JUDGMENT : (Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.) Writ Petition No.18583 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘TREIRB’) in not conducting examination dated 01.08.2023 in Telugu language for the post of Craft Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies as per Notification No.07/2023, dated 05.04.2023, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct TREIRB to conduct fresh examination to the post of Craft Teachers in bilingual mode, i.e., English and Telugu. 2. W.A.No.910 of 2024 is filed by writ petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.18583 of 2024 aggrieved by the interim order dated 16.07.2024 passed in WP No.18583 of 2024. 3. W.A.No.1256 of 2024 is filed by TREIRB and W.A.No.1345 of 2024 is filed by the candidates aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22593 of 2023. 4. Since the issue involved in all these cases is one and the same, all the cases are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in WA.No.910 of 2024 and the petitioners in WP.No.18583 of 2024, Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for appellants in WA.No.1345 of 2024, Sri N.Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel for TREIRB and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. 6. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.18583 of 2024 and the facts of the case as narrated in Writ Petition No.18583 of 2024 are referred hereunder: 7. Respondent No.1 issued Notification No.07/2023 dated 05.04.2023 inviting On-line applications from qualified candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Craft Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies. In the said notification, at Para-I (1) (v), it was mentioned that question paper will be bilingual i.e., English and Telugu. Petitioners responded to the said notification and submitted their applications. Examination was conducted on 01.08.2023, however, contrary to the notification, the question paper was given in English language only instead of giving in both English and Telugu languages. Petitioners made oral representation to the authorities concerned requesting to cancel the examination and to conduct re-examination in both English and Telugu languages. Examination was conducted on 01.08.2023, however, contrary to the notification, the question paper was given in English language only instead of giving in both English and Telugu languages. Petitioners made oral representation to the authorities concerned requesting to cancel the examination and to conduct re-examination in both English and Telugu languages. However, as no action was taken by the authorities concerned, Writ Petition No.18583 of 2024 was filed by the candidates seeking to declare the action of TREIRB in not conducting the examination dated 01.08.2023 in Telugu language for the post of Craft Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions as illegal and arbitrary and a learned single Judge of this Court while issuing notice before admission, passed interim order, dated 16.07.2024, holding that any selections made pursuant to Notification No.07/2023, dated 05.04.2023, shall be subject to the final outcome of the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the said interim order dated 16.07.2024 and non-granting of relief of withholding the declaration of results of examination dated 01.08.2023 conducted for the post of Craft Teachers, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein preferred W.A.No.910 of 2024. 8. It is further averred that earlier, some of the candidates who wrote examination for the post of Art Teachers have filed W.P.No.22593 of 2023 seeking to declare the action of TREIRB in not conducting the examination in Telugu language as null and void and a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 granted interim order directing the respondents not to finalize the results of the examination held on 01.08.2023 until further orders. In view of the said interim order, TREIRB has not declared the results of examination held for the post of Art Teachers. 9. Subsequently, the said W.P.No.22593 of 2023 was disposed of by the learned single Judge vide order dated 04.04.2024 holding that the action of TREIRB in conducting examination in single language, i.e. English only, in spite of mentioning as bilingual in notification, cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and further, directed TREIRB to conduct fresh written examination for the post of Art Teachers in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in Notification No.6/2023 dated 05.04.2023 without any deviation. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.22593 of 2024, TREIRB preferred W.A.No.1256 of 2024 and some of the candidates who appeared for the examination preferred W.A.No.1345 of 2024. 11. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.22593 of 2024, TREIRB preferred W.A.No.1256 of 2024 and some of the candidates who appeared for the examination preferred W.A.No.1345 of 2024. 11. Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.910 of 2024 and petitioners in WP.No.18583 of 2024, contended that as per Para-I (1)(v) of the Notification No.07/2023, dated 05.04.2023, the examination should be conducted in both English and Telugu languages, however, the Recruitment Board had conducted the examination on 01.08.2023 in English language only, contrary to the notification dated 05.04.2023, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that the writ petitioners, who have pursued their studies in Telugu medium, were put to disadvantageous position as they could not understand the question paper which was only in English language in a proper manner and thus, could not write the examination properly, and as a result, they did not succeed in the examination. Learned counsel finally contended that TREIRB conducted the examination contrary to its own notification and hence, the same is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. He further contended that TREIRB may be directed to conduct the examination afresh in two languages as per the notification dated 05.04.2023. 12. Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1345 of 2024, had contended that the order dated 04.04.2024 of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.22593 of 2023 is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the writ petitioners approached this Court belatedly, i.e., after release of final key of examination and having realized that they do not come within the zone of consideration. He further contended that the candidates therein participated in the written examination for the post of Art Teachers without raising any objection, however, the learned single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition No.22593 of 2023 and directed the respondents therein to conduct fresh examination for the post of Art Teachers in two languages i.e., English and Telugu as specified in Notification No.6/2023, dated 05.04.2023, without any deviation. He further contended that at this stage, cancelling the earlier examination and conducting re-examination would result in mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the candidates, besides delay in recruitment process. Therefore, he prayed to allow W.A.No.1345 of 2024. 13. He further contended that at this stage, cancelling the earlier examination and conducting re-examination would result in mental agony, hardship and financial loss to the candidates, besides delay in recruitment process. Therefore, he prayed to allow W.A.No.1345 of 2024. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for TREIRB contended that the learned single Judge erred in cancelling the earlier examination and directing to conduct fresh examination. He further contended that all the residential institutions working under the five residential societies are English medium institutions and the selected candidates have to teach in English medium only. Therefore, conducting the examination in English language only has not caused any prejudice to the candidates. He further submitted that in all the recruitments notified under Notification Nos.1 to 9, dated 05.04.2023, for filling different posts for different subjects, i.e., PD, Librarian/JL PD Librarian/PGT/Librarian School/PD School/Art Teacher/Craft Teacher/Music Teacher/TGT, the question paper was in English only and further, Arts/Craft/Music examinations being a single optional paper examinations, the question paper will be given in English language only. He further contended that cancelling the earlier examination and conducting examination afresh will be burden on TREIRB and therefore, TREIRB may be allowed to finalize the selection process of the earlier examination. He further contended that for the sake of few candidates, the fate of nearly 4359 candidates, who appeared for the earlier examination, cannot be put on hold, which leads to deprivation of their fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and finally, he prayed to allow WA.No.1256 of 2024. 14. Perusal of the record would disclose that Notification No.6/2023 dated 05.04.2023 was issued for the post of Arts Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies and the examination was conducted on 01.08.2023 in English language only, contrary to the notification dated 05.04.2023, wherein it was specifically mentioned at Para-I (1)(v) that the question paper is bilingual i.e., English and Telugu. The said action of the TREIRB was challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court by filing W.P.No.22593 of 2023. The said action of the TREIRB was challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court by filing W.P.No.22593 of 2023. The learned single Judge, on due consideration of the material placed on record as well as the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties therein and also by referring to the decision of a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 , had allowed the said Writ Petition and directed TREIRB to conduct fresh written examination for the post of Art Teachers in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in Notification No.6/2023 dated 05.04.2023 without any deviation. 15. It is pertinent to note that the subject Notification, i.e., Notification No.7/2023 dated 05.04.2023, issued for recruitment of Craft Teachers, is similar to that of Notification No.6/2023, which was challenged in W.P.No.22593 of 2023. 16. The learned single Judge in its judgment referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manjusree (1 supra), wherein it is held as under: “27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier Resolutions dated 24-7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that what was adopted on 30-11-2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them — P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [ (1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [ (1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [ (1987) 4 SCC 646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] .” 17. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. 18. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhyimrao Mandve , [ (2001) 10 SCC 51 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the rules of the game, meaning thereby that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game has been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible. 19. In a recent judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2025) 2 SCC 1 , the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while upholding the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manjusree (1 supra), held as under: “52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/ recruiting authority/competent authority, in absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/examiner/ interviewer is taken by surprise. 53. The decision in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the game has already been played. This view is in consonance with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby obviates malpractices in preparation of select list.” 20. In the present case, admittedly, in notification Nos.6/2023 and 7/2023, dated 05.04.2023, it was specifically mentioned at ‘ Para-I(1)(v) that "the question paper is bilingual i.e., English and Telugu’’. Therefore, the examination was supposed to be conducted in two languages, however, the examination was conducted only in English language contrary to the method prescribed in the notification. Thus, the action of TREIRB has put the candidates who have pursued their studies in Telugu medium in a disadvantageous position. 21. In the present case, the action of TREIRB in conducting the examination for the posts of Craft Teachers/Art Teachers in English language only, contrary to Para-1(1)(v) of Notification No.7/2023, dated 05.04.2023, and again taking a ‘U‘ turn and stating that the examination paper for optional subjects viz., Arts/Craft/Music shall be in English language only, amounts to violating the terms and conditions in the said Notification, which is not appreciated. In other words, TREIRB being a responsible authority is bound by the Notification which is being issued by it and any contravention of the said Notification would only result in putting the future of the candidates at stake. Hence, the action of the TREIRB in conducting the examination for the posts of Art Teachers/Craft Teachers in English language only is not sustainable. 22. Hence, the action of the TREIRB in conducting the examination for the posts of Art Teachers/Craft Teachers in English language only is not sustainable. 22. In view of the totality of facts of the case as stated above, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manjusree’s case (1 supra), in Maharashtra SRTC’s case (2 supra) and in Tej Prakash Pathak’s case (3 supra), squarely applies to the present cases. 23. In the case on hand, the stand taken by TREIRB that examination for optional subjects viz., Arts/Craft/Music shall be in English language, that too, after the completion of the examination, amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game was played, therefore, the same is clearly impermissible in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 24. In the result, W.P.No.18583 of 2024 and W.A.No.910 of 2024 are allowed and W.A.Nos.1256 and 1345 of 2024 are dismissed. The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board and the State of Telangana, Higher Education Department are directed to conduct examination afresh for the post of Art/Craft Teachers in the Residential Educational Institutions Societies in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in Notification Nos.6/2023 and 7/2023, dated 05.04.2024, without any deviation, as early as possible since the said notifications are of the year 2023. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.