ORDER : 1. The petitioners in both these petitions are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: In Writ Petition No.147267/2020: “a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the Çadre and Recruitment Rules Of KREIS Rules 2011 vide ANNEXURE-F; b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order direction quashing the final selection list Published by KPSC Udyoga Souda Bengaluru – 01/ Respondent No.2 bearing No. R (2) 712/2020-21/psc dated 9/6/2020 produced at ANNEXURE-H violation as of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and, also as opposed to NCTE regulations; c) Issue a writ, direction or order including the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of the Hindi Language Teachers have prescribed qualification, than the respondent no. 5 to 54 whose names have been included in the final select list Published by the KPSC Udyog Souda, Bengaluru - 1 Respondnet 21/psc dated 09.06.2020 produced at ANNEXURE-H and grant them all consequential relief to which they are entitled to meet the ends of justice. d) Grant such other further relief deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” In Writ Petition No.100581/2024: “I. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the adoption of Government order No. ED 160 PTI 2003 dated 24.02.2004 and G. O No. ED 125 PTI 2003 dated 16.08.2003 in Schedule-I to the Karnataka Residential Education Institution Society (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 2011 dated 22.01.2011 for selection of Hindi Language Teacher vide Annexure- B to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned selection list passed by the 2nd respondent bearing No. R(2) 712/2020-21/PSC dated 09.06.2020 vide Annexure-E in so far it relates to the selection of candidates with Equivalent Degrees. III. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned selection list passed by the 2nd respondent bearing No. PSC 274 RTB (2)/22-23/2897 dated 13.09.2023 vide Annexure-H insofar it relates to the selection of candidates with Equivalent Degrees. IV. III. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned selection list passed by the 2nd respondent bearing No. PSC 274 RTB (2)/22-23/2897 dated 13.09.2023 vide Annexure-H insofar it relates to the selection of candidates with Equivalent Degrees. IV. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 authority to extend the benefit of appointment to the petitioners by considering their academic credentials. V. Issue such other orders and grant such other reliefs deemed fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.147267 of 2020 and the private respondents were all participants in a selection process pursuant to a notification issued by the KPSC seeking to appoint Hindi Teachers in the school run by the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society (KREIS). 3. The notification was issued on 23.06.2017. The petitioners were not selected but the private respondents were. The petitioners then after their non selection in the final select list have sought to question the selection of the private respondents on the twin score that as on the date when the notification was issued on 23.06.2017 the private respondents could not have been appointed as Hindi Teachers as by then, the equivalence declared by the state was withdrawn two months prior to the notification. 4. Learned counsel Smt.Veena Hegde, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were not aware of the fact that the equivalence had been withdrawn and the appointment of the private respondents thus could not have been granted on the strength of the equivalence that had stood withdrawn. 5. The learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai, appearing for the private respondents, would submit that the petitioners have participated in the selection process. In the notification itself, it was indicated that the equivalence should be taken note of for the purpose of appointment of the Hindi Teacher. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot now turn around and challenge the selection process or the notification and even the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. 6. The learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, appearing for respondent No.2-KPSC, and the learned HCGP appearing for the state would toe the lines of the learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai. 7. 6. The learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj P. Mudhol, appearing for respondent No.2-KPSC, and the learned HCGP appearing for the state would toe the lines of the learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai. 7. The learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai would now submit that candidates who participated in the same notification had called in question albeit at different posts. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the petition and the Division Bench has affirmed the said dismissal. The dismissal is on the score that the petitioners having participated in the selection process could not have turned around and challenges the same at a later point in time. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners also should follow suit as what the Division Bench has directed. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners and the private respondents participate in the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 23.06.2017 issued by the KPSC. The private respondents are selected but the petitioners are not. The petitioners are said to have gained knowledge about the fact that the equivalence upon which the notification was issued or the recruitment was initiated had been withdrawn by the time the notification could be issued. Therefore, the private respondents were all appointed are ineligible to hold the post of Hindi Teachers. The submission though would merit acceptance in the first blush, the plea of acquiescence or the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench in identical circumstances would non suit these petitioners. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 105152 of 2021 c/w Writ Petition No. 104728 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 103027 of 2022, disposed on 29.10.2022, holds as follows: “7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would make the following submissions: a) The recruitment process of filling up the posts of Drawing Teacher commenced in the year 2011 and the respondents have changed the recruitment regulations either by issuing executive order or by amending the Rule thus depriving the legitimate right of the petitioners to be considered for appointment to the post of Drawing Teachers. b) The impugned notification dated 17.6.2014 issued by the 1st respondent amending the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher is discriminatory and arbitrary since the amended regulation prescribing qualification is contrary to the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher by the Social Welfare Department in respect of other similarly situated residential schools. c) The Government order dated 16.10.2019 specifying only the marks secured in the examination conducted for the first, second and fifth year shall be considered as public examinations for the appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher is contrary to the Regulations prescribed for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and cannot be made retrospectively applicable by altering the qualification adverse to the rights which had accrued in favour of the petitioners as on the date of notification 3.11.2016. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would make the following submissions: 9. The petitioners having participated in the selection process and also unsuccessful since their names were not included in the provisional list have no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions challenging the impugned notification/s and Government Order. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and others –vs- Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 and Mohd. Mustafa –vs- Union of India (UOI) and ors. Reported in (2022) 1 SCC 294 . 10. A coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.21856/2017 and connected matters has upheld the validity of the amendment to the Regulations prescribing the qualification for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher on the ground that the employer or government are the competent and best authority to prescribe the qualification by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P U Joshi and others –vs- Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 . 11. The Government order dated 16.10.2019 only clarifies that the marks secured in public examination shall be considered for the purpose of appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and qualification prescribed is not altered. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 13. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 13. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 14. The notification dated 27.4.2011 was issued by the 2 nd respondent inviting applications from eligible candidates for the appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher in respondent No.3 – Education Institutions. The qualification prescribed as per the Regulations as existed as on the date of notification dated 27.4.2011 reads thus: “J) Art & Craft Teacher (Drawing Teacher): (1) Must be holder of Bachelor Degree in Fine Arts. Or Master degree Certificates awarded by the State Govt. or any other examination equivalent thereto in fine arts. Or (2) Must have passed SSLC or Equivalent examination recognized by Government of Karnataka. And Must have passed Diploma in Drawing and Painting Examination or Art Master Examination Or Has passed the examination which is declared as equivalent by Government of Karnataka vide G.O.No.ED 27 SLV 2004 Dt:21.03.2006. And Candidate must have studied Kannada as one of the languages either in Post Graduate Degree or Bachelor Degree or Pre University Course or SSLC or holder of Diploma in Kannada or passed Kannada Certificate Course (Kava/Jana/Rathna) conducted by Karnataka secondary Education Examination Board/Kannada Sahitya Parishath Bangalore.” 15. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioners claiming that they were eligible for appointment under the said Regulations submitted the applications to consider their case for appointment. Thereafter the said notification was challenged before this Court in WP Nos.34861 to 34871/2012. The coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 22.11.2012 quashed the notification dated 27.4.2011 reserving liberty to the respondent No.3 to issue fresh notification after prescribing proper qualification insofar as the post of Drawing Teacher is concerned. The petitioners’ applications for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher in terms of the said notification were not considered since the notification was quashed by this court. 16. In the light of the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by this court, the Government issued a notification dated 17.6.2014 amending the Regulations prescribing the qualification to the post of Drawing Teacher. The petitioners’ applications for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher in terms of the said notification were not considered since the notification was quashed by this court. 16. In the light of the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by this court, the Government issued a notification dated 17.6.2014 amending the Regulations prescribing the qualification to the post of Drawing Teacher. The relevant portion of the notification dated 17.6.2014 amending the regulation reads thus: “Qualification for “Art and Drawing Teacher- (1) Must be a holder of Degree in Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) or Bachelor of visual Arts (BVA) from recognized University OR (2) Must have passed Diploma in Drawing and Painting examination or Art master examination or Diploma in Painting/Diploma in Commercial/Applied Arts conducted by Board of Technical Examination, which are considered as equivalent qualification for Art and Drawing Teachers as per Government Order No.ED 27 SLV 2004 Dated 21.03.2006 conducted by the Government of Karnataka. AND Candidate must have studied Kannada as one of the languages either in Bachelor Degree or Pre- University Course or SSLC or holder of Diploma in Kannada or passed Kannada Certificate Course (Kava/Java/Rathna) conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board/Kannada Sahitya Parishath Bangalore” shall be substituted.” 17. In pursuance of the amended Regulations, the 2nd respondent issued a notification dated 3.11.2016 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and a note was appended in the said notification stating that the applicants who had applied under the notification dated 27.4.2011 are exempted from paying the application fee and also the age limit was relaxed, but however, the candidates were required to submit applications afresh. In terms of the said notification, the petitioners submitted the applications for considering their appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher. The 2nd respondent after considering the applications published a provisional selection list on 25.11.2021 and in the said provisional selection list, the names of the petitioners were not included and as such, the petitioners submitted objections to the said provisional selection list. Such being the case, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the notification dated 17.6.2014 amending the Regulations and the Government order dated 3.11.2016 passed by the 2 nd respondent and also the Government order dated 16.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and also the amended notification dated 19.06.2021 18. Such being the case, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the notification dated 17.6.2014 amending the Regulations and the Government order dated 3.11.2016 passed by the 2 nd respondent and also the Government order dated 16.09.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and also the amended notification dated 19.06.2021 18. The notification dated 17.6.2014 was the subject matter before the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.21856/2017 and connected matters. The coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 26.7.2019 relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P U Joshi and others –vs- Accountant General, Ahmedbad and others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 has held that the prescription of qualification and other service conditions of an employee is vested with the employer/government. The employer or Government are the competent and best authority to prescribe what is the qualification for each and every post including other service conditions and it is not for the Court and Tribunal and accordingly, upheld the validity of the impugned notification dated 17.6.2014. 19. The contention of the petitioners is that the amendment to the Regulations prescribing the qualification to the post of Drawing Teacher is discriminatory and arbitrary since the very same department has prescribed qualification that was prescribed prior to amendment for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher insofar as it relates to the very same residential schools which come under the Social Welfare Department. The coordinate Bench of this Court has already taken a view that it is for the employer or Government to prescribe the qualification, however, the said contention cannot be considered at this stage, when the petitioners have participated in the selection process in pursuance of the notification dated 3.11.2016. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and others –vs- Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493 . The relevant para-17 reads thus: “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted (See Vijendra Kumar Verma –vs- Public Service Commission and K H Siraj –vs- High Court of Kerala) (2011) 1 SCC 150 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 21 and (2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa –vs- Union of India (UOI) and ors. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 294 has held that when a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. In the instant case, the petitioners having participated in the selection process and their names having not been included in the provisional selection list have filed these writ petitions and the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate by contending that the amendment to the Regulations prescribing qualification for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher is arbitrary and discriminatory. 21. The Governing Council of the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society submitted a proposal for amending the Regulations to the qualification for the appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher. In pursuance of the said proposal, the Under Secretary, Social Welfare Department in exercise of power conferred under Clauses (3) and (7) of Rule II of the Rules and Regulations of the Association of the Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society has issued a notification dated 17.6.2014 approving the amendment. It cannot be said that the amendment to the Regulations prescribing qualification to the post of Drawing Teacher is arbitrary and discriminatory since the 3rd respondent is an autonomous body and power is vested to prescribe the qualification and the 3rd respondent being the employer has got prerogative to prescribe the qualification and amend the qualification suitably. 22. It cannot be said that the amendment to the Regulations prescribing qualification to the post of Drawing Teacher is arbitrary and discriminatory since the 3rd respondent is an autonomous body and power is vested to prescribe the qualification and the 3rd respondent being the employer has got prerogative to prescribe the qualification and amend the qualification suitably. 22. A reading of amended Regulation indicates that candidate must have passed Diploma in Drawing and Painting examination or Art Master examination or Diploma in Painting/Diploma in Commercial/Applied Arts conducted by Board of Technical Examination and the candidate must have studied Kannada as one of the languages either in Bachelor degree or Pre-University Course or SSLC or holder of Diploma in Kannada or passed Kannada Certificate Course . The qualification prescribed is that the candidate must not only possess the basic qualification but also should have studied Kannada in one of the courses enumerated and that does not mean that marks secured in the said courses of which the candidate must have studied Kannada as one of the subjects should also be considered for appointment to the post of drawing teachers. 23. The Government order dated 16.10.2019 vide Annexure-A2 has only clarified that the marks obtained in public examination should alone be considered for the purpose of appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and the said Government order does not in any way alter or modify the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher, and the qualification prescribed under the notification 17.6.2014 amending the qualification remains the same. 23. The Government order dated 16.10.2019 vide Annexure-A2 has only clarified that the marks obtained in public examination should alone be considered for the purpose of appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and the said Government order does not in any way alter or modify the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher, and the qualification prescribed under the notification 17.6.2014 amending the qualification remains the same. 24. In the absence of any material that the amendment to the Regulations prescribing qualification is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the contention of the petitioners that the amendment is discriminatory and arbitrary is unacceptable. Even otherwise , the petitioners having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful have no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions. Even otherwise , the petitioners having participated in the selection process and being unsuccessful have no locus standi to maintain these writ petitions. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER: i) The writ petitions stand dismissed. ii) In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the pending I.As. do not survive for consideration.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The said judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench was tossed before the Division Bench by those candidates who like the petitioners. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.100218 of 2023 c/w Writ Appeal No.100542 of 2022 and Writ Appeal No.100089 of 2023, by its order dated 23.11.2023, has affirmed the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench by the following order: “3. By virtue of the order passed in W.P.No.105152/2021, the writ petition filed by the appellants herein came to be disposed of rejecting their contentions and refusing to set aside the notification dated 17.06.2014 and the notification for recruitment dated 03.11.2016. The petitioners have also challenged the Government Order of 16.10.2019, which was a clarificatory notification and the challenge to the same also came to be rejected. Petitioners had sought for further relief by way of issuance of writ of mandamus to adopt selection method by taking into consideration 50 marks obtained in SSLC by while making appointments to the post of Drawing Teacher. The learned Single Judge, by a detailed consideration, has rejected the petition. 4. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals are that the petitioners had claimed that they had requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Drawing Teacher and that they had applied for the said post pursuant to the notification dated 27.04.2011. At the first instance, it is submitted that the said notification was challenged before this Court and was set aside as per the order passed in W.P.No.34861-34871/2012 as there were certain ambiguities in prescribing the qualification for the post of Drawing Teacher as admitted by the authorities. It is further made out from the facts that subsequently, an amendment came to be made on 17.06.2014 to the Regulations prescribed for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher. 5. It is in pursuance of such Regulations that notification came to be passed on 03.11.2016 seeking to recruit and fill up the post of Drawing Teachers. It is further made out from the facts that subsequently, an amendment came to be made on 17.06.2014 to the Regulations prescribed for selection to the post of Drawing Teacher. 5. It is in pursuance of such Regulations that notification came to be passed on 03.11.2016 seeking to recruit and fill up the post of Drawing Teachers. In light of the earlier notification of 27.04.2011 having been set aside, those who had applied at the first instance were exempted from paying application fee and there was relaxation insofar as age limit. Accordingly, the petitioners have stated to have applied pursuant to the notification dated 03.11.2016. It is an admitted fact that selection was on the basis of merit with no role assigned to the interview and accordingly, in the provisional selection list of 25.11.2021 petitioners having been excluded they are aggrieved by such selection. The said provisional selection list came to be affirmed by issuance of a final list. 6. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions seeking for the reliefs as referred to above. It is to be noticed that the petitioners while filing the writ petitions had challenged the notifications of 17.06.2014 as well as the notification dated 03.11.2016 issued by the authority as well as the notification of 16.10.2019. The primary contention of the petitioners is that in the selection process, the respondent – Karnataka Public Service Commission has not taken note of the marks in SSLC for preparation of merit list. It is submitted that though the Recruitment Rules were amended in 2014, the 2011 Recruitment Rules must be read in conjunction with the Government Order of 21.03.2006 as well as the notification dated 21.05.1998 and if all such documents are read together, the select list ought to have been prepared by giving due weightage to the extent of 50% of marks obtained in SSLC. 7. 7. The learned Single Judge, while considering the contentions of the petitioners, has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners having taken part in the selection process by filing their applications pursuant to the notification of 03.11.2016 and not having been selected, have sought to challenge the very Regulations pursuant to which the notification dated 03.11.2016 was passed and such challenge is not maintainable in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of H.C.Pradeep Kumar Rai and others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in 2015 (11) SCC 493 . 8. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that there has been a change in the qualification between the earlier notification passed on 27.04.2011 which was passed in terms of the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 2011 as well as the changes made in the notification of 17.06.2014 which was reflected in the notification of 03.11.2016. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the amended Regulations of 17.06.2014 was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.21856/2017 and connected matters and accordingly, the learned Single Judge did not find any legal infirmity in the notification of 03.11.2016 following the Cadre and Recruitment Rules relating to Recruitment of 17.06.2014. The Single Judge has also noticed the Government Order dated 16.10.2019 which clarifies that the marks obtained in the public examination should alone be considered for purpose of the appointment process and records a finding that the G.O. does not alter or modify the qualification prescribed, while holding so, the writ petitions came to be rejected. 9. It must be noticed that the case put forward by the petitioners in the writ proceedings is a challenge to the notification dated 07.06.2014, which are the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations as well as Notification issued pursuant to such Regulations on 03.11.2016. It is a settled legal position that once candidates who have applied for recruitment and notification is issued pursuant to the recruitment Rules the candidates cannot subsequently after the selection process is over, turn around and challenge the very validity of the Rules pursuant to which notification for recruitment has been issued. The said legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok kumar Sharma & Others v/s State of Bihar and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 . 10. The said legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok kumar Sharma & Others v/s State of Bihar and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 . 10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they are giving up their attack insofar as the validity of the Regulations of 17.06.2014 as well as the Notification of 03.11.2016 and would contend that even as per the existing recruitment Regulations and the Notification of 03.11.2016, the authorities have not taken the selection criteria into account, it cannot be missed that the case put forward in the writ proceedings is an attack to the validity of the Cadre and Recruitment Notification on 17.06.2014 as well as the Recruitment Notification on 03.11.2016. Accordingly insofar as the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioners cannot turn around and question the validity of the Recruitment Notification pursuant to which they themselves have participated requires affirmation. 11. Insofar as their contention that even if Regulation of 17.06.2014 is taken note of and the Notification of 03.11.2016 is accepted, the selection process ought to have taken note of 50% of marks from the S.S.L.C. which is an interpretation they have placed on the basis of the earlier Cadre and Recruitment Rules cannot be taken note of or considered as the petitioners seek to set up a new case in the present appeals which can not be permitted. The case put forward by the petitioners being clear from the prayers sought for in the writ petitions they cannot seek to make out a different case in the appeal proceedings. 12. Even if the contention relating to 50% of marks in the S.S.L.C. is considered, the reading of Regulation of 17.06.2014 and Notification of 03.11.2016 do not permit taking note of 50% of marks of S.S.L.C. The learned Single Judge has applied his mind and analyzed such contention while referring to both the earlier recruitment Rules of 2011 as well as subsequent recruitment Rules of 17.06.2014. The analysis made in paragraphs no.14 to 16 as regards such aspect cannot be interfered with. The contention of counsel for the petitioners regarding S.S.L.C. marks is based on an interpretation on the basis of the earlier regulation which according to them continues in force and are not amended by the subsequent amendments. The analysis made in paragraphs no.14 to 16 as regards such aspect cannot be interfered with. The contention of counsel for the petitioners regarding S.S.L.C. marks is based on an interpretation on the basis of the earlier regulation which according to them continues in force and are not amended by the subsequent amendments. However the said finding of the learned Single Judge being one that is plausible it will not be appropriate to set aside such conclusion merely because in appeal proceedings the Court may decide to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts. 13. Insofar as the further contention that the notification issued relating to the qualification on 16.10.2019 has changed the Rules of the game as the same has been passed subsequent to the recruitment process having been initiated. It must be noticed that the Government Order on 16.10.2019 merely states that while considering the Diploma qualification, the marks of 1st, 2nd and 5th year annual examination conducted by the University will only be taken note of. It does not in any way to change the qualification as contained in the Regulation and in the notification of 03.11.2016. No doubt the said qualification refers to the marks to be taken note of for Diploma and such clarification is in consonance with the broader qualification regarding having cleared the Diploma examination. 14. Though the counsel for the petitioners would contend that the amendment and qualification even if accepted do not take away from the requirement of taking 50% marks of the S.S.L.C. course, we do not find any such requirement plainly flowing from a reading of the recruitment rule 17.06.2014 or the notification of 03.11.2016. Further, notification and recruitment regulation of 03.11.2016 is in consonance with the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations. Accordingly we find no infirmity with the order of learned Single Judge and the appeals are rejected. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) Both the Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench have relied on the judgments of the Apex Court qua the issue whether the candidates could participate in the selection process, turn around and challenge and as held against the petitioners therein. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) Both the Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench have relied on the judgments of the Apex Court qua the issue whether the candidates could participate in the selection process, turn around and challenge and as held against the petitioners therein. 11. Learned counsel Smt.Veena Hegde appearing for the petitioner would further seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, (1997) 9 SCC 527 , to buttress her submission that the illegality in a selection process cannot be countenanced on the score that the candidates have participated in the selection process. Be that as it may. As the Apex Court in its subsequent judgments has considered this judgment as well and rendered its judgment as quoted herein above, the said submission would not merit any acceptance. 12. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench and Division Bench which follows the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India, (2022) 1 SCC 294 , the petitions would not merit any consideration. The petitions lacking in merit stand rejected. 13. The companion petition of Writ Petition No.100581 of 2024 on the same reason would follow suit.