] and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig [ (1999) 1 SCC 544 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 325].)” 15.3. In Mohd.Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and others, 15.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. In Mohd.Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and others, 15.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post. 27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Master's degree-holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of Pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to Pure Chemistry stream.” 15.4. In Pitta Naveen Kumar and others vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and others, (2006) 10 SCC 261 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “32. The legal position obtaining in this behalf is not in dispute. A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise. By reason of the amended notifications, no change in the qualification has been directed to be made. Only the area of consideration has been increased. Those who were not eligible due to age bar in 2003 became eligible if they were within the prescribed age-limit as on 1-7-1999. By reason thereof only the field of choice was enlarged. By reason of the amended notifications, no change in the qualification has been directed to be made. Only the area of consideration has been increased. Those who were not eligible due to age bar in 2003 became eligible if they were within the prescribed age-limit as on 1-7-1999. By reason thereof only the field of choice was enlarged. We would briefly consider the purport and effect thereof.” 16. It thus emerges from above discussion that after the commencement of process of selection, selection criteria cannot be changed to the ‘detriment’ of some candidates participating in the selections that may result in unduly tilting the scales in favour of few other candidates. In the case on hand, the criteria of selection is not changed after the commencement of the selection process. Selection process is in due compliance of the terms specified in the recruitment notification. Therefore, in the facts of this case, ‘the principle not to change the rules of the game after game has started’ has no application. Whether recruitment notification is liable to be declared as illegal by holding it as contrary to the service by-laws/regulations of the respondent societies: 17. The challenge to the recruitment notification is mounted on two fronts. Firstly, the respondent societies have their own service by-laws which prescribe different eligibility criteria and method of recruitment to the post of Principal. Therefore, it is not permissible to pool up vacancies in different societies, prescribe common eligibility criteria and hold common selection. Further, eligibility criteria and experience prescribed in the recruitment notification is different from what was stipulated in the by-laws. Secondly, the eligibility criteria specified, such as, Post Graduation, teaching experience after securing the Post Graduation, teaching experience as Lecturer in a junior college, administrative experience as Head Master/Principal, prescribing higher educational qualifications than specified i.e, by the National Council, have no nexus to the duties and responsibilities attached to the post, are not required to the post, they are unreasonable, and unconstitutional. CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS: 18. Subject to overarching power of judicial review, it is the exclusive prerogative of the employer on how he makes recruitment to various posts; to create hierarchy of posts and stipulate method of recruitment and eligibility criteria. CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS: 18. Subject to overarching power of judicial review, it is the exclusive prerogative of the employer on how he makes recruitment to various posts; to create hierarchy of posts and stipulate method of recruitment and eligibility criteria. It is not uncommon that even for a similar nature of post, with same functions, duties and responsibilities, born on the establishment of two different employers may have different eligibility criteria and method of recruitment. In matters of recruitment to public employment, two aspects are fundamental. Firstly, when he takes up the recruitment, the employer has to specify clearly the eligibility criteria that may include educational qualifications, experience, age etc.,; and secondly, selection process must be transparent; that include notification containing all the details and giving it wide publicity, holding eligibility test and/or interview, display of merit list, etc. The petitioners have no grievance on second aspect. The debate rests on first aspect vis-à-vis the governing by-laws/regulations. 19. The chronology of events that unfolded leading to the recruitment notification and the steps taken by the Government and the societies, thereafter, as vividly demonstrated by learned Additional Advocate General, makes out this case study unique in this branch of service jurisprudence. The process to stipulate common eligibility criteria and method or recruitment was set in motion when the Hon’ble Chief Minister conducted review of functioning of the institutions run by the respondent societies and issued directions to improve the functioning of the residential educational institutions. He has ordered for review of the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment. Based on the said directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the ball was set to roll to review the bylaws governing the service conditions of teachers working in the institutions run by the respondent societies and to take up recruitment to fill the posts of Principal (Schools). A Committee of senior officers was constituted. The Committee reviewed the bylaws, made its recommendations prescribing common eligibility criteria and method of recruitment. The individual societies have considered the recommendations and have taken steps to give effect to the recommendations by amending the by-laws. Having concretized the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment, the TSPSC was requested to take up common recruitment to the post of Principal in the educational institutions run by the respondent societies by prescribing common eligibility criteria. Ultimately, common by-laws are adopted by the societies. Having concretized the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment, the TSPSC was requested to take up common recruitment to the post of Principal in the educational institutions run by the respondent societies by prescribing common eligibility criteria. Ultimately, common by-laws are adopted by the societies. The eligibility criteria and method of recruitment prescribed in the recruitment notification is in accord with the service by-laws adopted and notified later. Thus, though when the notification was issued bylaws of all the respondent-societies did not support the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment prescribed by the PSC, by the time selection process reached final stage, both match in all respects. It is appropriate to note that selections are not finalized. 20. It is appropriate to note at this stage that the societies are formed to impart quality education to the children belonging to the respective social groups. The main objective of the State to establish these educational institutions with all amenities targeting individual social groups, by maintaining high standards in organizing the institutions and imparting better education is, to encourage parents in the respective social groups to enroll their children in the schools. All this is intended to increase the literacy rate in the State and to provide quality education to needy sections of the society. Therefore, though individual societies may address the needs of particular social group, the method of imparting quality education and provision of amenities, is same. Therefore, the intendment of the Government to standardize the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment is in line with this objective. 21. The decision of the Government and the decisions of the societies to prescribe common eligibility criteria and make a common recruitment is apparent and clear even before notification was issued. The intendment of the managements of the respondent societies was very clear and apparent. They wanted to revise the eligibility criteria and to prescribe common recruitment procedure and eligibility criteria to the post of Principal in the institutions run by the societies. This was reflected in the steps taken leading to the recruitment notification and the subsequent actions. TSPSC was informed accordingly by the Special Chief Secretary, SC Welfare Department. School Education Department also clarified on prescribing uniform eligibility criteria and to conduct common selections. There was no ambiguity. Consequential steps were taken to give effect to the intendment. Corollary to the intendment now common service by-laws/regulations are put in place. TSPSC was informed accordingly by the Special Chief Secretary, SC Welfare Department. School Education Department also clarified on prescribing uniform eligibility criteria and to conduct common selections. There was no ambiguity. Consequential steps were taken to give effect to the intendment. Corollary to the intendment now common service by-laws/regulations are put in place. It is not a case where eligibility criteria was changed after the recruitment notification was issued. It is also not a case of mid-course correction on any aspect of recruitment. 22. At this stage, it is appropriate to note the text of paragraph-V(2) of the recruitment notification. Paragraph-V is ‘on important legal provisions governing the recruitment process’. Having regard to the steps initiated by the Government and respondent societies, prior to recruitment notification, paragraph-V(2)[ Para V..(2) Recruitment:-- The Recruitment will be processed as per the Notification and also as per the Byelaws/ Service Regulations, B.O.G recommendations of the Residential Educational Institution Societies and orders / Instructions issued by the Government and also as decided by the Commission from time to time.] of Annexure–A, assumes significance. It specifies that the recruitment process is not only governed by the by-laws/service regulations, but also based on recommendations of the Board of Governors of the respective societies and orders/instructions issued by the Government and as decided by the Commission. It clearly provides guidance to the thinking process in the Government and respondent societies on measures sought to be put in place. Every aspect was clearly spelt out. There was no hide and seek game played. No ambiguity on the direction adopted by the societies. 23. It is also pertinent to note that appointment to public employment must be based on prior specified parameters. It should be governed by set of rules/regulations/by-laws/policy decisions/administrative orders. There must be a notification specifying criteria of selection, eligibility criteria and selections should be conducted in a transparent manner. All this process must precede an appointment. However, only on appointment a person becomes a public servant. Person appointed to public employment must satisfy the conditions of eligibility to the post he was appointed. Thus, pre-recruitment process is to ensure fair selection, but selection can culminate into holding public post only on appointment. In the entire scheme, the date of appointment is the criteria to test the eligibility and before the appointments are taken up the criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification has the statutory backing. 24. Thus, pre-recruitment process is to ensure fair selection, but selection can culminate into holding public post only on appointment. In the entire scheme, the date of appointment is the criteria to test the eligibility and before the appointments are taken up the criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification has the statutory backing. 24. Assuming that on the day of notification by the Public Service Commission, the eligibility criteria and method of selection as specified in the notification is not backed / it is contrary to the service by-laws/regulations of the respective societies, subsequently said notification has secured the statutory backing by way of amendment to service by-laws/regulations. In other words, the competent authority of the respective societies have ratified the earlier decision to go for direct recruitment by prescribing particular standardized qualification and resorting to common direct recruitment. 25. In Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vs Sunil, (2006) 5 SCC 96 , dealing with the issue of ratification of an order, which was illegal when made, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “7. The High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently “rectified” by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, namely, “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act”. Therefore ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. [See P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, (2005) Vol. 4, p. 3939 et seq.] 10. In the present case, the Managing Director's order dismissing the respondent from the service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors on 20-2-1991 and the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. On the basis of the authorities noted, it must follow that since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it. 25.1. The scope of ratification of a decision/order made by the incompetent authority was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Institute of Technology and another Vs Pannalal Choudhury and another, (2015) 11 SCC 669 . 25.2. 25.1. The scope of ratification of a decision/order made by the incompetent authority was also considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Institute of Technology and another Vs Pannalal Choudhury and another, (2015) 11 SCC 669 . 25.2. On review of precedent decisions and what is meant by ‘ratification’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “29. The expression “ratification” means “the making valid of an act already done”. This principle is derived from the Latin maxim “ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur” meaning thereby “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act”. It is for this reason, the ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. 30. The expression “ratification” was succinctly defined by the English Court in one old case Hartman v. Hornsby [Hartman v. Hornsby, 142 Mo 368 : 44 SW 242 at p. 244 (1897)] as under: “‘Ratification’ is the approval by act, word, or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly or unauthorisedly performed in the first instance.” 31. The law of ratification was applied by this Court in Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India [Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 543 ]. In that case, the Chairman of the Board of Directors had terminated the services of the General Manager of a Company pursuant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It was not in dispute that the meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed in the said meeting terminating the services of the General Manager was invalid. However, the Board of Directors then convened subsequent meeting and in this meeting affirmed the earlier resolution, which had been passed in improper meeting. On these facts, the Court held: (SCC pp. 546-47, para 14) “14. … Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16-12-1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors. The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorised, was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on 17-12-1953.” This view was approved by this Court in High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh [High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh, (2003) 4 SCC 239 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 424]. 32. The aforesaid principle of law of ratification was again applied by this Court in Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil [Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil, (2006) 5 SCC 96 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 926]. In this case, the respondent was an employee of the appellant Corporation. Consequent to a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed by the Managing Director of the appellant. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Board of Directors of the appellant Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the impugned action of the Managing Director and also empowering him to take decision in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs 4700 p.m. Earlier, the Managing Director had powers only in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs 1900 p.m. The respondent at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs 1800 p.m. Therefore, at the relevant time, the Managing Director was incompetent to dismiss the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court held [Sunil v. Maharashtra State Mining Corpn., 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 758 : (2006) 1 Mah LJ 495] the order of dismissal to be invalid. The High Court further held that the said defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and granted consequential relief. The appellant then filed the appeal in this Court by special leave. The High Court further held that the said defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and granted consequential relief. The appellant then filed the appeal in this Court by special leave. Ruma Pal, J. speaking for the threeJudge Bench, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court held as under: (Sunil case [Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil, (2006) 5 SCC 96 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 926] SCC pp. 96g-h & 97a-b) “The High Court rightly held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act could not be subsequently ‘rectified’ by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, namely, ‘a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act’. Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. *** In the present case, the Managing Director's order dismissing the respondent from the service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. Since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it.” 33. Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to the facts at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the order of dismissal dated 16-8-1996 was passed by the Principal and Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such order under the Rules nor was there any authorisation given by the BoG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BoG in their meeting held on 22-8-1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal and Secretary in passing the respondent's dismissal order dated 16-8-1996, all the irregularities complained of by the respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal and Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the competent authority (Board of Governors) themselves with retrospective effect from 16-8-1996 thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the Rules.” 26. In the instant case, on account of subsequent amendment of service by-laws/regulations incorporating the eligibility criteria and method of recruitment to the post of Principal (Schools) of the respondent-societies, the initial decision to prescribe the said qualifications, eligibility criteria and method of recruitment notification and requesting the Public Service Commission to make recruitment stands ratified. As noted above, the new amended provisions have already come into force, even before appointments are made. Thus, by the time appointments take place, they will be in accordance with the amended by-laws/regulations. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not see patent illegality in the course adopted by the respondents for this Court to interject in the selection process. ISSUE NO.2: 27. Paragraph no.4 of the notification deals with Educational Qualifications and Experience required by a candidate intending to apply. The table appended to paragraph-4 reads as under: “4) Educational Qualifications: Applicants must possess the qualifications from a recognized University as detailed below or equivalent thereto and experience as specified in the relevant Bye Laws/ Service Regulations indented by the Residential Educational Institutions Societies as on the Date of Notification. Post code Name of the Post Educational Qualifications & Experience 1 2 3 4 5 Principal (School) in Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Society Principal (School) in Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society. Principal (School) in Mahatama Jothiba Phule Telangana Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society. Principal (School) in Telangana Minorities Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society Principal (School) in Telangana Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society. A. Academic Qualifications: i) A second class Master’s Degree (M.A./M.Sc/M.Com) or its equivalent from an institution recognized by the UGC, in the relevant (Annexure-A) school subjects for which the Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) are eligible with not less than 50% of marks in aggregate or its equivalent. ii) In case of SC/ST/BC/Differently abled candidates, 45%. the minimum marks shall be iii) A B.Ed or equivalent degree from an institution recognized by the NCTE with the Teaching Methodology in the concerned subject. B. Experience: iv) A total teaching experience of not less than (8) years including not less than (5) years as PGT/JL in any Government/Aided/ Government recognized High School/ Junior College and (3) years of administrative experience as Head Master/ principal of Government/Aided/ Government recognized High School/ Junior college C. Desirable Knowledge of Computer Applications. 28. The eligibility criteria is two fold. Academic qualifications and experience. 28. The eligibility criteria is two fold. Academic qualifications and experience. The academic qualifications prescribed are Post Graduation and B.Ed. It also requires that in B.Ed., the candidate must have methodology in the same subject in which he studied in the Post Graduation. Further, it requires the candidate to be eligible to secure post of Post Graduate Teacher. 29. Experience prescribed is two fold. Teaching and Administrative experience. Notification requires minimum of 8 years teaching experience. Important aspect of teaching experience is one must be a Post Graduate Teacher in a High School or a Lecturer in a Junior college. The teaching experience clause is emphatic in insisting that the candidate must be eligible to become a Post Graduate Teacher even if he is working as a Junior Lecturer. Thus, mere becoming a Junior Lecturer is also not sufficient but one must be eligible to become a Post Graduate Teacher. It means he must also have same methodology in B.Ed course of study in sync with his specialization in Post Graduation. A teacher has to teach subject of his specialization and training. By studying Post Graduation in a subject or two, person acquires specialization in that subject(s). But that is not enough to teach high school students. To be able to teach the high school students he must acquire the skill to teach the subject. He acquires such skill by studying B.Ed., with methodology in the same subject(s) he studied in Post Graduation. Thus, with Post Graduation and B.Ed., with same methodology, person can be able to acquire a command to teach the students on his subject of specialization and gains good experience. Though, a Lecturer in a Junior College teaches intermediate students, but the employer wants only such Lecturers who have acquired skill to teach by opting to same methodology in B.Ed. Course. A Principal is required to perform administrative responsibilities and also required to teach. Thus, even though a person earlier worked as Junior Lecturer, he will have to teach higher secondary class students. Therefore, employer insists that he must have the training to teach this class of students. 30. Followed by educational qualifications and teaching experience a candidate must have minimum of three years administrative experience as a Head Master of a High School or as Principal of a Junior College. Therefore, employer insists that he must have the training to teach this class of students. 30. Followed by educational qualifications and teaching experience a candidate must have minimum of three years administrative experience as a Head Master of a High School or as Principal of a Junior College. It means while involving in teaching, person must also gain administrative experience by working as Head Master of a High School or as a Principal of a Junior College. The notification does not recognize acquiring administrative experience in any other manner, be it as administrative Principal/ In-charge Principal/Vice-Principal/Administrative In-charge/ District Educational Coordinator, etc. It has not made a provision to accept equivalent qualification. 31. The post of Principal is in a school imparting education to higher secondary school students. He is required to lead team of teachers to impart quality education to children coming from under privileged and/or economically backward classes of the society and make them stand up in the society. Therefore, he must have keen understanding of that age group students, must have good knowledge of the subject of his specialization and good experience as an administrator. A mixture of all this helps in managing the affairs of the school and motivate teachers and students to give better output. The intendment to achieve this objective is discernible while prescribing the eligibility criteria. It appears, the eligibility criteria is tailor made to suit the needs of High school education. Teaching and administering higher secondary school students pose different challenges requiring honing up special skill as compared to dealing with students prosecuting Graduation. At the level of graduation, a student is more matured and focused in his education and career. The Degree Lecturers only need to acquire knowledge on his subject of specialization. Thus, their exposure to teaching graduate students and lack of teaching experience at the High School / Junior College level may prove to be counter productive and they may not fit the bill. 32. Having regard to requirements of a Post, it is permissible to prescribe qualifications, tailor made to suit the job profile of the post and in a given situation higher qualification can be a disqualification. 32. Having regard to requirements of a Post, it is permissible to prescribe qualifications, tailor made to suit the job profile of the post and in a given situation higher qualification can be a disqualification. A candidate may have acquired greater skill in teaching in a Degree college and / or in administering the affairs of an educational institution by working in various capacities as Vice-Principal/In-charge Principal etc, but when it comes to recruitment, the candidate has to fit into the eligibility criteria specified by the employer. There is no ambiguity in the eligibility criteria specified in the notification. The intendment of the employer is clear and specific. The employer, in his wisdom, wants only such candidates who can fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is discernible from sub-paragraph (4), the purpose and object of prescribing the relevant eligibility criteria i.e., good academic record, long teaching experience, skill to teach high school students and good administrative experience makes a person complete man to fit into the assignment effortlessly and lead his team. 33. It is the prerogative of the employer to stipulate conditions of eligibility. Scope of judicial review is very limited on prescribing eligibility criteria. The Court cannot step into the shoes of employer and review what eligibility criteria is intended or best suited to a post. Court cannot sit as Appellate Authority to make an assessment of what ought to have been stipulated by employer. Court can not substitute the eligibility criteria by assessing the requirements and claims. 34. Scope of judicial review in matters touching recruitment to public employment is considered by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch in the judgment rendered on 18.09.2020. The opinion of Full Bench, to the extent relevant, reads as under: “61. Judicial review of administrative action is core of our constitutional scheme and rule of law. It is all pervading and encompasses all aspects of Executive actions where rights of individuals are affected. However, scope of judicial review in matters touching recruitment to public employment is in a narrow compass. Judicial review on such aspects is confined to, whether any mala fide/arbitrary decision was taken to prescribe particular qualification only to favour a particular person(s), and/or such qualifications, though not at all required to hold the concerned post, but is prescribed in order to eliminate a person(s). Judicial review on such aspects is confined to, whether any mala fide/arbitrary decision was taken to prescribe particular qualification only to favour a particular person(s), and/or such qualifications, though not at all required to hold the concerned post, but is prescribed in order to eliminate a person(s). And if there are illegalities in the selection process vitiating the selection. As long as the eligibility criteria and procedure of selection meets the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India, and no illegalities are pointed out in the selection process, the scope of judicial review on the qualifications prescribed to a post, and the procedure of selection is limited one. 62. From precedent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in matters of prescribing eligibility criteria, selection procedure and right of a candidate seeking public employment, the following principles can be culled out: 1. Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India neither exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical, but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. [State of Mysore v. P.Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 -paragraph 4]. 2. The Courts should not usurp the function of determining the appropriate method of selection, and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. That would be amounting to re-writing the rules; the courts should not undertake such an exercise. [Lila Dhar Vs State of Rajasthan, (1981)4 SCC 159 : Paragraph-9] 3. Matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, prescribing additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference, criteria of selection fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The Court has no role either in determining the methodology of recruitment, or in laying down the criteria of selection. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements that a candidate must possess, according to the needs of the employer, and the nature of work. In the garb of judicial review, a Court cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority, and decide what is best for the employer. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements that a candidate must possess, according to the needs of the employer, and the nature of work. In the garb of judicial review, a Court cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority, and decide what is best for the employer. Moreover, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer, and ordain that a particular post be filled in a particular manner. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. In such matters, the power of judicial review can be exercised only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision, or is patently arbitrary, or is vitiated due to mala fide. It is also not open to the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving the efficiency of administration. [Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242 : Paragraph-37]. [Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) : Paragraph-9]. 4. Since the administrative authorities have experience in administration, the Court must respect this. Thus, the Court should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. The Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions, unless there is clear violation of some constitutional or statutory provision (or the statute.). [Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 753 : Paragraph-15]. There should be judicial restraint in administrative decisions. [Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. 5. An enabling provision postulates a discretion which may or may not be exercised. The Court cannot find fault in exercising an enabling power in a particular manner. [Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : Paragraph-29] 6. Where an Executive action of the State is challenged, the Court must tread with caution, and not overstep its limits. The interference by the Court is warranted only when there are oblique motives, or there is miscarriage of justice. [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 : Paragraph-21] 7. Where an Executive action of the State is challenged, the Court must tread with caution, and not overstep its limits. The interference by the Court is warranted only when there are oblique motives, or there is miscarriage of justice. [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493 : Paragraph-21] 7. The recruitment notification merely amounts to an invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment. On their selection, they do not acquire indefeasible right to the post, even if all the vacancies notified are not filled up. [Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : Paragraph- 7; Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others, (2020) 2 SCC 582 : Paragraph-13]. 8. In service jurisprudence, constitutional Courts should balance the equality principle with the principle of classification, dependent on the nexus for making the classification; this aspect is best left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities [State of Uttarakhand Vs S.K.Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 49 : Paragraph-27]. 9. If mode of selection is not prescribed by the rules, and there is no other impediment in law, it is permissible for the competent authority to lay down the norms for selection, such as holding tests, minimum benchmarks for written test as well as for viva voce. [Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 3 SCC 104 : Paragraph 15]. Depending on the nature of the post, it is permissible to make selection based on performance in the interview. [Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P., (2000) 7 SCC 719 : Paragraph-26]. 10. If classification is otherwise legal, valid and reasonable, it is not prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [State of Bihar Vs. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturer Association and others, (2008) 7 SCC 231 : paragraph-14]. 63. From the above presidential case law on all the four aspects it is, thus, safe to conclude that: (a) & (b) xxx (c) It is for the employer to prescribe procedure of selection for direct recruitment to public employment; (d) xxx (e) The scope of judicial review in matters of prescribing qualifications, procedure of selection, and method of selection is very limited. The Writ Court cannot act as Court of appeal, and cannot determine what qualifications can be prescribed to hold a post; it cannot prescribe the procedure of selection to make regular recruitment. The Writ Court cannot act as Court of appeal, and cannot determine what qualifications can be prescribed to hold a post; it cannot prescribe the procedure of selection to make regular recruitment. Only when there is patent illegality in the selection procedure/process would the writ Court interfere.” 35. In paragraph-92, the Full Bench held: “92. …… it is for the employer to prescribe the qualifications required to hold a post. It is equally for the employer to prescribe the procedure for selection and to recruit the eligible and suitable persons for a post. Depending on the job description, the employer may stipulate educational qualifications, age, and experience. Posts in the higher echelons, specialized posts, posts in special establishments may require specialized qualifications, experience and only by a particular category of persons. ………….. Thus, depending on the requirements of a job, appropriate qualifications/ eligibility criteria may be prescribed. It is the prerogative of the employer. Judicial review cannot be stretched to oversee what qualifications, eligibility criteria, and mode of selection should be prescribed by the employer.” (emphasis supplied) 36. Admittedly, petitioners have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria stipulated by the employers. Therefore, they can not complain of their disqualification from further selection process. ISSUE NO.3: 37. The petitioners also require to cross more formidable objection i.e., ‘estoppel’ and ‘approbate and reprobate’. 38. Sub-paragraph-4 of paragraph-I of the recruitment notification (extracted above), delineates the eligibility criteria to participate in the selection for the post of Principal. Paragraph-V of the Annexure-A to notification deals with important legal provisions governing recruitment process. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph-V clearly specifies the intendment of employers and the Government of how they wanted to go about in making the recruitment. The recruitment notification was issued on 02.06.2017. 24.06.2017 was the last date for submission of applications. The notification indicates the date of screening test and date of main examination. The screening test was conducted on 10.09.2017. The main examination was conducted on 14.05.2018. The results of written examination were declared and certificate verification was undertaken between 25.09.2018 and 29.09.2018, and results were published on 14.03.2019. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in batch of writ petitions, notification was issued on 17.04.2019 and on 20.04.2019, the Public Service Commission received 330 applications submitting the experience certificates and on scrutiny, 39 candidates were considered. The results of written examination were declared and certificate verification was undertaken between 25.09.2018 and 29.09.2018, and results were published on 14.03.2019. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in batch of writ petitions, notification was issued on 17.04.2019 and on 20.04.2019, the Public Service Commission received 330 applications submitting the experience certificates and on scrutiny, 39 candidates were considered. These writ petitions are instituted on 01.05.2019 (WP No.10170 of 2019), on 30.08.2019 (W.P.No.19127 of 2019), on 03.09.2019 (W.P.No.19230 of 2019), and on 10.09.2019 (W.P.No.19863 of 2019). In other words, petitioners participated in the selection process, were aware of what was happening all along and took U-turn only after the results were published and their candidature was rejected and instituted the writ petition challenging the very recruitment notification / clause in the recruitment notification. 39. At this stage, it is necessary to rewind into the precedent decisions on the proposition urged by the learned Additional Advocate General, i.e., having participated in the selection process and when candidate was not successful in the selections, he cannot turn around and challenge the very selection process. 39.1. In Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1995) 3 SCC 486 , after the selection process was completed to make the recruitment for appointment to the post of Munsif in Jammu & Kashmir State, the entire process was challenged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “9…..Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043 ] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. (emphasis supplied) 39.2. In Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), after completion of entire selection process, rejected candidate challenged the recruitment notification by contending that earmarking 200 marks for viva-voce test as against 850 marks for written test was illegal and unconstitutional. High Court repelled the said contention. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Court was right in holding that having participated in the selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva-voce test, petitioner was not entitled to challenge the criteria or selection process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [ (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] , Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [ (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] , Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P. [ (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [ (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005] , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [ (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [ (2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57]”. (emphasis supplied) 39.3. In D.Sarojakumari (supra), the petitioner challenged the recruitment in which he participated on the ground that the post of Music Teacher is required to be filled up by promotion on the basis of her seniority and could not have resorted to direct recruitment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection”. (paragraph-4). 39.4. In Ranjan Kumar (supra) also, after participating in the selection process the unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection on the ground that procedure adopted for selection was vitiated as candidates were selected only by interview without holding any written test. On review of precedent decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the contention that having participated in the selection, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the selection process after the selection is over. The same principle is reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh (supra). 40. To rebut the contention of learned Additional Advocate General on maintainability of writ petition by applying the principles of ‘approbate and reprobate’ and ‘estoppel’, learned counsel for petitioners Smt. Shirisha Katkojwala contended that similar objection on maintainability of writ petition, having participated in the selections was overruled in the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3019 of 2018 rendered on 16.09.2019, and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra). 41. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, in Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that notified selection process was never followed and the selection criteria followed was never notified. 41. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, in Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that notified selection process was never followed and the selection criteria followed was never notified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the Commission declared the criteria of selection only in the final results declared on 10.04.2010. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the objection to challenge the selection process having participated in the selections. 42. Similarly, in the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3019 of 2018, the recruitment notification was issued on 14.04.2017, examination was held in May, 2017 and writ petition was filed on 31.01.2018. On 01.02.2018, the Court granted stay of all further proceedings. However, Public Service Commission went ahead to declare the result in May, 2018. Having regard to this chronological events, learned single Judge held that respondents cannot raise the plea that petitioners challenged the notification after they discovered that they were unsuccessful in the examination conducted by it because the writ petition was filed before the declaration of results. From paragraph-19 of the judgment, it is also seen that the Court granted interim direction by holding that the 3rd respondent therein has no jurisdiction to change the qualification to the post of Physical Education Teacher differently from those prescribed by the Society Recruitment Rules. Thus, in that case, interlocutory order was operating and even before the results were declared the writ petition was instituted. 43. From the decisions cited at the bar, the principle of law that emerges is, ordinarily a person who participates in the selection process cannot turn around after announcement of the results/ declaring the candidate as ineligible for further selection process, challenge the very recruitment notification and the principle of estoppel attracts to such candidates. However, in peculiar facts of a given case, the Constitutional Courts have carved out exception to this principle and relaxed the rigor of estopppel. The decisions relied by learned counsel for petitioners, as evident from the said decisions, fall into this exception, having regard to the facts of the cases. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), petitioners could not have ventured to challenge the entire process if they were subjected to further selection process and selected. The decisions relied by learned counsel for petitioners, as evident from the said decisions, fall into this exception, having regard to the facts of the cases. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), petitioners could not have ventured to challenge the entire process if they were subjected to further selection process and selected. Petitioners have taken a chance to participate in the selection process and turned around only when they were not selected/declared not qualified. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated such approach of the candidates. In the facts of these writ petitions, no case is made out to relax the rigor of principle of ‘estoppel’ and the principle of ‘approbate and reprobate’. 44. Writ remedy is a discretionary remedy and is an equitable remedy. Thus, while considering the issue raised in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court first tests the bona fides of the petitioner availing extraordinary remedy. A person who participates in the recruitment process, tests his ability to secure employment, only after he was disqualified on specified eligibility criteria, turns around and challenges the very recruitment notification, cannot be said as a person bona fidely prosecuting his grievance. In a given facts of a case, even when legally sustainable point is made out by the petitioner, Court may refuse to exercise equity jurisdiction due to conduct of the petitioner, as in these cases. 45. Coming to the facts of W.P.No.10170 of 2019, from the table in paragraph-4 above, it is seen that first petitioner was not meeting the requirement of three years of administrative experience as Head Master of High School. Second petitioner worked as Lecturer of Degree College. He therefore did not have teaching experience as Post Graduate Teacher of High School or as Junior Lecturer in a Junior College. Third petitioner claimed administrative experience as Vice Principal, whereas, as per the recruitment notification, it has to be as Head Master of High School or Principal of Junior College. Fourth petitioner did not have any administrative experience. 46. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.19127 of 2019 did not have teaching experience in a High School or Junior College. She claimed Teaching Experience at Degree college level. Petitioner in W P No. 19230 of 2019 did not have teaching experience in a High School or a Junior College. Fourth petitioner did not have any administrative experience. 46. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.19127 of 2019 did not have teaching experience in a High School or Junior College. She claimed Teaching Experience at Degree college level. Petitioner in W P No. 19230 of 2019 did not have teaching experience in a High School or a Junior College. Claimed teaching experience in a Degree College. She did not have administrative experience. Petitioner in W.P. No. 19863 of 2019 did not have enough Teaching Experience after securing Post Graduation degree. Further, her teaching experience was in college administering B.Ed course of study and in Engineering College which is not the prescribed teaching experience. 47. It is thus seen that ex facie petitioners did not fulfill the required criteria as specified in the recruitment notification. It cannot be assumed that petitioners were not aware that they were not having eligibility criteria stipulated in the recruitment notification. Petitioners also raised plea on requirement of Post Graduation degree, teaching experience, prescribing higher qualifications than stipulated by National Council, etc. Petitioners were aware of all this even before they had responded to the notification. If they had grievance with the eligibility criteria prescribed and the manner of initiation of selection process including conducting common selection as contrary to by-laws/ regulations of the respondent-societies, they ought to have availed legal remedy soon after the notification was issued. There was no surprise element for the petitioners to suddenly realize that the whole process is vitiated only when they were included in the disqualified list and informed about their disqualification to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, petitioners having participated in the recruitment process with eyes wide open on the eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification vis-à-vis the eligibility criteria possessed by the petitioners, are estopped from challenging the recruitment notification. 48. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.