ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium) under DSC-2024 in Nalgonda District, despite her merit, while selecting the lesser meritorious candidates, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Mamidi Sai Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to BC-E category and is a local candidate of Nalgonda District, possessing two Bachelor’s Degrees, viz., B.A. and B.P.Ed., and thus, she is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu Medium). It is submitted that respondent No.1 issued the DSC-2024 Notification dated 03.03.2024, in pursuance of which, the petitioner applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu Medium) in Nalgonda District, appeared for the written examination held on 18.07.2024, and secured Rank No.4 with a total score of 43.50 marks. Thereafter, during the process of certificate verification, the candidates placed at Sl.Nos.1 to 3 have not attended for the same, and the petitioner herein, produced all educational certificates, and was shown as the first candidate in the list of candidates selected for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu). However, the case of the petitioner for appointment was not considered by the respondents without any justifiable reason, on an untenable ground that the petitioner did not possess Urdu as one of the languages. It is submitted that the petitioner had completed Intermediate with Urdu as a second language from the Telangana Open School Society (for short, ‘TOSS’) during December, 2014. However, without considering the same, the respondents have ignored the case of the petitioner, who stood at Sl.No.1 in the list of selected candidates, and selected the candidates shown at Sl.Nos.5, 7 and 8, which is clearly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, without considering the same, the respondents have ignored the case of the petitioner, who stood at Sl.No.1 in the list of selected candidates, and selected the candidates shown at Sl.Nos.5, 7 and 8, which is clearly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had acquired the requisite qualifications as per the Notification, having completed SSC with Telugu as 1 st Language and English as 2 nd Language, Intermediate with English as 1 st Language and Telugu as 2 nd Language, graduation with Telugu as 2 nd Language, and also completed Intermediate from TOSS with English as 1 st Language and Urdu as 2nd Language during December, 2014 itself. As such, the petitioner satisfied the academic qualifications prescribed in Para V of the Notification. It is further submitted that even as per Para VIII of the Notification, the applicants who have obtained requisite Degrees through Open Universities/distance education mode are required to have recognition by the UGC/AICTE/Distance Education Bureau, and the petitioner herein possesses the Intermediate certificate from the TOSS, which is duly recognized by the State Government, and thus, the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu). 5. It is further submitted that in identical circumstances, the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P.No.21215 of 2017, held that as per Rule 4(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers Limited Recruitment (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2011, the candidates, who have passed Intermediate with Urdu as language or medium, even those who passed Urdu as an additional subject after securing their degree/B.Ed., are eligible to apply, and refusal to receive applications of such candidates is not proper. As such, the petitioner possessing an Intermediate with Urdu as second language, as on the date of DSC-2024 Notification, is fully eligible for appointment. However, without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents have issued appointment orders to the lesser meritorious candidates on 09.10.2024. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the appointment orders of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium), based on her merit. 6. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the appointment orders of the unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6, with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium), based on her merit. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submits that the Government issued a recruitment notification vide G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 28.02.2024 for direct recruitment to the posts of Teachers (DSC-2024) in Government and Local Body Schools of Telangana, and accordingly, conducted the DSC-2024 examination though online mode from 18.07.2024 to 05.08.2024, and announced the results on 30.09.2024. Thereafter, the certificate verification was conducted in Nalgonda District from 01.10.2024 to 05.10.2024, and the petitioner also participated in the said process. It is submitted that as per guidelines issued in Proc.Rc.No.20/RC-1/DSC/TRT/2023 dated 30.09.2024, specifically guideline No.5(c), a candidate who acquires a lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification is not eligible for selection to the applied post. As such, since the petitioner completed Bachelor of Physical Education in March/April 2012, and only then, she completed Intermediate from TOSS in December 2014, she is not eligible for the post of Physical Education Teacher. Accordingly, speaking orders were issued vide proceedings in Rc.No.8914/B4/2024 dated 06.12.2024. 7. It is further submitted that respondent No.5 herein applied for both P.E.T. (Telugu) and P.E.T. (Urdu), and since the syllabus is same and the question paper is bilingual, he was issued a single hall ticket, indicating Telugu as the medium of examination. Thereafter, respondent No.5 appeared in the written examination and secured 5 th rank in Urdu Medium and 248th rank in Telugu Medium, and based on his merit, he was selected as Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium). It is further submitted that respondent No.6 applied for the Urdu medium post, appeared in the written examination, secured 8 th rank, and since she possessed all the requisite qualifications, viz., SSC in 2011, Intermediate (Urdu medium) in 2013, Bachelor of Science (Urdu medium) in 2019, and Bachelor of Physical Education in 2022, she was selected for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium). As such, there is no infirmity in the selection process and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. As such, there is no infirmity in the selection process and therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that respondent No.5 completed his SSC with Urdu as 1st language in June 2019, Intermediate with Urdu as 2nd language in June 2021, and thereafter, obtained a Diploma in Physical Education from the Osmania University in October 2023. As such, respondent No.5 duly participated in the selection process of DSC-2024, appeared in the written examination, secured 40 marks, and secured Rank No.5, pursuant to which, he was appointed to the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu Medium) and joined Government High School, Girls (Urdu), Nalgonda, on 16.10.2024. It is further submitted that respondent No.6 completed her SSC in March 2011 with Urdu as 1st language, Intermediate in Urdu medium in March 2013, Bachelor of Science in Urdu medium in September 2018, and Bachelor of Physical Education in October 2022. As such, she participated in DSC-2024, appeared in the written examination, obtained 36 marks, and secured 8th rank. Accordingly, she was appointed as Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium) and joined duty at ZPHS, Urdu, Devarakonda on 16.10.2024. 9. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s primary grievance relates to the non-consideration of her Intermediate certificate obtained from TOSS during December 2014. It is submitted that the petitioner herein completed her SSC in Telugu medium in March 2001, Intermediate with English as 1st language and Telugu as 2nd language, Bachelors of Arts Degree in April 2007, and Bachelors of Physical Education in April 2012, and only subsequently, secured her Intermediate qualification from TOSS in Urdu medium in December 2014. It is further submitted that as per the prospectus of the Telangana Open School Society, persons who have already passed Intermediate from Intermediate Education of Telangana are not eligible for enrollment, and any intermediate certificate, obtained from TOSS, by suppressing the information with regard to earlier passing of Intermediate, is liable to be cancelled. As such, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have already submitted a representation to the Director, Telangana Open School Society, on 13.02.2025, bringing it to his notice about the illegally obtained Intermediate certificate by the petitioner, and sought for cancellation of the said certificate. As such, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have already submitted a representation to the Director, Telangana Open School Society, on 13.02.2025, bringing it to his notice about the illegally obtained Intermediate certificate by the petitioner, and sought for cancellation of the said certificate. As such, since the Intermediate qualification of the petitioner procured from TOSS is found ab initio void, based on suppression and misrepresentation, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the non-selection of the petitioner, and thus, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in W.P.No.21215 of 2017 is not binding upon the State of Telangana, as per paragraph 9 of the said decision, the relevant Rules stipulate that the person who did not study in Urdu medium up to SSC, but obtained the said qualification subsequently, are not eligible for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium), which squarely applies to the present case. Hence, it is once again prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned guidelines dated 30.09.2024 and the consequential rejection order dated 06.12.2024, were issued after the announcement of results, contrary to the eligibility criteria laid down in the notification, and also in violation of the settled principle of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another , (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court and others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184 , wherein, it is clearly established that the authorities cannot change the rules of the game after the selection process. As such, the impugned rejection order dated 06.12.2024 is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the contention of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that the petitioner’s intermediate certificate from TOSS is invalid is also untenable, as the prospectus of TOSS is neither a rule nor a regulation, and is thus, not binding and does not prevail over the Notification. Therefore, it is once again prayed to allow the present writ petition. 11. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 12. Therefore, it is once again prayed to allow the present writ petition. 11. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 12. Admittedly, respondent No.1 issued the DSC-2024 Notification dated 29.02.2024, for recruitment to the posts of Teachers in Government and Local Body Schools, and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium), participated in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination, and secured Rank-4 in the DSC-2024 General Ranking List. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for certificate verification and she attended the same on 03.10.2024, but the candidates who secured Ranks 1 to 3 failed to attend the said certificate verification process, thereby, the petitioner stood as the first candidate among the list of selected candidates for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium). However, the respondents have denied considering her case for appointment, while appointing the remaining candidates (unofficial respondent Nos.5 and 6). Therefore, the petitioner submitted her representations dated 11.10.2024 and 14.10.2024, and this Court vide interim order dated 16.10.2024, directed the respondents to consider the said representations in terms of Sl.No.13-V of the Notification dated 29.02.2024, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.2 passed the order in proceedings Rc.No.8914/B4/2024 dated 06.12.2024, holding that the petitioner had secured her Bachelor of Physical Education during March/April 2012, and only subsequently, prosecuted her Intermediate from the Telangana Open Schools Society during December, 2014, and thus, in terms of the guidelines of respondent No.1, viz., securing lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification, the petitioner was declared ineligible for the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium). As such, her case for appointment was considered and rejected. 13. In this connection, it is firstly essential to refer to the qualification prescribed in the DSC-2024 Notification, for the post of Physical Education Teacher, which reads as under: “13. ELIGIBILITY:- (ii) QUALIFICATIONS – POST WISE IV. Physical Education Teacher:- 1. Must possess Intermediate (or its equivalent) recognized by the Board of Intermediate Education, Telangana with minimum 50% of marks. And A Certificate / Under Graduate Dipolma in Physical Education / Diploma in Physical Education from an Institution recognized by the NCTE. Or 2. ELIGIBILITY:- (ii) QUALIFICATIONS – POST WISE IV. Physical Education Teacher:- 1. Must possess Intermediate (or its equivalent) recognized by the Board of Intermediate Education, Telangana with minimum 50% of marks. And A Certificate / Under Graduate Dipolma in Physical Education / Diploma in Physical Education from an Institution recognized by the NCTE. Or 2. Must possess a Bachelor’s Degree And Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.) of atleast 1 year duration from any institution recognized by NCTE. V. Language / Medium Study Qualifications: The candidates who have (i) passed either SSC (or its equivalent) Examination or Intermediate (or its equivalent) or Degree Examination in the medium of instruction concerned or (ii) have studies the Language concerned as First Language in SSC (or its equivalent) or as Part-I in Intermediate (or its equivalent) or as Second Language in Intermediate (or its equivalent) or as a Subject in Degree, are eligible for the posts of SA (Mathematics, Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Studies & Physical Education), SGT and PET in the concerned medium. The written test will be in the bilingual language with concerned medium and English.” 14. A bare reading of the aforesaid condition 13(ii)(IV) in consonance with 13(ii)(V) makes it abundantly clear that a candidate aspiring the post of Physical Education Teacher (Urdu medium) must possess either Intermediate and Under Graduate Diploma/ Diploma in Physical Education (or) Bachelor’s Degree and Bachelor of Physical Education of at least (1) year duration, with the medium of study/ one of the languages as ‘Urdu’ either in the SSC (or) Intermediate (or) Degree-levels. From a perusal of the petitioner’s educational qualification certificates, it is clear that she had studied SSC with Telugu as the medium of instruction during March, 2001; Intermediate also with Telugu as the medium of instruction during March, 2003; Bachelor of Arts with Telugu as one of the subjects during June, 2007; and Bachelor of Physical Education during March/April, 2012. However, the petitioner appears to have prosecuted Intermediate with Urdu as one of the subjects from the Telangana Open School Society during December, 2014. 15. It is relevant to note that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment vide proceedings dated 06.12.2024, relying on the guidelines issued in proceedings Rc.No.20/RC-1/DSC/TRT/2023 dated 30.09.2024, and the relevant Guideline reads as under: “5. 15. It is relevant to note that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment vide proceedings dated 06.12.2024, relying on the guidelines issued in proceedings Rc.No.20/RC-1/DSC/TRT/2023 dated 30.09.2024, and the relevant Guideline reads as under: “5. Verification of Certificates: (c) The candidate who acquired lower qualification after acquiring higher qualification is not eligible for the selection to the applied post.” 16. The aforesaid Guideline squarely applies to the case of the petitioner, as she had procured her Intermediate with Urdu as one of the languages from the Telangana Open School Society in March/April, 2014, after acquiring the qualification of Bachelor’s of Arts and Bachelor’s of Physical Education, way back during June, 2007 and March/April, 2012, respectively. It is needless to say, the Guidelines governing such matters of recruitment are ipso facto exclusively within the domain of the authority concerned. However, in the instant case, the said guidelines, operating as an impediment to the case of the petitioner, were issued after the recruitment process had begun. 17. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in K. Manjusree (supra), has categorically held that the rules for a public recruitment cannot be changed mid-way, and that all the conditions must be expressly stated in the original Notification and cannot be introduced or altered after the commencement of recruitment process. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: “ 33. 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 wants to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. 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 wants 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. … 35. The Full Court allowed the Administrative Committee to determine the method and manner of selection and also allowed it to conduct the examination and interviews with reference to the method and manner determined by the Administrative Committee. Once the selection process was completed with reference to the criteria adopted by the Administrative Committee and the results were placed before it, the Full Court did not find fault with the criteria decided by the Administrative Committee (as per Resolution dated 30-11-2004) or the process of examinations and interviews conducted by the Administrative Committee and Interview Committee. If the Full Court had found that the procedure adopted in the examinations or interviews was contrary to the procedure prescribed, the Full Court could have set aside the entire process of selection and directed the Administrative Committee to conduct a fresh selection. The Resolution dated 30-11-2004 was approved. It did not find any irregularity in the examination conducted by the Administrative Committee or the interviews held by the Selection Committee. The assessment of performance in the written test by the candidates was not disturbed. The assessment of performance in the interview by the Selection Committee was not disturbed.” 18. Similarly, in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held as under: “Conclusions 65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness;” 19. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection order dated 06.12.2024 is wholly unsustainable, as the same was passed basing on the guidelines issued subsequent to the commencement of recruitment process, which is impermissible under law. 20. Be that as it may, it is also pertinent to note that the respondents have placed on record a copy of the Prospectus of the Telangana Open School Society and Paragraph 1.2 of the said Prospectus is extracted hereunder: “1.2 SSC/Intermediate Certificate Holders of other Boards should not enroll once again for SSC/Intermediate of Telangana Open School: Persons who have already passed SSC/Intermediate from any other Board of Secondary Education/Intermediate Education of Telangana or from other states should not enroll for SSC/Intermediate Course of Telangana Open School for any reason. On the contrary, if anyone enrolls and passes SSC/Intermediate from Open School suppressing the information that they have already passed SSC/Intermediate from another Board, their SSC/Intermediate pass certificates will be cancelled.” 21. As can be seen from the above, it is clear that the candidate who has previously acquired SSC/Intermediate from another Board of Education, within or outside Telangana, is strictly prohibited from pursuing the said course from the Telangana Open School Society, and that suppressing the material information to secure a Certificate from the Telangana Open School Society, leads to the cancellation of pass certificates of the individuals. 22. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner contended that the Prospectus is neither a rule nor a regulation and therefore, it is not binding. However, in the opinion of this Court, this contention of the petitioner is legally untenable. 22. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner contended that the Prospectus is neither a rule nor a regulation and therefore, it is not binding. However, in the opinion of this Court, this contention of the petitioner is legally untenable. A Prospectus is not a mere booklet outlining the details of an Institution, but it also acts as a form of legal contract between the Telangana Open School Society and the students, with certain terms and conditions, with a binding effect on either party, and in case of violation or breach of the said terms of such contract, the said party is liable to face necessary consequences. In the instant case, the petitioner has already completed Intermediate during March, 2003, and subsequently, went ahead to pursue Intermediate again from the Telangana Open School Society in March/April, 2014, thereby, attracting the aforesaid condition No.1.2. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Intermediate Certificate of the petitioner, obtained from the Telangana Open School Society, is void-ab-initio. 23. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.