ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2, in not including the name of the Petitioner in the final selection list under the Meritorious Sports Person, MSP-1 category, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to give posting orders to the Petitioner as Constable as per the Recruitment Notification dated 12/11/2018 and pass such other orders”. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has completed Master of Pharmacy (Pharmaceutical Analysis) in the year 2017 and along with his studies, he also participated in Kabbaddi sports in local, State level and also International competitions. The petitioner participated in 3rd Students Olympic International Games, 2016-2017 at Colombo, Sri Lanka and he secured Runner position in the said competitions. In pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 12.11.2018 for recruitment of Police Constables, the petitioner applied for the said post under sports quota. Thereafter, the petitioner attended the written examination on 17.03.2019 and he got qualified in the said examination by securing 79 marks. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of being qualified in the said examination, the petitioner’s name was not shown in the final selection list dated 13.09.2019. 4. The specific case of the petitioner is that in the recruitment notification dated 12.11.2018, it is specifically stated that there are three categories i.e. MSP-1, MSP-2 and MSP-3 which means Meritorious Sports Persons and the petitioner having participated in the Kabbaddi International competitions, falls under category-I as this category is meant for the persons, who participated in the International competitions, category-2 is for the persons, who participated in the National level and at the All India Inter University tournaments and All India School games and category-3 is for the persons, who participated in Zonal Inter University tournaments. 5. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and is qualified by securing 79 marks and also falls under category-1 i.e. MSP-1, instead of considering the case of the petitioner, the candidates falling under categories 2 and 3 i.e. MSP-2 and MSP-3 were considered. Challenging the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 6. When the writ petition came up for admission on 14.10.2019, this Court passed the following interim order:- “….. one post shall be reserved for the petitioner.” 7. The 2nd respondent filed counter along with the vacate stay application and furnished the procedure for Meritorious Sports Persons as laid down in para 20(B) of the notification as follows: i) MSP (Meritorious Sports Person) – Persons who satisfy the definition in Rule 2 (19) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and who possess the necessary certificate issued by the competent authority as on the date of notification will come under this special category. This special category is sub-divided as below: Category- 1) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports at the International level. Category- 2) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports at the National level and at the All India Inter University tournaments and All India School Games. Category- 3) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports in Zonal Inter University tournaments. Persons who come under category (1) above will be preferred initially to fill the vacancies under Meritorious Sports Person special category. If sufficient candidates are not available, then the candidates from category (2) and thereafter from category (3) will be considered sequentially. 8. Further, the 2nd respondent having admitted the facts as stated by the petitioner and also having admitted that the recruitment notification is based on G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal- II) Department, dated 01.05.2006 and thereafter submitted that the State Level Police Recruitment Board issued a corrigendum on 22.07.2019 for selection process of Meritorious Sports Person, which is as follows: “Candidates who come under categories (a), (b) and (c) in G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 01.05.2006, will be considered as per merit secured by them in the final selection. When two or more candidates secure same marks, the preference will be given to the candidate who possesses certificates of category (a) and if sufficient number of candidates are not available under category (a), then the candidates from category (b) and thereafter from category (c) will be considered.” 9. Further stated that as per the said corrigendum, the candidates would be considered basing on their merit/marks secured irrespective of the category i.e. (1), (2) & (3) of notification issued in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal.II) Dept., dated 01.05.2006. As such, the candidates selected on merit under MSP Quota irrespective of the category of certificates possessed by them viz., MSP-I, MSP-II, MSP-III are shown in the provisional selection list with details as Column Nos.11, 12 and 13, and in view of the same, the petitioner could not be selected. 10. To the said counter-affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating apart from the petitioner, only one person by name Andraju Tarun Kumar Varma, who secured 114 marks and another person by name Dudekula Maabu Subhan, who secured 128.50 marks, were shown as the persons having certificate under MSP-1 category and all the other persons shown in table contained in Para-9 are falling under MSP-2 and 3 categories. Further contended that before considering the cases of other candidates falling under MSP-2 and 3 category, the petitioner should be given preference, irrespective of the marks obtained as he is qualified having obtained 79 marks and he is well within the zone of consideration and as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.97, more particularly, Para 20(B) comes into play. As per Para 20(B) of G.O.Ms.No.97, the candidates having MSP Category-1, shall be given preference and thereafter the candidates falling under Category-2 and 3 shall be preference. As the petitioner falls under MSP-1 category, he should be given first preference when compared to the candidates falling under MSP-2 and 3 category. 11. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed additional counter-affidavit stating that after issuance of the recruitment notification, the Government has issued two years upper age relaxation for the post of SCT PCs and its equivalent ranks, vide G.O.Ms.No.181 Home (Services.IV) Department, dated 16.11.2018. The petitioner attended the written examination held on 17.03.2019 and has secured 79 marks out of 200 marks and falls under MSP-1 category. The petitioner attended the written examination held on 17.03.2019 and has secured 79 marks out of 200 marks and falls under MSP-1 category. Further submitted that earlier this Court in its order dated 23.01.2018 in W.P.No.36911 of 2017 had issued instructions that the final written exam marks and merit is criteria for final selection. By keeping the above instructions of this Court, a corrigendum was issued on 22.07.2019 regarding selection procedure of MSP and NCC candidates and the same was placed in SLPRB website for awareness of the aspirants and further contended that present writ petition is not maintainable as the entire selection process is completed. 12. The 2nd respondent further submits that as per para No.32 of the notification, the SLPRB, A.P. reserves right to take decision regarding conduct of examination and selection process as per rules, which reads as follows: “The SLPRB, A.P. reserves the right to take decision regarding conduct of examination and selecting candidates as per rules. The decision of the SLPRB, A.P. shall be final in all respects. Further, SLPRB, A.P. may modify and reschedule the Examination/Test due to unforeseen circumstances. All efforts will be made to intimate any such change to the candidates. However, candidates are also requested to regularly visit the web site and see notifications issued through Newspapers, TV and other media.” 13. Further submits that in pursuance of the corrigendum, some of the candidates have raised objections. But as the petitioner did not make any objections on the corrigendum, his case was not considered. In pursuance of the corrigendum dated 22.07.2019, the Government has amended G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 01.05.2006 and issued G.O.Ms.No.100 Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 28.08.2019 amending the selection procedure of MSP which is as follows: “Candidates who come under categories (a), (b) and (c) as above shall be considered as per merit secured by them in the final selection. When two or more candidates secure some marks, the preference shall be given to the candidate who possessed certificates of category (a) and if sufficient number of candidates are not available under category (a), then the candidates from category (b) and thereafter from category (c) shall be considered”. 14. Thereafter, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.100 Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 28.08.2019, the provisional selection list was issued on 12.09.2019. 14. Thereafter, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.100 Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 28.08.2019, the provisional selection list was issued on 12.09.2019. As the petitioner has secured less marks than the other selected candidates, the petitioner could not be selected and further stated that the Government in its memo dated 26.04.2013, has issued clarification stating that “All Government orders will have prospective effect unless it is specifically mentioned therein that it has effect from a particular date. Hence, the orders are applicable to the appointments made after issue of the G.O.” 15. Thereafter, the petitioner filed reply affidavit to the said counter vide U.S.R.No.64270 of 2022 on 16.09.2022, stating that in view of the amendment, the respondents are denying the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006 to the petitioner. In fact, the recruitment notification was issued on 12.11.2018 and the written exam was held on 17.03.2019. Thereafter, corrigendum was issued on 22.07.2019 and the amended G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.100 came into force on 28.08.2019. Hence, it is clear that the recruitment notification dated 12.11.2018 was issued in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006 and it is settled principle of law that the entire selection process has to be done only in accordance with the rules that are in force as on the date of issuance of the recruitment notification i.e. as per G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006. As such, neither the said corrigendum dated 22.07.2019 nor the amended G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 28.08.2019 can be the basis for the purpose of the recruitment notification issued on 12.11.2018 and it will be applicable for the next recruitment notification. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the present petition itself is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not including his name in the provisional selection list dated 12.09.2019 and when the writ petition came up for admission on 14.10.2019, this Court granted interim order directing the respondents to reserve one post for the petitioner. In that case, the question of completing the entire recruitment process as stated by the respondents in their additional counter does not arise and is also contrary to the interim direction granted by this Court and on the other hand, if at all the respondents have completed the entire recruitment process, they would have filed the final selection list. In the absence of the same, it cannot be contended that the entire selection process was completed on 12.09.2019 itself. 17. In the absence of the same, it cannot be contended that the entire selection process was completed on 12.09.2019 itself. 17. Pending writ petition, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to amend the prayer portion by adding the prayer “declare that the Corrigendum dated 22.07.2019, issued by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.100, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 28.08.2019 and denying the appointment to the petitioner as Constable in pursuance to the Recruitment Notification dated 12.11.2018, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and violation of the Recruitment Rules provided under G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006”. 18. The respondents filed rejoinder stating that the said amendment is not maintainable, as the petitioner is very much aware of the said corrigendum and hence the amendment petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.1 of 2022, this Court deems it necessary to allow I.A.No.1 of 2022 in the interest of justice. 20. Now the only for consideration is whether the respondents can go for the selection beyond the scope of the notification by way of a corrigendum or not? 21. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is clear that in pursuance of the recruitment notification dated 12.11.2018 for recruitment of Police Constables, the petitioner applied for the said post under Sports Quota having participated in International competitions. It is also clear that the recruitment notification was issued in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006, wherein para 20(B) deals with the procedure for selection of the Meritorious Sports Persons (MSP) and sub-divides the said category into three categories, as follows:- Category- 1) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports at the International level. Category- 2) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports at the National level and at the All India Inter University tournaments and All India School Games. Category- 3) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports in Zonal Inter University tournaments. 22. Category- 2) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports at the National level and at the All India Inter University tournaments and All India School Games. Category- 3) Persons who won medals or who participated in games/sports in Zonal Inter University tournaments. 22. As per the above, the petitioner attended the written examination held on 17.03.2019 and also secured 79 marks out of 200 marks and falls under MSP-1 category and thereafter, in view of the instructions issued by this Court in some other case, the respondents have issued a corrigendum dated 22.07.2019 regarding the selection procedure of MSP and NCC candidates, which was however placed in SLPRB website for the knowledge of the aspirants, bringing certain amendments in the selection process, which reads as follows: “Candidates who come under categories (a), (b) and (c) in G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-II) Dept., dt.1.5.2006 will be considered as per merit secured by them in the final selection. When two or more candidates secure same marks, the preference will be given to the candidate who possesses certificates of category (a) and if sufficient number of candidates are not available under category (a), then the candidates from category (b) and thereafter from category (c) will be considered.” 23. In pursuance of the said corrigendum, the Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.100 Home (Legal-II) Dept., dated 28.08.2019 amending the selection procedure for MSP, as per which, the candidates who come under categories (a), (b) and (c) shall be considered as per merit secured by them in the final selection. The word ‘merit’ was not at all there in the initial notification and as well as G.O.Ms.No.97. But, however it was brought into existence by the corrigendum and as well as subsequent G.O.Ms.No.100, which is admittedly beyond the scope of the notification. The Honourable Supreme Court on many occasions held that the respondents cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, can add any additional requirement/qualification. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh vs. Manmohan Singh, [2007 Law Suit (SC) 191], wherein it was held at para No.11 as follows: “11. The terms and conditions of employees of the appellant - Corporation being governed by a statute and statutory rules could have been altered only by reason of amendment of the rules only. The terms and conditions of employees of the appellant - Corporation being governed by a statute and statutory rules could have been altered only by reason of amendment of the rules only. The State as is well known had no say in that behalf. We fail to understand as to under what circumstances the State had issued the aforementioned circular letter dated 23.01.2001. A policy made by a State would ordinarily apply only in respect of the employees working under it. The policy decision of a State cannot be extended to a statutory Corporation unless it is permitted to do so by the statute... 12. Furthermore, when the terms and conditions of the services of an employee are governed by the rules made under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, laying down the mode and manner in which the recruitment would be given effect to, even no order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India can be made by way of alterations or amendments of the said rules. A 'fortiori if the recruitment rules could not be amended even by issuing a notification under Article 162 of the Constitution of India; the same cannot be done by way of a circular letter.” 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a Judgment in A.Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and others, [(2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 112], wherein it was held at para No.52 as follows: “Even recently in Suraj Prakash Gupta and others Vs. State of J & K and others [(2000) 7 SCC 371], this Court opined: "28.The decisions of this Court have recently been requiring strict conformity with the Recruitment Rules for both direct recruits and promotees. The view is that there can be no relaxation of the basic or fundamental rules of recruitment." It was further observed: "29. Similarly, in State of Orissa v. Sukanti Mohapatra ( (1993) 2 SCC 486 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 607 : (1993) 24 ATC 259) it was held that though the power of relaxation stated in the rule was in regard to "any of the provisions of the rules", this did not permit relaxation of the rule of direct recruitment without consulting the Commission and the entire ad hoc service of a direct recruit could not be treated as regular service….." 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a judgment in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi, [(2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 11], wherein it was held at Para Nos.14 and 15 as follows: “14. It is an admitted position that at the beginning of the selection process, no minimum cut off marks for vive-voce were prescribed for Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2006. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration of the Court is whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. This Court notices that in Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 2008 filed by K.Manjusree against the State of A.P. & Anr. decided on February 15, 2008, the question posed for consideration of this Court in the instant petitions was considered and answered in the following terms:- The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview. What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview. From the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above mentioned case it is evident that previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for vive-voce. Therefore, prescribing minimum marks for vive-voce was not permissible at all after written test was conducted. 15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/ qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.” 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a judgment in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, [(2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 512], wherein it was held at para No.27 as follows: “But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible.” 28. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible.” 28. In view of the above stated facts and observations made by this Court, the respondents are bound to follow the selection process as per the notification dated 12.11.2018, but not as per the subsequent corrigendum or subsequent G.Os. issued by the Government. The said corrigendum or the G.O. referred by the respondents would apply only to the appointments made subsequently, but not to the candidates, who applied in pursuance of the notification dated 12.11.2018. It is an admitted fact that once the selection process has commenced, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure as contemplated in the notification and cannot go for the selection process in pursuance of the corrigendum or G.O. Therefore, the respondent’s contention that the selection process has already been completed, is absolutely wrong. 29. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 01.05.2006 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed.