ORDER : (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2/Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya by which candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Soil Science & Agriculture Chemistry) has been rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from record are that an advertisement has been issued by respondent No. 2 on 14.11.2019 for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors for various subjects for Agriculture Colleges of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. The petitioner applied for the said post by submitting her application through online. In the month of May, 2020, a list of ineligible candidates was published by the respondent wherein name of the petitioner was shown. The petitioner submitted her objection/representation before the respondent authorities against rejection of her candidature along with essential documents to show her eligibility. The objection/representation has been rejected by the respondents and published list of ineligible candidates in the month of July, 2020 wherein name of the petitioner was also included. On 6th July, 2020, the petitioner again submitted objection/ representation for considering case of the petitioner. On 07.09.2020, respondent No. 2 published list of candidates for interview after evaluating their academic qualifications. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 03.09.2020 is contrary to the advertisement dated 14.11.2019 as well as the University Grant Commission Regulation, 2018 (for short “the Regulation, 2018”) as such the same cannot be sustainable. He would further submit that the petitioner is having all the requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, the action of the respondents is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the count that petitioner having less 55% marks in under graduation programme was not a condition prescribed in the advertisement as well as in the Regulation, 2018, therefore, the ground of rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that three different reasons have been assigned by the respondents while rejecting candidature of the petitioner which shows malafide intention against the petitioner. He would further submit that three different reasons have been assigned by the respondents while rejecting candidature of the petitioner which shows malafide intention against the petitioner. He would further submit that once the recruitment process has been set on motion, the eligibility conditions cannot be changed midway and no new criteria can be applied for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He would further submit that the Regulation, 2018 are binding on the respondents and they cannot deviate from it, put a condition which is not mentioned in the advertisement, the Regulation, 2018 and would pray for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2019 (Annexure P/1). 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 have filed return wherein it has been contended that the University has issued advertisement dated 14.11.2019 for appointment on various posts of Assistant Professors. It has been further contended that the University Grants Commission (UGC) New Delhi has issued Regulation on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and colleges in the year 2010. In the said regulation, Clause 4.4.1 deals with the educational qualification for the post of Assistant Professors. Clause 4.4.1 (1) provides that a candidate should have good academic record as defined by the concerned University with atleast 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale whenever grading system is followed) at the master Degree Level in a relevant subject from any Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University. The Regulation 2018 has been endorsed and made applicable to all the State Agricultural Universities by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which is the apex body in the field of agricultural education and research in the country. In terms of the guidelines laid down by the University Grants Commission and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the University has fixed the educational qualifications for the Assistant Professors and Scientists. It has been further contended that the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya has framed the services rule titled as "Service Recruitments Rules for appointment at up-gradation of Teachers/ Equivalent Posts & Administrative Posts Rules, 2009 (for short “the Rules, 2009”) and amendment has been made to the same from time to time. It has been further contended that the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya has framed the services rule titled as "Service Recruitments Rules for appointment at up-gradation of Teachers/ Equivalent Posts & Administrative Posts Rules, 2009 (for short “the Rules, 2009”) and amendment has been made to the same from time to time. It has been further contended that the University vide notification dated 06.03.2013, has amended the Rules 2009 wherein the amendment has been made in essential qualification for Assistant Professors and Scientists and as per the amendment made in the year 2013, a candidate should possess Master's Degree in relevant subjects of Agriculture/Agricultural Engineering/Veterinary Faculty with atleast 55% marks (or its equivalent grade 6.50 in 10.00 scales) with good academic record. The regulation issued by the University Grants Commission provides that a candidate should have good academic record and the same has been provided in the Rules 2009. The University vide notification dated 17.08.2010 has laid down the criteria for determining the ‘Good Academic Record’. As per the notification, the following criteria shall be adopted for determining good academic record:- “(i) Second Class Master's Degree (55% and above). (ii) Second Class Bachelor's Degree (55% and above). (iii) No Third Division in entire career from Higher Secondary onwards." 5. It has been further contended that a corrigendum was issued by the University administration on 15.04.2020 with respect to the advertisement dated 14.11.2019, wherein good academic record has been clarified. It has been further contended that in the present case, it is clear that the petitioner has secured 52.5% marks in B.Sc. (Graduate Degree Course), which is less than 55% and hence cannot be accepted as having good academic record. It has been further contended that pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, a committee of expert was constituted who scrutinized the application form of petitioner and found that she has secured 52.5% marks in undergraduate course and hence ineligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in the light of the Rules, 2009 as well as the notification dated 17.08.2010 and corrigendum dated 15.04.2020 and thus she was declared as ineligible. It has been further contended that the petitioner has not challenged the relevant provision of the Rules, 2009 which deals with good academic record nor has challenged the notification dated 17.08.2010 or the corrigendum dated 15.04.2020, hence she is not entitled for grant of any relief from this Hon'ble Court as the petition is not maintainable and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Respondent No. 3 has filed its return wherein it has been stated that respondent No. 3 has played no role in rejection of the candidature of the petitioner except of the fact that respondent No. 3 prescribes the minimum qualification for appointment of the teachers in the Indian institution as per UGC Regulations which is self-explanatory and mandatory in nature. The petitioner has not made any prayer against respondent No. 3 and main grievance of the petitioner is with respondent No. 1 & 2 and respondent No.3 has been added as a formal party in the petition. The role of respondent No. 3 is limited for the governance of the Universities and primary function of respondent No. 3 is to make directives and regulatory framework for the universities. It has been further contended that the regulation framed by the UGC only provides the minimum qualification and the appointing authority is free to enhance the qualification for appointment subject to the condition that it must be expressly described in the advertisement and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The intervenor is first waiting list candidate in unreserved category and due to stay order passed by this Court, his claim is not being considered by the respondent No. 1 & 2, therefore, he has filed an intervention application as his right and interest are being adversely affected. Considering this fact, the intervention application is allowed. Accordingly, the intervenor is allowed to make submission. The intervenor has filed reply as well as application for vacating the interim order dated 17.11.2020 passed by this Court by supporting the stand of respondent No. 1. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. Accordingly, the intervenor is allowed to make submission. The intervenor has filed reply as well as application for vacating the interim order dated 17.11.2020 passed by this Court by supporting the stand of respondent No. 1. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the condition of 55% marks in under graduate programme is not a condition mentioned in the advertisement as well as in the Regulation, 2018, therefore, declaring the petitioner as ineligible for appointment is nothing but arbitrariness and actuated with malafide. He would further submit that the declaration of the petitioner as ineligible due to publication one research paper from her Ph.D. work as first authorship, is also illegal as there is no such condition prescribed in the advertisement as well as the Regulation, 2018 and would pray for quashing of impugned order dated 03.09.2019 (Annexure P/1) and would pray for declaring her to be eligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. 10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 would submit that as per the Rules, 2009, the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor & Scientists have been prescribed wherein the apart from the other qualification, the candidate should have good academic record. In the rules, there is note which provides good academic record. He would further submit that the board of management has amended the essential qualification for Assistant Professors and Scientists on 15.04.2010 as per 74th meeting of Board of Management on 13.03.2010 which reads as under:- “(i) Second Class Master’s Degree (55% and above) (ii) Second Class Bachelor Degree (55% and above) (iii) No third division in entire career from Higher Secondary onwards.” 11. He would further submit that vide corrigendum dated 15.04.2020, the post which was reserved for economical weaker section has been deleted and the same has been included for unreserved category. Simultaneously, the good academic record has been clarified which reads as under:- “2. He would further submit that vide corrigendum dated 15.04.2020, the post which was reserved for economical weaker section has been deleted and the same has been included for unreserved category. Simultaneously, the good academic record has been clarified which reads as under:- “2. mijksDr foKkiu esa izdkf'kr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk (Qualification : Essential) ds iSjk dzekad ,d esa mYysf[kr “Master’s degree in relevant subject of Agriculture/ Agricultural Engineering/ Veterinary faculty with at least 55% marks (or its equivalent grade 6.50 in 10.00 scale) with good academic records dk rkRi;Z fuEukuqlkj le>k tkos %& (i) Second Class Master’s Degree (55% and above) (ii) Second Class Bachelor Degree (55% and above) (iii) No third division in entire career from Higher Secondary onwards.” 12. Thus, he would submit that the subsequent clarification by the University will not fall within the ambit of change of rule of game, thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prit Singh (Dr.) Vs. S.K. Mangal reported in 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 714 & State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . 14. From the above submission made by the parties at length, the points emerged for determination of this Court are :- Point No. (i) Whether clarifying the good academic record by the University on 15.04.2020 will amount to change of rule during midst of selection process. Point No. (ii) Whether the criteria prescribed in the advertisement will prevail or the Rules, 2009 will prevail to disqualify the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor having less marks than 55%. Point No. (i) 15. To appreciate Point No. (i), it is expedient for this Court to extract the Recruitment Rules, 2009, particularly Schedule-II which provides qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors/Scientists and the good academic record has been clarified by the University on 13.03.2010, which reads as under:- “3. Assistant Professor/ Scientist- 1. Master degree in relevant subject of Agriculture/ Agricultural Engineering/ Veterinary/ Dairy Technology faculty with at least 55% marks (or its equivalent 6.50 in 10.00 scale) with good academic record. Assistant Professor/ Scientist- 1. Master degree in relevant subject of Agriculture/ Agricultural Engineering/ Veterinary/ Dairy Technology faculty with at least 55% marks (or its equivalent 6.50 in 10.00 scale) with good academic record. Note: For the post of Assistant professor and equivalent post related to basic sciences and basic engineering/ technology subjects Master degree in relevant subject will be essential qualification with atleast 55% marks (with equivalent grade 6.50 in 10.0 OGPA scale) with good academic record. 2. NET shall be the compulsory requirement for appointment. Desirable- 1. Experience in teaching/ research/ extension education. 2. Evidence of contribution to research/ teaching/ extension education as supported by published work/ innovations.” 16. In the advertisement dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P/2), qualification has been prescribed and Clause-I of the advertisement prescribes essential qualification which reads as under:- “Qualification: Essential 01. Master’s Degree in relevant subject of Agriculture/Agricultural/ Veterinary faculty with at least 55% marks (or its equivalent grade 6.50 in 10.00 scales) with good academic record. 2. For the candidates having Master's degree, NET (National Eligibility Test) shall remain compulsory alongwith one publication in NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi) rated referred journal for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor and equivalent in the disciplines in which NET is conducted by ICAR/UGC/CSIR. 3. Essentiality of NET can be waived off for the candidates holding Ph.D. degree provided, it has been done with course work as prescribed by the UGC Regulations 2009 and the candidate has atleast two full-length publications having a NAAS rating not less than 5 on the last date of submission of application. Candidates with Ph.D. degree without course work will not qualify for NET exemption.” 17. In the advertisement, qualification has been prescribed which consists of essential qualification and clause I of the advertisement provides that the candidate must be with good academic record. Thus, the advertisement as well as Recruitment Rules, 2009 also provide good academic record. In the Rules, 2009, the ‘good academic records’ has been clarified on 13.03.2010, which provides:- (i) second class Master degree (55% and above) (ii) second class Bechalor degree (55% and above) (iii) No third division in entire career from Higher Secondary & above. Thus, there is no contradiction in the advertisement as well as in the Recruitment Rules and vide notification dated 15.04.2020, the University has clarified the word ‘good academic record’ which is similar to the recruitment rules. Thus, there is no contradiction in the advertisement as well as in the Recruitment Rules and vide notification dated 15.04.2020, the University has clarified the word ‘good academic record’ which is similar to the recruitment rules. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a change of rule of game during midst of selection process. 18. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sivanandan C.T. & others Vs. High Court of Kerala reported in (2024) 3 SCC 799 has examined the issue of change of rule during midst of selection process and has held in paragraph 14, 15 & 16 as under:- “14. The decision of the High Court to prescribe a cut-off for the viva-voce examination was taken by the Administrative Committee on 27 February 2017 after the viva-voce was conducted between 16 and 24 January 2017. The process which has been adopted by the High Court suffers from several infirmities. Firstly, the decision of the High Court was contrary to Rule 2(c)(iii) which stipulated that the merit list would be drawn up on the basis of the marks obtained in the aggregate in the written examination and the viva-voce; secondly, the scheme which was notified by the High Court on 13 December 2012 clearly specified that there would be no cut off marks in respect of the viva-voce; thirdly, the notification of the High Court dated 30 September 2015 clarified that the process of short listing which would be carried out would be only on the basis of the length of practice of the members of the Bar, should the number of candidates be unduly large; and fourthly, the decision to prescribe cut off marks for the viva-voce was taken much after the viva-voce tests were conducted in the month of January 2017. 15. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the broader constitutional issue which has been referred in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) would not merit decision on the facts of the present case. Clearly, the decision which was taken by the High Court was ultra vires Rule 2(c)(iii) as it stands. 15. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the broader constitutional issue which has been referred in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) would not merit decision on the facts of the present case. Clearly, the decision which was taken by the High Court was ultra vires Rule 2(c)(iii) as it stands. As a matter of fact, during the course of the hearing we have been apprised of the fact that the Rules have been subsequently amended in 2017 so as to prescribe a cut off of 35% marks in the viva-voce examination which however was not the prevailing legal position when the present process of selection was initiated on 30 September 2015. The Administrative Committee of the High Court decided to impose a cut off for the viva-voce examination actuated by the bona fide reason of ensuring that candidates with requisite personality assume judicial office. However laudable that approach of the Administrative Committee may have been, such a change would be required to be brought in by a substantive amendment to the Rules which came in much later as noticed above. This is not a case where the rules or the scheme of the High Court were silent. Where the statutory rules are silent, they can be supplemented in a manner consistent with the object and spirit of the Rules by an administrative order. 16. In the present case, the statutory rules expressly provided that the select list would be drawn up on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained in the written examination and the viva-voce. This was further elaborated in the scheme of examination which prescribed that there would be no cut off marks for the viva-voce. This position is also reflected in the notification of the High Court dated 30 September 2015. In this backdrop, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the High Court suffered from its being ultra vires the 1961 Rules besides being manifestly arbitrary.” 19. From the facts, advertisement as well as recruitment rules, it is quite vivid that they both provide that the candidate should be good academic record. The Recruitment Rules, 2009 has already clarified the good academic record on 15.04.2010 as per 74th meeting of Board of Management on 13.03.2010 before the date of advertisement which has been further clarified on 15.04.2020 for appointment as per the advertisement dated 14.11.2019. The Recruitment Rules, 2009 has already clarified the good academic record on 15.04.2010 as per 74th meeting of Board of Management on 13.03.2010 before the date of advertisement which has been further clarified on 15.04.2020 for appointment as per the advertisement dated 14.11.2019. By the said clarification, the post has also been modified and the post for EWS has been transferred to unreserved candidates. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent/University has amended the Rules to reject the candidature of the petitioner. 20. The factual matrix of the case cannot be held that the respondent University has changed the rule of game as they have neither enhanced the good academic record’s criteria to disadvantage to the petitioner as good academic record as it was already provided in the advertisement as well as in the Recruitment Rules, thus, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents No. 1 & 2 have changed the rule of game deserves to be rejected accordingly, it is rejected. 21. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Point No. (ii) 22. Further submission of the petitioner that in the advertisement there was no criteria prescribed for providing good academic record, therefore, holding the petitioner to be ineligible on the count of not having good academic record by the University on the basis of Rules, 2009 is illegal and deserves to be quashed by this Court. The contention made by the petitioner that there is no requirement for good academic record as per the advertisement is misconceived as clause-I of the advertisement itself provides that the candidate must be good academic record. As such, there is no conflict between the advertisement and the rules. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that if there is contradiction in the advertisement and the rules, then the rules will prevail. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of The Employees’ Insurance Corporation Vs. Union of India & others reported in (2022) 11 SCC 392 has considered this issue and held that in case of any conflict between the advertisement and the recruitment rules, the recruitment rules will prevail. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 & 21 has held as under:- “20. The advertisements issued by the appellant mentioned that the DACP Scheme would be applicable for its recruits. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 & 21 has held as under:- “20. The advertisements issued by the appellant mentioned that the DACP Scheme would be applicable for its recruits. However, it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the event of a conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. In Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission a two-judge Bench of this Court clarified that an erroneous advertisement would not create a right in favour of applicants who act on such representation. The Court considered the eligibility criteria for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 against an erroneous advertisement issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission and held: “21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.” 21. In Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh24 a two-judge Bench of this Court followed the decision in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) in interpreting an advertisement issued by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh for the position of a psychologist. This Court declined to give precedence to the erroneous qualifications prescribed in the advertisement against the relevant recruitment rules and held: “27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence….” 23. Accordingly, Point No. (ii) is also answered against the petitioner. 24. In view of the above discussion, considering the position of law, it is quite vivid that there is no conflict between the advertisement and the rules, as such it cannot be said that the good academic record is not required for appointment as the appointment has to be made on the post of Assistant Professor in the Agriculture colleges where the teaching staff should have good academic record then only they can teach their students which may enhance the quality of the education. As such, there is nexus for selecting the candidates who have good academic record. Thus, it cannot be said that rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the count that she is not having 55% marks in the under graduation course, suffers from arbitrariness or actuated with malafide which warrants interference by this Court. 25. The petitioner who has secured 52.5% marks and not the 55% and above in the under graduation course, she was rightly held to be ineligible. Even otherwise, the petitioner is claiming her appointment on the post of Assistant Professor which is field of expert and the good academic record is attached with the post, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in this petition and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. 26. The interim order passed by this Court on 17.11.2020 is vacated.