ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in changing the criteria of selection in the recruitment conducted to the post of Staff Assistants/Clerks vide Notification date:17.06.2019 and not selecting the petitioner though she had obtained higher marks than the last selected candidate under the Physically Challenged category as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for selection to the post of Staff Assistant/Clerk by virtue of her merit obtained in the selection and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent has issued notification dated 17.06.2019 to fill up 71 vacancies of Staff Assistant/Clerk, out of 71, 14 vacancies are meant to be filled in by in-service candidates and remaining 57 to be filled up by Direct recruitment and as per the notification, the qualification required for the post is a Graduation and one must possess knowledge of English and proficiency in Telugu. It is further stated that as per the terms of the said notification, 100 marks are meant for On-line test and 25 marks for interview and total marks being 125. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared for written test vide Hall ticket No.1110002858 and she had secured 57.5 marks. Thereafter, the respondent has conducted interviews by calling the candidates @ 1:4, which are scheduled from 23rd to 28th September, 2019. After completion of interviews, the 2nd respondent has published a final selection list of candidates category-wise. The petitioner obtained rank No.180 in the merit list. As could be seen from the ranking list, two candidates at items 52 and 55 got lower rank i.e., 181 and 222 than the petitioner (180). As per the marks that were notified, the petitioner had secured 58.75 (out of 100) in written test and 10 marks in interview, totaling 68.75 with Rank 180. The petitioner understands that though she stood No.4 among the Physically Challenged persons, for the reasons unknown to her, she could not get through the selection. As per the marks that were notified, the petitioner had secured 58.75 (out of 100) in written test and 10 marks in interview, totaling 68.75 with Rank 180. The petitioner understands that though she stood No.4 among the Physically Challenged persons, for the reasons unknown to her, she could not get through the selection. When enquired with the office of the 2nd respondent, she was informed that the respondents are still verifying the selections and on verification, the petitioner will be selected and appointed after eliminating the candidates who are less meritorious to the petitioner and also in the vacancies that will arise due to relinquishment of selected candidates. She was also informed that her name is kept in the waiting list and her case will be considered at the appropriate time and she was informed that wailing list will be operated till the end of December 2021. Thereafter, when certain information had been sought for under Right to Information Act on behalf of the petitioner, it was informed by letter dated 14.10.2021 that the information need not be provided as exempted by the judgment of the Apex Court in respect of application of RTI Act to the Cooperative Societies. Subsequently, while the petitioner is awaiting for her turn having been placed in the waiting list, she reliably learnt that the 2nd respondent has introduced a new criteria at the time of final selection where under, the candidates with Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) were given preference giving a go-bye to the marks secured in the written test and interview together and she also learnt that several candidates have produced fake and fabricated certificates of PGDCA. Hence, questioning the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the respondent bank has not allotted any Rank to the qualified candidates for the interview. As per the norms, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) has sent merit list to this respondent bank without any marks in 1:4 ratio and they were qualified for interview. The list was sent by IBPS, Mumbai only with serial numbers. The respondent Bank will conduct interviews and send the interview marks to the IBPS, Mumbai. As per the norms, the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) has sent merit list to this respondent bank without any marks in 1:4 ratio and they were qualified for interview. The list was sent by IBPS, Mumbai only with serial numbers. The respondent Bank will conduct interviews and send the interview marks to the IBPS, Mumbai. The final selected list will be displayed by IBPS, Mumbai only after approval of the Board of Management. It is submitted that there is no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner’s case will be selected and appointed in the vacancies that will arise due to relinquishment of selected candidates. In this regard, the respondent bank has not given any assurance to the petitioner at any point of time. As per the procedure in vogue, this respondent bank will fill the vacancies, which have arisen as per the roaster and as per the merit list available in the waiting list in the said roaster. It is further stated that, it was clearly mentioned that ,final selection will be on the basis of the raking accorded, after adding the marks obtained in the online test and interview. Further the Person In-charge of the Bank has categorized the interview marks of 25 as under: T-A-B-L-E- S. No. Attributes/Traits Clerical/Staff Assistants 1. Academic Distinction Above 60% 5 Marks Above 75% 5 Marks 2. Experience One mark for every year service with maximum 5 marks 3. Additional Qualification in Computer/Technical Skills 5 marks 4. General Awareness/Personality/Leadership qualities 5 marks Total Marks 25 Therefore, the respondent bank has not violated any norms as per the notification. Further, it is stated that the allegation made by the petitioner that the respondent bank has recently appointed 23 candidates who were kept in the waiting list preferring those who have submitted PGDCA certificates in an unfair way is untrue and in correct. All the candidates shortlisted in the first list and further merit lists were considered for recruitment abased on the rules prescribed by the IBPS and this respondent bank. Hence, this respondent bank has not indulged in any illegal process in the selection of the candidates and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner land learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. Hence, this respondent bank has not indulged in any illegal process in the selection of the candidates and therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner land learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, this Court observed that, in the notification the eligibility criteria fixed is with regard to the age i.e., minimum age is 18 years and maximum age is 31 years as on 31.03.2019 and the educational qualification is a Graduation of a recognized University and knowledge of English and proficiency in local language (Telugu) is essential. Moreover, nowhere in the notification it is stated that the candidates with PGDCA will be given preference over the candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications under paragraph 3(A)(iii).. therefore, it can be seen that the respondent has changed the criteria of selection at the time of final selection after the written test and interviews were conducted. Therefore the action of the respondent is wholly impermissible under law. 6. In a case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 (3) SCC 512 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Rules of the Game cannot be changed once the Game is played” and the same was also held in the subsequent judgments. In view of the above, the action of the respondent is contrary to the settled proposition of law laid down in the above judgments cited supra. 7. It is also observed that, at the relevant paragraph 4 of the notification, it is clearly stated that “Final selection will be on the basis of the ranking accorded, after adding the marks obtained in the on-line test and interview.” Therefore it can be seen that giving preference to persons with PGDCA without any such condition in the notification is illegal and arbitrary. 8. Apart from that, in a case of Sachin Kumar Vs. Delhi State & Subordinate Service Board and others, (2021) 4 SC 631, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when unfair methods are adopted and the selection was completed, such selection/recruitment was ordered to be cancelled on the ground that the selection process is lacking fair procedure. The present case on hand is similar to the circumstances. The endeavour of the petitioner is only to secure employment based on the merit obtained by her in the recruitment. The present case on hand is similar to the circumstances. The endeavour of the petitioner is only to secure employment based on the merit obtained by her in the recruitment. However, the respondents had been kept on promising the petitioner about providing employment by keeping her in the waiting list but have not kept their promise and went on filing up the posts notified, by candidates possessing PGDCA qualification, that too with fake and fabricated documents. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents in making selection by changing the rules of notification is illegal and arbitrary. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the citations referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the action of the 2nd respondent in changing the criteria of selection in the recruitment conducted to the post of Staff Assistants/Clerks vide Notification dated 17.06.2019 and not selecting the petitioner though she had obtained higher marks than the last selected candidate under the Physically Challenged category declared as illegal and arbitrary. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per her entitlement basing on the selection to the post of Staff Assistant/Clerk by virtue of her merit obtained in the selection. 10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.