JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assail is made to an Order bearing no. G-06/4/A-III[Vol.I][Pt.] dated 03.08.2016 issued under the hand of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Governor, Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland at Kohima, whereby, the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as a Secretariat Assistant in the establishment of the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima in the Pay Band – 2 : Rs. 9,300/- – Rs. 34,800/- and Grade Pay : Rs. 4,200/- per month plus all other allowances as are admissible from time to time in Nagaland. Assail is also made to the final results prepared and declared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose of selecting candidate for appointment to the post of Secretariat Assistant in the establishment of the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima, pursuant to an Advertisement dated 21.11.2015. 2. The background facts which are relevant and are not in dispute, can be exposited, in brief, at first. The genesis of the lis is traceable to an Advertisement bearing no. G-06/4/A-II/04 dated 21.11.2015 published by the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima and issued under the hand of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Governor, Nagaland. By the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, applications were invited for filling up a vacancy in the post of Secretariat Assistant in the establishment in the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima. 2.1. For ready reference, the contents of the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015 are reproduced hereinbelow in its entirety :- GOVERNOR’S SECRETARIAT NAGALAND : KOHIMA No. G-06/4/A-II/04                                                                                                                               Dated Kohima, the 21st November, 2015. ADVERTISEMENT Applications are invited in a plain paper giving full curriculum vitae from the serving candidates belonging to Chang, Khiamnuingan, Konyak, Phom, Sangtam and Yimchunger Tribes of State of Nagaland to fill up a post of Secretariat Assistant in the Scale of Pay of Rs. 9,300-34,800, Grade Pay 4,200/- pm [PB-2] under the establishment of Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima. The application should be addressed to the Commissioner & Secretary to Governor of Nagaland, Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima. Terms : · Minimum Qualification : Graduate in any discipline from any recognized University. · Candidate should have good working knowledge in computers. · Age : Not less than 21 years as on 31 st October, 2015 and not more than 30 years as on 31 st October, 2015. Terms : · Minimum Qualification : Graduate in any discipline from any recognized University. · Candidate should have good working knowledge in computers. · Age : Not less than 21 years as on 31 st October, 2015 and not more than 30 years as on 31 st October, 2015. Age relaxation of upper limit as per existing policy of the State Government, including those serving in the State Government. · No Objection Certificate duly signed by the Head of the Department with name and Official seal indicating the date of initial appointment of the candidate is required from applicants already serving in the State Government. · Candidates who are already in service in the identical Pay Band [PB-29300-34800, Grade Pay 4200/-pm] will be given preference. · Candidates working on fixed pay are not eligible to apply. · The date and venue of the written test will be intimated to the shortlisted candidates. · The applicants are requested to clearly indicate their contact details such as email id, Phone number and proper postal address in their applications. Copies of the relevant documents along with recent passport size photograph to be attached with application. · Appointment will be on probation for a period of one year. · The undersigned has reserves the right to accept or reject any application without assigning any reason[s] whatsoever. Examination : · Written Exam : MCQ of total 100 marks [50 marks written and 30 marks oral & 20 for working experience]. Subject : General Knowledge, Test of Reasoning, Simple Arithmetic and General Knowledge. Last date of Submission : 15th December, 2015. [XXXXX], IAS Commissioner & Secretary to Governor 3. The petitioner has stated that she is an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland from Sangtam Tribe [Scheduled Tribe], which has been recognized as a Backward Tribe in the State of Nagaland. The petitioner has stated that she has the academic qualification of Graduation in Arts with a Diploma in Computer Application and Information Technology. The petitioner has stated that she obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Arts from the Osmania University. The petitioner has further stated that at the time of publication of the Advertisement, she was serving as a Lower Division Assistant [LDA]-cum-Computer Assistant in the Office of the Assistant General Manager, Transport Department, Government of Nagaland. 4. Responding to the Advertisement, the petitioner and the respondent no. The petitioner has further stated that at the time of publication of the Advertisement, she was serving as a Lower Division Assistant [LDA]-cum-Computer Assistant in the Office of the Assistant General Manager, Transport Department, Government of Nagaland. 4. Responding to the Advertisement, the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 along with the other intending candidates submitted their candidatures for the post of Secretariat Assistant, so advertised. As the petitioner was serving as a LDA-cum-Computer Assistant at the time of publication of the Advertisement and belongs to Sangtam Tribe which was one of the six tribes mentioned in the Advertisement, the petitioner had found herself fulfilling these two requirements set forth in the Advertisement apart from all others. 5. After scrutiny of the applications received, the Governor’s Secretariat issued call letters to the short-listed candidates. The call letters were issued under the hand of the Deputy Secretary to the Governor of Nagaland on 08.02.2016. By the call letter dated 08.02.2016, the petitioner was informed that her Roll no. for the written examination would be 10045 and the written examination was scheduled at 10-00 hours on 16.03.2016 in the Conference Hall of the Raj Bhawan, Kohima. The respondent no. 6 and other short-listed candidates were also issued similar call letters for the written examination scheduled on 16.03.2016. The respondent no. 6 was allotted the Roll no. : 10036. The respondent no. 7 was another short- listed candidate, who was allotted Roll no. 10056 in the call letter issued to appear in the written examination. 6. With the call letters dated 08.02.2016, the short-listed candidates were informed that few of the conditions in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015 had been modified partially and the partial modifications made in the Advertisement were incorporated in the call letters issued to the short-listed candidates itself. The partial modifications which were made in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, were as under :- 3. In a partial modification to this Secretariat’s conditions in the advertisement, the written examination shall be for a total of 200 marks [150 marks for Multiple Choice Questions [MCQ] and 50 marks for subjective type questions] . 4. The written examination shall be for 3 [three] hours. 5. The written test shall include the following topics – i. Subjective type paper covering topics on Polity, General Knowledge, General English, Precise Writing, Essay Writing, etc. ii. 4. The written examination shall be for 3 [three] hours. 5. The written test shall include the following topics – i. Subjective type paper covering topics on Polity, General Knowledge, General English, Precise Writing, Essay Writing, etc. ii. MCQ test shall include questions from General Knowledge, Test of Reasoning, Arithmetic, Verbal Ability, English Comprehension, Current Affairs, etc. 6. the top 15 candidates will be shortlisted for the oral interview provided they have obtained minimum of 50% marks in the written examination. 7. The final selection of the candidates out of those called for interview will be done as under :- i. Total marks obtained in the written examination out of maximum of 200 marks shall carry a weightage of 60% ii. Oral Interview shall carry overall weightage of 30% iii. The overall assessment such as work experience, knowledge, proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification shall carry a weightage of 10%. 8. Candidates are advised to carefully read the important information regarding oral interview and the instructions/guidelines attached herewith and strictly adhere to it. Along with the call letter for written examination, instructions to be followed by the candidates in the written examination were appended. It was further informed that all efforts would be made to hold the oral interview on the next working day, 17.03.2016 itself. It was further informed that those who would qualify for the oral interview would be informed on the e-mail and the mobile number mentioned in their applications and the candidates would have to bring all their documents/certificates in original during the oral interview. 7. The written examination scheduled originally on 16.03.2016, as mentioned in the call letter dated 08.02.2016, was, however, deferred. Subsequently, the candidates were issued a Letter on 17.06.2016 by the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland under the hand of the Additional Secretary to the Governor of Nagaland, informing that the written examination for the post of Secretariat Assistant would be held at 10-00 hours on 13.07.2016 in the Conference Hall of the Governors’ Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Kohima. It was further informed to the candidates that the terms and conditions and instructions/guidelines issued by the Secretariat vide its earlier Letters, dated 21.11.2015 & dated 08.02.2016, would remain the same. The candidates were also informed that all efforts would be made to hold the oral interview on the next working day, 14.07.2016. It was further informed to the candidates that the terms and conditions and instructions/guidelines issued by the Secretariat vide its earlier Letters, dated 21.11.2015 & dated 08.02.2016, would remain the same. The candidates were also informed that all efforts would be made to hold the oral interview on the next working day, 14.07.2016. They were also informed that those who would qualify for the oral interview would be informed on the e-mail and the mobile number mentioned in their applications. The candidates were requested to bring all documents/certificates in original during the oral interview. 8. The written examination was held on 13.07.2016 wherein altogether fifty-six candidates participated. 9. It was on 14.07.2016, the oral interview was conducted by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose. Altogether thirteen candidates turned up to appear in the oral interview. However, one candidate, namely, Mr. Ushem Moba Chang left the interview hall without facing the oral interview. As a result, twelve candidates who were declared qualified in the written examination, appeared in the oral interview. 10. After completion of the oral interview, the respondent no. 1 by the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016 appointed the respondent no. 6 as Secretariat Assistant in the establishment of the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima in the Scale of Pay, as mentioned hereinabove. In the impugned Order, it was mentioned that the appointment would be purely on probation for a period of one year from the date of assuming the charge and was made against the vacant post of Secretariat Assistant created vide Order no. SAB-12/1/67 dated 30.01.1969. Having learnt about the appointment of the respondent no. 6 by the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information [RTI] Act, 2005 and in the process, obtained the final results prepared and finalized by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose of selecting candidate on the basis of marks secured by the participating candidates in the three segments of the selection process for appointment to the post of Secretariat Assistant. On being aggrieved by the final results and the impugned Order, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition mounting the challenges, mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Secretariat Assistant. 11. The Court while issuing notices on 28.09.2016, had made the order of appointment of the respondent no. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Secretariat Assistant. 11. The Court while issuing notices on 28.09.2016, had made the order of appointment of the respondent no. 6 as Secretariat Assistant subject to the outcome of the writ petition. On 04.08.2017, submission was made on behalf of the respondent no. 6 that the hearing of the case be deferred in the reference made by a three-Judge Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others , [2013] 4 SCC 540 . The learned counsel for the petitioner also gave consent to the said prayer. The case was thereafter, listed only on 12.11.2024. 12. I have heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Taka Kicho, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1 to 5; and Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 13. Mr. Zho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the challenge to the appointment of the respondent no. 6 in the post of Secretariat Assistant vide Order dated 03.08.2016 is made on the ground that the rules of the game were illegally and arbitrarily changed during the time and also, after the game was played. He has submitted that at the time of issuance of the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, it was mentioned that the selection process would be held for 100 marks. But subsequently, partial modifications were made to the Advertisement. In the call letter issued for appearing in the written examination on 08.02.2016, it was informed to the candidates that the written examination would be held for a total of 200 marks carrying a weightage of 60%. Weightage of 30% was earmarked for the oral interview and the remaining weightage of 10% was meant for the candidates’ overall assessment. The written examination was finally held on 13.07.2016 wherein altogether fifty-six candidates appeared. The candidates who qualified in the written examination for the oral interview, contrary to the professed mode of communication, were telephonically informed in the same evening to be ready with the original documents. The oral interview was held immediately thereafter, on 14.07.2016 where altogether thirteen candidates turned up. However, twelve shortlisted candidates finally appeared before the Selection Board. The candidates who qualified in the written examination for the oral interview, contrary to the professed mode of communication, were telephonically informed in the same evening to be ready with the original documents. The oral interview was held immediately thereafter, on 14.07.2016 where altogether thirteen candidates turned up. However, twelve shortlisted candidates finally appeared before the Selection Board. The petitioner could come to know from the information received under the RTI Act that she secured the highest marks in the written examination. 13.1. Mr. Zho has further submitted that the final results were not published or made known by the Selection Board at any time. In such situation, the petitioner had to submit an application under the RTI Act on 24.07.2016 to the Public Information Officer [PIO], Governor’s Secretariat seeking information pertaining to the recruitment process for the post of Secretariat Assistant and some of the information sought for was received on 23.08.2016. By that time, the impugned Order appointing the respondent no. 6 in the post of Secretariat Assistant had already been issued. As the information received on 23.08.2016 was not complete, the petitioner had to prefer another application under the RTI Act on 26.08.2016 seeking more information, more particularly, the marks obtained by each of the candidates in the oral interview and the percentage secured by each candidates in respect of their work experience, educational qualification, etc. The information so sought for, was finally provided on 02.09.2016. 13.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that only the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 secured more than 100 marks out of total 200 marks in the written examination. The petitioner has contended that the respondent no. 6 was allotted 2% in excess towards academic and professional qualification illegally. Had the respondent no. 6 been not allotted such 2% excess mark illegally, the respondent no. 6 would have secured a total of 58.4% as against the petitioner’s 59% and in such scenario, it was the petitioner who would have secured the first position in order of merit. The respondent authorities at a subsequent time, decided to make changes again in the marks earmarked for oral interview and work experience. The weightage/marks for oral interview were reduced from 30% to 25% and the weightage/marks for work experience was increased from 10% to 15% without making any publicity and behind the back. The respondent authorities at a subsequent time, decided to make changes again in the marks earmarked for oral interview and work experience. The weightage/marks for oral interview were reduced from 30% to 25% and the weightage/marks for work experience was increased from 10% to 15% without making any publicity and behind the back. Thereafter, the minimum percentage of marks required to be obtained in the written examination to qualify for the interview was reduced after the written examination was over. It is, thus, contended that the rules of the game were changed in the case after the game was played only to bestow undue benefit to the respondent no. 6. 13.3. In order to bring home his point of illegality, Mr. Zho has extensively referred to the chart the petitioner has depicted in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, which would be adverted to in the later part of the order. On the point of illegality, he has submitted that the respondent no. 7 who had secured only 93.5 marks in the written examination, was illegally called to appear in the oral interview whereas the cut-off marks required to be secured in the written examination to appear in the oral interview was fixed at 50%. The respondent no. 6 was given 12% marks towards academic and professional course as against weightage of 10% marks under the said heading. Similarly, two other candidates were given 13% marks under the same heading of academic and professional course illegally. 13.4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others , [2024] 3 SCC 799 ; and Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan Nigh Court and others, 2024 INSC 847 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ Tej Prakash Pathak-II ’, for short]. 14. Mr. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 has endorsed that in the written examination held on 13.07.2016, a total of fifty-six candidates appeared. He has further submitted that in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, it was informed to the candidates that the selection process would consist of a written examination, followed by oral interview. In addition, marks would be allotted for working experience. The said pattern was followed in the selection process subsequently undertaken. He has further submitted that in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, it was informed to the candidates that the selection process would consist of a written examination, followed by oral interview. In addition, marks would be allotted for working experience. The said pattern was followed in the selection process subsequently undertaken. He has submitted that initially in the Advertisement, the distribution of marks for the three segments were as follows :- [i] 50 marks for written examination carrying weightage of 50%; [ii] 30 marks for oral interview; and [iii] 20 marks for working experience; and the total marks for all the three segments were 100. Subsequently, a decision was taken to modify and increase the total marks for written examination from 100 marks to 200 marks [150 marks for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) plus 50 marks for Subjective Type Questions (STQ)] carrying weightage of 60% and the same was reflected in the call letters issued to the candidates on 08.02.2016. A meeting of the Selection Board was held on 12.07.2016, that is, before the written examination to shortlist the candidates for the oral interview. After due deliberation, the Selection Board felt a necessity to review and modify the marks earmarked for oral interview to ensure selection of the best from amongst the candidates, who were having higher educational and professional qualifications from the most reputed universities, work experience, seniority in Government service and method of selection in their existing service, knowledge and proficiency in computer. Accordingly, the Selection Board decided that the marks for the oral interview should be reduced from 30% to 25% and marks for the segment of work experience, knowledge and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualifications should be increased from 10% to 15%. Mr. Angami has submitted that though such modifications were made, there was, however, no change in the total percentage of weightage for the two segments – oral interview & working experience, etc. – as the same was kept at 40%. He has contended that the decision taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 was also displayed in the notice board of the Governor’s Secretariat for information of all the interested candidates. 14.1. Mr. Angami has submitted that the cut-off mark for the written examination was initially kept at 50%. – as the same was kept at 40%. He has contended that the decision taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 was also displayed in the notice board of the Governor’s Secretariat for information of all the interested candidates. 14.1. Mr. Angami has submitted that the cut-off mark for the written examination was initially kept at 50%. However, when it is found that only three out of fifty-six candidates could score more than 50% marks in the written examination the Selection Board, after careful consideration of the matter, decided in its Meeting, held on 13.07.2016, to relax the cut-off marks for the written examination from 50% to 45%. It is his contention that by such relaxation, the Selection Board had allowed more candidates for the oral interview which had, in turn, facilitated more competitiveness in the selection process. He has further submitted that as per the Raj Bhawan Manual, the process of recruitment of staff to Raj Bhawan is exempted from the purview of the Public Service Commission, thereby, giving complete freedom to recruit the staff whom the Governor may consider suitable. He has further contended that since the petitioner appeared in the oral interview without any objection, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise question in connection with the selection process, after she had participated in it and was unsuccessful at the end. He has contended that the entire selection process was carried out in an objective and transparent manner on the basis of the decisions taken by the Selection Board from time to time. With such submissions, Mr. Angami has contended that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case, much less a prima-facie case, for interference and the writ petition being not merited, deserves to be dismissed. 15. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the Selection Board in a Meeting, held on 12.07.2016, took a decision to further modify the modalities and accordingly, altered the allocation of marks for the three different segments. The Selection Board had accordingly, modified and allocated 60% marks for the written examination, 25% marks for the oral interview and 15% marks for the work experience respectively. The modifications so made were duly displayed in the notice board of the Governor’s Secretariat for information of all the interested candidates. The Selection Board had accordingly, modified and allocated 60% marks for the written examination, 25% marks for the oral interview and 15% marks for the work experience respectively. The modifications so made were duly displayed in the notice board of the Governor’s Secretariat for information of all the interested candidates. It was only after the modifications, the written examination and the oral interview were held on 13.07.2016 and 14.07.2016 respectively. 15.1. It is contended that the petitioner had no grievance against the modification of allocation of marks, as originally provided in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, in the call letter dated 08.02.2016 and also by the decision of the Selection Board on 12.07.2016. The learned Senior Counsel has contended that the case of the petitioner is that the modified conditions in the call letter dated 08.02.2016 should be applied and not the modification made by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016. It is a clear case that the petitioner had accepted the change in the rules of the game after it was started when she had accepted the changes informed through the call letter dated 08.02.2016, in supersession of the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015. In such view of the matter, the petitioner should not be allowed to approbate and reprobate. 15.2. It has been contended that when the oral interview was held on 14.07.2016, the marks scored for the work experience segment were already published in the notice board. The Selection Board members while conducting the oral interview on 14.07.2016, were well aware of the fact that the marks allotted for the oral interview segment and the work experience segment were 25% and 15% respectively and not 30% and 10%, as mentioned earlier in the call letter dated 08.02.2016 nor 30% and 20% as originally provided in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015. It has, thereby, been contended that at every stage of the modifications during the selection process, the modifications were notified in advance to the candidates and therefore, it would not be open for the petitioner to allege discrimination, irregularity or arbitrariness. 15.3. It has been contended that the recruiting authority, subject to the extant rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 15.3. It has been contended that the recruiting authority, subject to the extant rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end, provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Where the rules are silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps. The petitioner having taken part in the recruitment process knowing fully well the marks earmarked for oral interview and work experience, is not entitled to challenge the selection criteria or the selection after it is found that the petitioner’s name did not figure in the select list. 15.4. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as far back as in the year 2016 by the Order dated 03.08.2016 and a long period had elapsed in the meantime. Stating so, it is submitted that even if it is found that the procedure leading to the appointment of the respondent no. 6 was fraught with any kind of irregularity, then also it would not be proper, for ends of justice, to interfere with the order of appointment of the respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 has, in the meantime, gained sufficient experience in the post of Secretariat Assistant whereas the petitioner being a serving employee in the Government, has not suffered loss to such an extent to seek any relief in the form of dislodgement of the respondent no. 6 from her present post. 15.5. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 6 has referred to the decisions in Sivanandan C.T. and others vs. High Court of Kerala and others, [2024] 3 SCC 799 ; Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan Nigh Court and others, 2024 INSC 847 [‘ Tej Prakash Pathak-II ’]; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others, [2001] 10 SCC 51 ; Union of India vs. Pompa Chand, 2016 [5] GLT 506; Kakoti Shewali and others vs. State of Assam and others, 2016 [5] GLT 266 ; and Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, [2016] 1 SCC 454 16. In his reply submissions, Mr. In his reply submissions, Mr. Zho has submitted that the present case is not related to change in the eligibility criteria but changes made in the selection criteria during the selection process without any due notice to the candidates and behind the back of the candidates demonstrating arbitrary, unfair and irrational act on the part of the State authorities and it was not permissible for the Selection Board to change the rules of the game, not once but twice, at their whims and caprices after starting of the game. 16.1. Mr. Zho has submitted that since the reduction in weightage in the oral interview segment from 30% to 25% and increase in weightage for the work experience segment from 10% to 15% were illegal, the weightages are to be accordingly scaled up and down to the level fixed in the call letter dated 08.02.2016. If such measures are taken, then the total marks to be awarded to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 would emerge in the manner given in the following Table-I :- Table – I Marks to be awarded to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 Sr. Name of the Candidate Written Examination Oral interview Academic & Professional course Total 60% of 200 marks 1 Ms. Lucy Konyak [respondent no. 6] 104.5 17 10 58.4 31.4 2 Ms. Neizelhounsuo Thur [petitioner] 110 21 5 59 33 With such projection, Mr. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of appointment dated 03.08.2016 is liable to be set aside and a direction in the nature of mandamus is called for to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Secretariat Assistant pursuant to the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015. 17. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have received my due consideration. I have gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings and have also gone through the decisions, referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their submissions. The written submissions submitted on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 have been considered. 18. I have gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings and have also gone through the decisions, referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their submissions. The written submissions submitted on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 have been considered. 18. From the materials on record which are based on the pleadings and the information supplied by the State respondent authorities under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, the final marks awarded to the top six candidates in order of merit are as mentioned in the following Table. The marks obtained in the written examination were calculated on the basis of 60% mark out of total 200 marks for which the written examination was held on 13.07.2016. The marks awarded for the component, ‘Academic & Professional Courses’ were for 15% out of 100% whereas the marks awarded for the component, ‘Oral Interview’ were awarded for 25% out of 100%. Table – II Marks secured by the top six candidates Sr. Name of the Candidate Written Examination Oral interview Academic & Professional course Total 60% of 200 marks 1 Ms. Lucy Konyak [Respondent no. 6] 104.5 17 12 60.4 31.4 2 Ms. Ruth K. Chang [Respondent no. 7] 93.5 22 9 59.05 28.5 3 Ms. Neizelhounsuo Thur [Petitioner] 110 21 5 59 33 4 Ms. M. Alei 96.5 17 13 58.95 28.95 5 Mr. H. Ongwang 93 18 13 58.9 27.9 6 Mr. Tsomongthe Sangtam 98.5 21 8 58.55 29.55 19. From the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, it is clear that the process of recruitment contemplated was a process of direct recruitment. So far as the minimum qualification and age criteria were concerned, the process of recruitment was open for any graduate in any discipline from any recognized university and for a candidate of age not less than twenty-one years and not more than thirty years, as on 31.10.2015. However, provision for relaxation of upper age limit was made available to the candidates as per the existing policy of the State Government, including those serving in the State Government. Though it was an open advertisement, there were few other conditions which were required to be fulfilled by a candidate to submit his/her candidature thereby making the process a direct recruitment process of limited nature. Though it was an open advertisement, there were few other conditions which were required to be fulfilled by a candidate to submit his/her candidature thereby making the process a direct recruitment process of limited nature. Few of the conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the candidates were :- [i] the candidates should be from only six tribes – Chang, Khiamnuingan, Konyak, Phom, Sangtam and Yimchunger; [ii] the candidates should have good working knowledge in computers; [iii] the candidates had to submit no objection certificates duly signed by the Head of the Department indicating the date of their initial appointment; and [iv] the candidates working on fixed pay were not eligible to apply, meaning thereby, only the candidates in Government service with Scale of Pay were made eligible to apply. The candidates who were already in service in the identical Pay Band [P.B. – 29300 – 34800, Grade Pay 4200/- p.m.] were to be given preference. 20. Initially by the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, it was notified that there would be a written examination for 100 marks in total on the subjects :- General Knowledge, Test of Reasoning, Simple Arithmetic and General English. The question in the written examination would be Multiple-Choice Questions [MCQ] type. It was further notified that 30 marks were earmarked for oral interview and 20 marks were earmarked for working experience. It transpires from the Advertisement that the written examination would carry 50% weightage. However, the said criteria for selection for the post of Secretariat Assistant were changed at the time of issuance of the call letters on 08.02.2016 to the candidates shortlisted after scrutiny of the applications received in response to the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015. 21. In the call letters issued on 08.02.2016 to the shortlisted candidates, it was notified that the written examination would be held for a total of 200 marks. Out of 200 marks, 150 marks were earmarked for Multiple-Choice type Questions [MCQ] and 50 marks were earmarked for subjective type questions. The duration of the written examination would be for three hours. The MCQ segment of the written examination would include questions from General Knowledge, Test of Reasoning, Arithmetic, Verbal Ability, English Comprehension, Current Affairs, etc. It was further notified that the subjective type paper in the written examination would cover topics of Polity, General Knowledge, General English, Precis Writing, Essay Writing, etc. The MCQ segment of the written examination would include questions from General Knowledge, Test of Reasoning, Arithmetic, Verbal Ability, English Comprehension, Current Affairs, etc. It was further notified that the subjective type paper in the written examination would cover topics of Polity, General Knowledge, General English, Precis Writing, Essay Writing, etc. It was made clear that only the top fifteen candidates would be shortlisted for the oral interview provided they had obtained minimum of 50% marks in the written examination. It was further notified that the final selection of the candidates out of those called for interview would be done as follows :- [i] the total marks obtained in the written examination out of maximum of 200 marks shall carry a weightage of 60%; [ii] Oral Interview shall carry overall weightage of 30%; and [iii] the overall assessment such as experience, knowledge, proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification shall carry a weightage of 10%. 22. As mentioned above, the written examination for a total of 200 marks was held on 13.07.2016 wherein fifty-six candidates took part. It was in a Meeting of the Selection Board held just one day prior to the date scheduled for the written examination, that is, on 12.07.2016, the criteria for selection were again changed. In the Minutes of the Selection Board Meeting, held on 12.07.2016, it was recorded that on scrutiny of the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification of the candidates shortlisted for the written examination, the Selection Board after taking into account the work experience and special qualifications possessed by the candidates had observed that there was a need to review the marks kept for oral interview. The Minutes further recorded that after a detailed discussion, the Selection Board decided that the marks for the oral interview segment should be reduced from 30% to 25% and the marks for work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification should be increased from 10% to 15%. The Selection Board further observed that with such changes also, the total marks for the said two segments of the selection process, would remain at 40%, as was given in the call letters issued to the shortlisted candidates. 23. The Selection Board further observed that with such changes also, the total marks for the said two segments of the selection process, would remain at 40%, as was given in the call letters issued to the shortlisted candidates. 23. In the Meeting held on 12.07.2016, the Selection Board took decisions that the final selection of the candidates out of those called for the oral interview could be held as follows :- ‘[a] total marks obtained in the written examination of 200 marks shall carry weightage of 60%; [b] Oral Interview shall carry overall weightage of 25%; and [c] the overall assessment such as work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification shall carry a weightage of 15%’. 24. In the said Meeting, held on 12.07.2016, the Selection Board proceeded to finalize the marks for the segment, work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ for all the fifty-six shortlisted candidates. The marks awarded by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 to the six candidates, who finally secured the top six positions on the basis of the total aggregate marks, have already been mentioned in the Table in Paragraph 18 above. 25. A Meeting of the Selection Board was again held on 13.07.2016 after the written examination was over. Before the Selection Board, the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination, held earlier in the day, were placed. It was after scrutiny of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination, the Selection Board again decided to change the earlier criteria of obtaining minimum of 50% marks in the written examination, as set forth in the call letter dated 08.02.20216, to be shortlisted for appearing in the Oral Interview. In the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Board, held on 13.07.2016, the decisions taken, in verbatim, was as follows :- ‘On scrutiny of the result of the written test of the candidates, the Board felt that only 3 candidates could score more than 50% in the Written Test making them eligible to appear for the interview. After detailed deliberation it was decided to relax the minimum eligibility of marks in the Written Test from 50% to 45%’. 26. After detailed deliberation it was decided to relax the minimum eligibility of marks in the Written Test from 50% to 45%’. 26. Thus, from the above conspectus of facts, it clearly emerges that after notifying the modalities and criteria for selection initially in the Advertisement, the same were changed prior to issuance of the call letters to the fifty-six shortlisted candidates on 08.02.2016. Those fifty-six candidates were shortlisted after scrutiny of the applications received in response to the Advertisement wherein a number of criteria were laid down for the candidates to be fulfilled making thereby, in essence, the process of direct recruitment a process of direct recruitment of limited nature as the candidates’ zone was made limited. The modalities and criteria for selection were again changed by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 by lowering the marks for the oral interview segment from 30% to 25% and by enhancing the marks for the segment, ‘Work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ from 10% to 15%. The Selection Board after changing the modalities in the afore-stated manner also proceeded to finalize the marks for segment, ‘Work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’, which carried a weightage of 15%, to all the fifty-six candidates shortlisted for the written examination. The Selection Board again changed the criteria for selection after the written examination was over on 13.07.2016 and the marks secured by the candidates appearing in the written examination were made known to the Selection Board. It was after scrutiny of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination, the Selection Board ‘felt’ and decided to relax the minimum eligibility of marks from 50% to 45%. 27. Based on the above obtaining fact situation, assail has been made to the selection process leading to the appointment of the respondent no. 6 by the Order dated 03.08.2016. The submissions have made by making reference to the decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively whereby the modalities and criteria of selection were changed twice in rapid succession as they were part of the decision-making process. The petitioner has further asserted that had such changes in the modalities and criteria for selection not been made in the interregnum then it would have been only the petitioner who would have been selected for the post of Secretariat Assistant. The petitioner has further asserted that had such changes in the modalities and criteria for selection not been made in the interregnum then it would have been only the petitioner who would have been selected for the post of Secretariat Assistant. It has, thus, become necessary to examine the legality and validity of such actions of the Selection Board to change the modalities of selection in rapid succession on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016. 28. During the process of selection, the selection criteria were changed subsequently after the Advertisement 21.11.2015 on three occasions in the following manner :- Table – III Selection Criteria Marks Date Written Examination marks Oral Interview Work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer and professional qualification Total Weightage Minimum eligibility marks 08.02.2016 200 30 10 100 60% 50% 12.07.2016 200 25 15 100 60% 50% 13.07.2016 200 25 15 100 60% 45% 29. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to the two five-Judge decisions in Sivanandan C.T. [supra], decided on 12.07.2023, and Tej Prakash Pathak-II [supra], decided on 07.11.2024. 30. In Sivanandan C.T. [supra], the process of recruitment was for selection and appointment to the Higher Judicial Service in Kerala under the provisions of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules, 1961 [‘the 1961 Rules’, for short]. Rule 2[c][iii] of the 1961 Rules stipulated that 25% of the posts in the category shall be filled up by direct recruitment from the Bar ‘on the basis of aggregate marks/grade obtained in a competitive examination and viva-voce conducted by the High Court’. By a Notification dated 13.12.2012, the High Court of Kerala prescribed the scheme for the Kerala Higher Judicial Service Examination. It was notified by the scheme that the examination would comprise of a written examination consisting of two papers carrying 150 marks each and a viva-voce carrying 50 marks with a total of 350 marks so assigned. The scheme provided that there would be no separate minimum marks prescribed for each paper. However, the general category candidates had to secure at least 50% in the aggregate and the SC/ST candidates had to secure at least 40% in the aggregate for both the papers together to qualify for the viva-voce test, which would be for 50 marks. There was, however, no cut-off marks for the viva-voce. However, the general category candidates had to secure at least 50% in the aggregate and the SC/ST candidates had to secure at least 40% in the aggregate for both the papers together to qualify for the viva-voce test, which would be for 50 marks. There was, however, no cut-off marks for the viva-voce. The merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained both in the written examination and the viva-voce. 30.1. On 30.09.2015, a notification was issued inviting applications from qualified candidates for appointment in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services by direct recruitment from the Bar. The mode of selection mentioned in the notification was in conformity with the scheme notified vide Notification dated 13.12.2012. The written examination was conducted on 12.03.2016 and 13.03.2016. On 17.12.2016, a notification was published notifying the list of candidates, who qualified in the written examination. Between 16.01.2017 and 24.01.2017, the viva-voce for all the qualified candidates was conducted. On 27.02.2017, the Administrative Committee of the High Court passed a resolution to apply the same minimum cut-off marks which were prescribed for written examination, as a qualifying criterion in the viva-voce. The Full-Court of the High Court approved the said resolution on 06.03.2017 and on 06.03.2017, the final merit list of the successful candidates was also published. Challenge was made to the said final merit list by few unsuccessful candidates mainly on the ground that as a result of the application of cut-off marks in the viva-voce, they were ousted from selection though they would rank higher than many of the candidates who were selected on the consideration of the aggregate of marks in the written examination and the viva-voce. 30.2. Though the principal issue to be addressed, as per the reference, was whether it was open after a selection process was instituted, to change the rules of the game midstream, the Hon’ble Court felt it not necessary to rule on the broader constitutional issue as on the same principal issue, a reference had already been made to be issued in Tej Prakash Pathak-II . The Hon’ble Court noted that when the process of selection commenced, all the candidates were put on a notice of the fact that : [i] the merit list would be drawn up on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and viva-voce; [ii] candidates whose marks were at least at the prescribed minimum in the written examination would be qualify for the viva-voce; and [iii] there was no cut-off applicable in respect of the marks to be obtained in the viva-voce while drawing up the merit list in the aggregate. As the decision of the High Court to prescribe cut- off marks for the viva-voce was taken much after the viva-voce tests were conducted, the Hon’ble Court has reached a conclusion that the said decision of the High Court had suffered from its being ultra vires the 1961 Rules and was manifestly arbitrary. 30.3. On the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the Hon’ble Court has observed that the basis of the doctrine is founded on the principles of fairness and non- arbitrariness in Government dealings with individuals. After analyzing a number of decisions, the Hon’ble Court has observed that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation can be successfully invoked by individuals to claim substantive benefits or entitlements based on an existing promise or practice of a public authority. It has been clarified that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot serve as an independent basis for judicial review of decisions taken by public authorities. It has been observed that it is merely an expectation to avail a benefit or relief based on an existing promise or practice and is not a legal right. It has been further observed that although the decision by a public authority to deny legitimate expectation may be termed as arbitrary, unfair, or abuse of power, the validity of the decision itself can only be questioned on established principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14. In a nutshell, an individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation has to establish : [i] the legitimacy of the expectation; and [ii] that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to the violation of Article 14. The Hon’ble Court has found that the statutory rule coupled with the scheme of examination and the 2015 examination notification had generated an expectation in the petitioners. The Hon’ble Court has found that the statutory rule coupled with the scheme of examination and the 2015 examination notification had generated an expectation in the petitioners. It is held that the principles of good administration require that the public authorities should act in a fair, consistent, and predictable manner. It is manifest that the petitioners in Sivanandan C.T. [supra] had no notice that such a requirement of cut-off marks would be introduced for the viva-voce. The Hon’ble Court has opined that the decision of the High Court is unfair to the petitioners and amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power as it fails to satisfy the test of consistency and predictability. The decision of the High Court is held to be legally untenable and failing on the touchtone of fairness, consistency, and predictability, and is violative of the principle embedded in Article 14 of the Constitution. 31. The decision in Tej Prakash Pathak-II [supra] is rendered on a reference made by a three-Judge Bench in Tej Praksh Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, [2013] 4 SCC 540 [hereafter referred as ‘ Tej Prakash Pathak-I ’, for short]. While making reference, a doubt was expressed on two points, firstly, whether K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2008] 3 SCC 512 , had laid down the correct law; and secondly, whether once the recruitment process would commence, the State or its instrumentality could tinker with the rules of the games as regards the procedure of selection. 32. The factual matrix involved in K. Manjusree [supra] has been succinctly and aptly captured in Tej Prakash Pathak-II [supra] and for better appreciation of the issue, it would be beneficial to take support from the same. The recruitment exercise was for selection and appointments to the posts of District & Sessions Judges [Grade II]. The extant rules prescribed the eligibility qualifications but were silent on the procedure for selection. The manner and method of selection was, therefore, to be decided by the High Court for every selection as and when the vacancies were notified for selection. The vacancies were notified by the State Government. As per the advertisement for selection a written examination followed by an interview was to be held. By a resolution dated 30.11.2004, the Administrative Committee of the High Court resolved to conduct written examination for 75 marks and interview for 25 marks. The vacancies were notified by the State Government. As per the advertisement for selection a written examination followed by an interview was to be held. By a resolution dated 30.11.2004, the Administrative Committee of the High Court resolved to conduct written examination for 75 marks and interview for 25 marks. It was also resolved that the minimum qualifying marks for the Open Category [OC], Backward Classes [BC], Scheduled Caste [SC], and Scheduled Tribe [ST] category candidates shall be as prescribed earlier. Following the High Court’s direction, written examination was held on 30.1.2005, and its results were declared on 24.02.2005 wherein 83 candidates were successful. Interviews were held in March, 2006. Thereafter, the marks obtained by those 83 candidates were aggregated and a consolidated merit list was prepared in the order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks. The merit list inter alia contained marks secured in the written examinations out of 100; marks secured in the interview out of 25; and the total marks secured in the written examination and interview out of 125. Based on that list, the Administrative Committee approved the selection of ten candidates as per merit and reservation. However, the Full Court did not agree with the select list prepared. Consequently, the Chief Justice constituted a Committee of Judges for preparing a fresh list. The Committee recommended that in place of 100 marks for the written examination and 25 marks for the interview, the candidates should be evaluated with reference to 75 marks for the written examination and 25 marks for the interview in line with earlier resolution dated 30.11.2004. The Committee also recommended that the minimum pass percentage applied for the written examination to determine the eligibility of the candidates for appearance in the interview should also be applied for interview marks, and those who failed to secure such minimum marks in the interview should be considered as having failed. Based on the recommendation of the Committee, the minimum percentage for passing the written examination [i.e., 50% for OC, 40% for BC, and 35% for SC and ST] was applied for interview and, therefore, only those candidates who secured the minimum of 12.5 marks in OC, 10 marks in BC and 8.7 marks in SC and ST were considered as having succeeded in the interview. As a result, only 31 candidates were found to have qualified both in the written examination and interview. As a result, only 31 candidates were found to have qualified both in the written examination and interview. In consequence, a revised merit list of only 31 successful candidates was prepared wherein few candidates, earlier selected, were ousted and few others who did not find place in the earlier select list gained entry. However, out of those 31 candidates only 9 were recommended for appointment. 32.1. In that factual context, two candidates whose names found mention in the first list, and who got excluded in the second list, filed writ petitions by claiming that the High Court’s decision to prepare selection list by prescribing minimum qualifying marks for the interview was arbitrary and illegal. They sought a direction to the High Court to redraw the select list without adopting minimum qualifying marks for the interview. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners preferred special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting leave and allowing the appeal of the writ petitioners, held that the High Court, though was correct in scaling down marks of written examination from 100 to 75, was not legally justified in directing that only those candidates would be placed in the merit list who obtained such minimum marks in the interview as was specified by the Committee. 32.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in such backdrop, has observed in the following manner :- 22. ….. the Interview Committee conducted the interviews on 13.03.2006, … and 31.03.2006 on the understanding that there were no minimum marks for interviews, that the marks awarded by them in the interview would not by itself have the effect of excluding or ousting any candidate from being selected, and that marks awarded by them in the interviews will merely be added to the written examination marks, for preparation of the merit list and selection list. We are referring to this aspect, as the manner of conducting interviews and awarding marks in interviews, by the five members of the interviewing committee would have been markedly different if they had to proceed on the basis that there were minimum marks to be secured in the interview for being considered for selection and that the marks awarded by them would have the effect of barring or ousting any candidate from being considered for selection. Thus, the entire process of selection—from the stage of holding the examination, holding interviews and finalising the list of candidates to be selected—was done by the Selection Committee on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview. To put it differently the game was played under the rule that there was no minimum marks for the interview. * * * * 24. The merit list and selection list prepared by the Interview Committee and approved by the Administrative Committee, on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview, however, contained one error. The inter se merit of the candidates was prepared with reference to a total of 125 marks, comprising 100 for the written examination and 25 for the interview. But the Administrative Committee had clearly resolved on 30.11.2004 that evaluation of performance should be with reference to a maximum marks of 75 for written examination and 25 for interview. The written examination was, however, conducted with reference to a question paper set for a maximum of 100 marks. The interviews, of course, were held with reference to maximum of 25 marks. Therefore, it was necessary to scale down the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination [with reference to a maximum of 100 marks] proportionately to arrive at the marks with reference to a maximum of 75 marks so that the ratio of maximum marks in written examination and interview would be 3:1. If the maximum marks for the written examination was 100 and for the interview was 25, then the ratio between the marks for written examination and interview would be 4:1, thereby altering the prescribed marks, after the selection process had begun. We are, therefore, of the view that the first list required an arithmetical correction, that is, scaling down of the written examination marks to three-fourth of what was secured by them with reference to a maximum of 100 marks, so that the ratio of 3:1 could be maintained in respect of the marks for written examination and interviews. * * * * 27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. ….. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. ….. * * * * 27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. ….. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. ….. 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]. * * * * 33. ….. 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. 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. 33. 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. 33. The recruitment process in Tej Prakash Pathak-I & II [supra] was for appointment to thirteen posts of Translators in the Rajasthan High Court. By a Notification dated 17.09.2009, applications were invited from amongst Judicial Assistants and Junior Judicial Assistants, having an experience of three years and possessing degree of M.A. in English Literature, with a law degree as a preferential qualification. At the relevant time, ‘the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002’ [‘the 2002 Rules’, for short] were in force to govern the appointments. Vide an Office Order dated 05.12.2002 issued under the 2002 Rules, the Chief Justice of the High Court specified the qualification as well as the method of recruitment. Subsequently, by another Office Order dated 24.07.2004, the provision relating to recruitment of Translator was substituted whereby it was provided that there would be a test each in English and Hindi translation. 33.1. On 19.12.2009, the examination was held wherein twenty-one aspirants appeared. The results were declared on 02.02.2010 wherein only three candidates were declared successful, as it was ordered by the Chief Justice of the High Court that only those candidates who secured a minimum of 75% marks would be selected to fill up the posts of Translator in question. Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed writ petition questioning the said decision of fixing the cut-off at 75% on the ground that it amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court. In a special leave petition, the three-Judge Bench while granting leave, referred the matter to the larger Bench vide an Order dated 20.03.2013 [ Tej Prakash Pathak- I , (2013) 4 SCC 540 ] 33.2. While discussing the scope of reference in Tej Prakash Pathak-II , the Hon’ble Court has observed that the law governing recruitment must conform to the overarching principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. It is mentioned that the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as ‘the rules of the game’. Speaking broadly, it is mentioned that ‘the rules of the game’ fall in two categories. It is mentioned that the law governing recruitment to public services has been colloquially termed as ‘the rules of the game’. Speaking broadly, it is mentioned that ‘the rules of the game’ fall in two categories. One which prescribes the eligibility criteria [i.e. essential qualifications] of the candidates seeking employment; and the other which stipulates the method and manner of making the selection from amongst the eligible candidates. The five-Judge Bench has noted that the scope of the reference is inter-alia limited to two issues : [a] whether K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, [2008] 3 SCC 512 , has laid down the correct law; and [b] whether the rules of the game qua method and manner of making selection can be changed or altered after commencement of the recruitment process. It may be stated, at the cost of repetition, in K. Manjusree [supra], a three-Judge Bench had observed that the selection criteria had to be prescribed in advance and the rules of the game cannot be changed afterwards. In K. Manjusree [supra], prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview after the interviews were over, was held to be impermissible. The three-Judge Bench in its Order dated 20.03.2013 in Tej Prakash Pathak-II had observed that whether such a principle should be applied in the context of ‘the rules of the game’ stipulating the procedure for selection, more particularly, when the change sought to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection and it would require an authorative pronouncement from a larger Bench. 33.3. On the point of commencement/end of the recruitment process, the five- Judge Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak-II has held that the process of recruitment begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the filling up of notified vacancies. It consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva-voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. 33.4. After considering both the issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak-II [supra] has proceeded to hold in the following manner :- 30. What is clear from above is that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure that a person most suitable for the post is selected. What is suitable for one post may not be for the other. What is clear from above is that the object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure that a person most suitable for the post is selected. What is suitable for one post may not be for the other. Thus, a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its method / procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the post albeit subject to the overarching principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the Rules / Statute governing service and reservation. 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. 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. The decision in K. Manjusree [supra] 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. 31. As already noticed in Section [A], a recruitment process inter alia comprises of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. 31. As already noticed in Section [A], a recruitment process inter alia comprises of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Subject to the rule against arbitrariness, how tests or viva voce are to be conducted, what questions are to be put, in what manner evaluation is to be done, whether a short listing exercise is needed are all matters of procedure which, in absence of rules to the contrary, may be devised by the competent authority. Often advertisement[s] inviting applications are open-ended in terms of these steps and leave it to the discretion of the competent authority to adopt such steps as may be considered necessary in the circumstances albeit subject to the overarching principle of rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. * * * * CONCLUSIONS 42. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms :- [1] Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; [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; [3] The decision in K. Manjusree [supra] lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha [supra]. Subash Chander Marwaha [supra] deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree [supra] deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; [4] Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory / non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. [5] Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. [5] Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; [6] Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list. 34. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation [supra], the principle 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, has been reiterated. 35. From the authoritative pronouncement in Taj Prakash Pathak-II [supra], it clearly emerges that 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. 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. From the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, which is extracted hereinabove, it can be easily noticed that no right was kept reserved therein for the Selection Board to change the criteria of selection in the midstream. 36. The official respondents to justify its actions of changing the selection criteria from time to time, have taken resort to the Nagaland Raj Bhavan Manual. Article 6 of Chapter 3 of the Nagaland Raj Bhavan Manual, as placed before the Court, has provided for ‘Raj Bhavan Staff’. As per the said Article, the recruitment of the staff to Raj Bhavan is exempt from the purview of the Public Service Commission, thus, giving complete freedom to the Governor to recruit the staff whom he may consider suitable. As per the said Article, the recruitment of the staff to Raj Bhavan is exempt from the purview of the Public Service Commission, thus, giving complete freedom to the Governor to recruit the staff whom he may consider suitable. Barring the recruitment, the Raj Bhavan Staff members are normally governed by the Nagaland Secretariat Service Rules and the Raj Bhavan Staff [Conduct] Special Rules, 1987 in all other matters. The matter of complete freedom would be discussed in the later part of this order. By no stretch, complete freedom means freedom to change the criteria of selection at any stage of the selection process after the selection process has started and any number of times during the selection process, as desired by the Selection Board. 37. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is found that the criteria of selection, originally outlined in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, were changed after scrutiny of the applications received in response to the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015 and before the point of issuance of the call letters on 08.02.2016 to the candidates short-listed after scrutiny of the applications received. Though by the call letter dated 08.02.2016, the written examination was envisaged on 16.03.2016 with the oral interview tentatively scheduled on 17.03.2016, the written examination, due to postponement, was finally held on 13.07.2016. For the written examination scheduled on 13.07.2016, call letters were issued on 17.06.2016 stating that the terms and conditions and instructions/guidelines issued by the Secretariat vide the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015 and the call letter dated 08.02.2016 would remain the same. Thus, it cannot be said that the fifty-six candidates who set in the written examination on 13.07.2016 were not aware of the criteria of selection, modified on 08.02.2016. Thus, the element of surprise was missing at that stage. Since these fifty-six candidates including the petitioner, appeared in the written examination on 13.07.2016 without any demur, it is not open for these candidates to say that they were caught unaware of the changed selection criteria and were surprised. It is worthwhile to mention the criteria of eligibility were not changed. Since these fifty-six candidates including the petitioner, appeared in the written examination on 13.07.2016 without any demur, it is not open for these candidates to say that they were caught unaware of the changed selection criteria and were surprised. It is worthwhile to mention the criteria of eligibility were not changed. Having regard to the observations made in Paragraph 30 in Tej Prakash Pathak-II [supra], this Court finds that the change in the selection criteria well in advance of the written examination in the afore-stated manner did not cause any prejudice to the participating candidates to allege violation on the touchtone of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the freedom claimed under Article 6 is found permissible to such an extent. 38. The principle which emerges from the decision in Madras Institute of Development Studies [supra] is that a person who consciously takes part in a process of selection cannot turn around and question the method of selection. The principle is no longer res integra. A reference was made therein to a decision in Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, [2010] 12 SCC 576 , wherein it was held that the petitioner therein was not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well about the percentage marks earmarked for the viva-voce test. The challenge was negatived on the reasoning that if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution only after he found that his name did not figure in the merit list prepared. From the said decisions, it is evident that a candidate would be precluded from challenging the selection or the selection criteria after the selection was over and his name was not included in the select list if he was conscious and aware of the selection criteria to be adopted in the selection process and he being fully conscious and aware of it, had still participated in the selection process. The prime factors are prior knowledge and consciousness of the selection criteria. 39. It is to be examined in the present case whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection. The prime factors are prior knowledge and consciousness of the selection criteria. 39. It is to be examined in the present case whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection. While noticing the facts and events of the case right from the publication of the Advertisement on 21.11.2015, it is found that criteria for selection were changed on two occasions in the midstream on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016. It was professed in the call letter dated 17.06.2016, issued for the written examination scheduled on 13.07.2016, that the terms and conditions and instructions/guidelines issued by the Secretariat vide its earlier Advertisement dated 21.11.2015 and the call letter dated 08.02.2016, would remain the same. It was communicated that all efforts would be made to hold the oral interview on the next working day itself, that is, on 14.06.2016 and those who would qualify for the oral interview would be informed in the e-mail or in the mobile number mentioned in the application. Similar mode of communication was also professed in the earlier call letter dated 08.02.2016 for the written examination scheduled on 16.03.2016, which was deferred subsequently. From the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Board, held on 12.07.2016, it is noticed that the Selection Board resolved that ‘A copy of this decision of the Selection Board may be put in the notice board of Governor’s Secretariat for information of the interested candidates’. Though it is averred in the affidavit-in-opposition of the official respondents that the marks for works experience were awarded to the candidates before the oral interview and the same were displayed in the notice board, it is noticeably not averred that the changes in the selection criteria, pursuant to the decision of the Selection Board on 12.07.2016, about lowering the marks for the oral interview segment from 30% to 25% and enhancing the marks for the segment, ‘Work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ from 10% to 15% was displayed in the notice board. It has been categorically asserted by the petitioner in pleadings that the petitioner had appeared in the selection process without knowing that the Selection Board in its Meetings, held on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016, had completely changed the terms and conditions of the selection process as no notice/publicity was made for the knowledge of the candidates. It has been categorically asserted by the petitioner in pleadings that the petitioner had appeared in the selection process without knowing that the Selection Board in its Meetings, held on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016, had completely changed the terms and conditions of the selection process as no notice/publicity was made for the knowledge of the candidates. The petitioner has categorically denied that the petitioner had participated in the selection process after knowing about the Selection Board Meetings, held on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016, when the written examination was held on 13.07.2016. Conspicuously, in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Board, held on 13.07.2016 after the written examination was over, no decision was taken to bring its decision about lowering the minimum eligibility marks for the written examination from 50% to 45% to the knowledge of the candidates. The decision taken by the Selection Board on 13.07.2016 was clearly behind the back of the candidates. The assertion of the petitioner that the total marks secured by the candidates was not displayed and notified after the selection process had also been not traversed by the official respondents. 40. The changes made in the selection criteria on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 never saw the light of the day in any proper manner. The final marks secured by the candidates were never published and notified. The decisions dated 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 bringing about the changes in the selection criteria were not made known to the participating candidates. The petitioner could obtain the marks obtained by the candidates leading to the selection of the respondent no. 6 only after making applications under the RTI Act. In such obtaining facts and circumstances and in absence of the changes, brought on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 in the selection criteria, being published by the Selection Board on the basis of which the candidates were going to be selected to the criteria and knowledge of the candidates participating in the process and such changes in the selection criteria having not been published at any point of time, it cannot be said that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the process of selection when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Selection Board had, by its decisions taken on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively, modified and in the process, diluted the criteria of selection. The decisions in Raj Kumar vs. Shakti Raj, [1997] 9 SCC 527 ; Bishnu Biswas vs. Union of India, [2014] 5 SCC 774 and Ramjit Singh Kardam and others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others, [2020] 20 SCC 209 ; support such view. It has been observed in these authorities that estopping the candidates from challenging the change of criteria in such a situation would amount to giving seal to arbitrary changes. 41. It is to be taken note of that right from the issuance of call letter till 13.07.2016, the Selection Board resolved to have 50% marks as the minimum eligibility criteria in the written examination for the candidates to appear in the oral interview. Even if it is assumed that the Selection Board has the power to devise the mode of selection and set the criteria for selection then also such a power is to be exercised in a fair, reasonable, predictable, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner and to advance the object and purpose of selecting the best candidate. If it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that the Selection Board could change the criteria of selection from time to time, albeit with due notice to the participating candidates, then also such power has to be exercised to achieve a better standard of selection. But, the Selection Board herein was found to have changed the criteria of selection by reducing the minimum eligibility marks for the written examination from 50% to 45% to qualify for the oral interview. Such reduction in the minimum eligibility criteria is found to be an act which is neither for selection of the best candidate nor in public interest. The minimum eligibility marks could not have been reduced in the absence of a good reason. By no stretch, the reason shown by the Selection Board that only three candidates could score more than 50% in the written examination can be a ground to relax the minimum eligibility marks from 50% to 45% as the same would make the candidates, unmeritorious to the three candidates, available for selection and such a reason, cannot be held to be in furtherance of a process of selection to select the best suitable candidate. For this very reason and the reasons already mentioned above, the inclusion of the candidates who secured less than 50% marks out of total 200 marks earmarked for the written examination, that is, 100 marks are clearly an arbitrary and unfair act on the part of the Selection Board. Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution do not permit any such unbridled and unguided power on a selection body. The candidates who secured 50% marks in the written examination had acquired some right after the marks were assessed and in such view of the matter, the act of reduction of the cut-off marks by the Selection Board from 50% to 45% to include other candidates is clearly an act in violation of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 42. From the afore-quoted decisions, it is evidently clear that ‘the rules of the game’, that is, the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the selection body concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. It is a settled position that where the rules do not prescribe any procedure for selection, the selection body can devise a procedure for selection. The selection body may prescribe for, as highlighted above, the minimum marks both for written examination and interview, or only for the written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Similarly, the Selection Body, in a selection process like in the case in hand, may earmark weightages for all the segments of the selection process – [i] written examination; [ii] oral interview; & [iii] work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; or in either one segment or two segments also. But if the Selection Board had wanted either to prescribe minimum marks or to prescribe any weightage, for any one or two or all the segments :- [i] written examination; [ii] oral interview; & [iii] work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; then, it should have been done before the commencement of the selection process. But if the Selection Board had wanted either to prescribe minimum marks or to prescribe any weightage, for any one or two or all the segments :- [i] written examination; [ii] oral interview; & [iii] work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; then, it should have been done before the commencement of the selection process. If the Selection Board had prescribed any minimum marks or any weightage for any one or two of the three segments or all the three segments of the selection process before the commencement of the selection process, it could not have changed such minimum marks or the weightage during the selection process or after the selection process had started without any notice. Any change in the minimum marks in respect of any of the three segments or any change in the weightage fixed earlier for any of the segments is to be termed as illegal and such changes is impermissible if the changes are made during the selection process or after the selection process. 43. One fundamental flaw is noticeable in the decisions taken by the Selection Board in its Meetings, held on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively. It is a universal norm in a selection process for a selection body to finalise the selection criteria before the commencement of the selection process. From the decision taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016, it is noticed that the Selection Board scrutinised the testimonials, documents, certificates, etc. of the candidates for the segment, ‘work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’. It was after taking into account the works experience and special qualification possessed by the candidates, the Selection Board had opined that there was a need to review the marks earmarked for oral interview. It was thereafter, decided that the marks earmarked for the oral interview were to be reduced from 30% to 25% and the marks earmarked for the segment, ‘work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ were be increased from 10% to 15%. The Selection Board further observed that with such reduction and enhancement of marks, there would be no change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked in total for the said two segments of the selection process, as even in the call letter issued to the candidates on 08.02.2016, it was mentioned as 40%. The Selection Board further observed that with such reduction and enhancement of marks, there would be no change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked in total for the said two segments of the selection process, as even in the call letter issued to the candidates on 08.02.2016, it was mentioned as 40%. The Selection Board in its Meeting, held on 13.07.2016, scrutinized the results of the written examination of the candidates. On scrutiny of the results of the written examination of all the candidates, the Selection Board found that only three candidates could score more than 50% in the written examination and as a result, only these three candidates had become eligible to appear in the oral interview. It was after such scrutiny, the Selection Board decided to relax the minimum eligibility marks for the written examination from 50% to 45% to qualify for the oral interview. These decisions taken on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 go to indicate that the Selection Board had arbitrarily changed the selection criteria depending on the performance of the candidates in the written examination and on the basis of work experience and special qualification possessed by the candidates and not on the basis of the selection criteria it had earlier laid down in the call letter dated 08.02.2016. These decisions had clearly amounted to a situation of putting the cart before the horse. These decisions are clearly anathema to the constitutional principles embedded in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. These decisions would fail on the touchtone of fairness, consistency, transparency, and predictability and they are clearly offensive to the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The reasoning given by the Selection Board that by changes made through these decisions would not bring about any change in the total weightage of 40% earmarked for the two segments cannot be a saving grace. 44. When the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed above, are examined by taking into purview such well settled proposition, it clearly emerges that the changes made in the weightages earmarked by the Selection Board for the two segments – oral interview [30%]; & work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification [10%] – before 08.02.2016 could not have been changed to 25% and 15% respectively on 12.07.2016. Similarly, the minimum eligibility marks of 50% for the written examination fixed by the Selection Board before 08.02.2016 to qualify for the oral interview, could not have been reduced to 45% on 13.07.2016, that too, when the written examination was over and marks for all the candidates were assessed and known. The decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 have failed to pass the test of fairness, consistency, transparency and predictability and consequently, these decisions taken in the course of the decision-making process leading to the final selection are found unsustainable in law on the touchtone of the principles of equality embedded in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. 45. The elements of arbitrariness and discrimination had entered into the selection process from the stage subsequent to the decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 to change the criteria for selection. The decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 are held to be impermissible in law as they were part of the decision-making process leading to the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016. As the impugned dated 03.08.2016 was a result of such decision-making process, fraught with the illegalities of the above nature, the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016 is also liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly, ordered. As the final results prepared and declared by the Selection Board to select the candidate for appointment to the post of Secretariat Assistant in the establishment of the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland are also found fraught with illegalities, the same are also interfered with. 46. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the selection process is to be proceeded with in terms of the selection criteria notified in the call letter dated 08.02.2016 then the petitioner would emerge as the candidate to be selected for appointment, as projected in Paragraph 16.1 above, has been duly considered. After due consideration, the contention is found to be one which cannot be readily accepted. The oral interview was held on 14.07.2016, that is, after changes were made in the selection criteria on 12.07.2016. On 12.07.2016, the weightage for the oral interview segment was reduced from 30% to 25% and the weightage for the segment, ‘work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ was enhanced from 10% to 15%. The oral interview was held on 14.07.2016, that is, after changes were made in the selection criteria on 12.07.2016. On 12.07.2016, the weightage for the oral interview segment was reduced from 30% to 25% and the weightage for the segment, ‘work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification’ was enhanced from 10% to 15%. Thus, the Selection Board in the oral interview had awarded marks to the candidates with such changed criteria in weightages. 47. This Court is not oblivious of the proposition that in exercise of the power of judicial review, it should not interfere with the marks made by the members of the Selection Board and should not embark on an exercise to assess the comparative merits of the candidates. Thus, this Court is refraining itself from making any comparative analysis as regards the marks secured by the participating candidates in the three segments of the selection process, that is, [i] the written examination; [ii] the oral interview; and [iii] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification. 48. There was no defect in the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015. There is no fault found in the selection criteria set forth in the call letter dated 08.02.2016. As the elements of arbitrariness and discrimination had crept into the selection process from the stage subsequent to setting forth the selection criteria on 08.02.2016, the decisions taken by the Selection Board on 12.07.2016 and 13.07.2016 to change the criteria for selection cannot be acted upon as they were part of the decision-making process leading to the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016. As the marks in the two segments, [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; were already awarded by the Selection Board on the basis of weightages at 25% and 15% respectively, such weightages are required to be scaled up and scaled down to 30% and 10% respectively, in terms of the selection criteria notified through the call letter dated 08.02.2016. Thereafter, the marks already awarded to the participating candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 are to be proportionately awarded in the final list of marks. 49. Thereafter, the marks already awarded to the participating candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 are to be proportionately awarded in the final list of marks. 49. In the light of the above discussion and for the observations made, the findings reached at and for the reasons assigned above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :- [i] The official respondents shall proceed to award the marks to the candidates for the two segments of the selection process – [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; from the marks already awarded to them on the basis of the weightages for the said two segments at 25% and 15% respectively. [ii] As such marks are to be awarded for the two segments – [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; for weightages of 30% and 10% respectively, the official respondents shall accordingly scale up and scale down the marks awarded earlier to the candidates, which were given on the basis of weightages at 25% and 15% respectively. [iii] In the Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection Board, held on 13.07.2016, it was recorded that only three candidates had secured 50% marks in the written examination. Apart from the petitioner, the other candidate did not challenge the appointment of the respondent no. 6. If such is the position, then the exercise is to be made limited to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 only. The official respondents shall only allot marks to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, who had qualified in the written examination to appear in the oral interview by securing 50% marks out of the 200 marks in the written examination. Meaning thereby, the exercise is not to be made for all the remaining candidates. [iv] After proportionately awarding the marks for the two segments – [a] the oral interview; and [b] the work experience, knowledge, and proficiency in computer, educational and professional qualification; the official respondents shall prepare the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 in all the three segments of the selection process. [v] After preparing the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 in all the three segments of the selection process. [v] After preparing the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, the official respondents shall proceed to appoint the candidate who has secured the higher marks to the post of Secretariat Assistant in the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland. [vi] The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of one month from the date of this order. 50. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 made on the basis of the decision in Sivanandan C.T. [supra] is considered. After due consideration, this Court finds no similarity to provide the same relief as in Sivanandan C.T . [supra] to the respondent no. 6 in the event the respondent no. 6 does not emerge as the candidate securing the higher marks between the two. From the Advertisement dated 21.11.2015, it is evident that the selection process was made limited only to candidates who were already serving in the Government with a scale of pay. If during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner is rendering service in her post in the Transport Department, Government of Nagaland then the petitioner is also gaining experience like the respondent no. 6, who has gained experience in the post of Secretariat Assistant since her appointment on 03.08.2016. Thus, the case of the petitioner herein cannot be equated with the petitioners in Sivanandan C.T. [supra] to reach a view that if the petitioner emerges as the selected candidate for appointment the same would be contrary to public interest. 51. At the same time, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the situation that would result if the respondent no. 6 does not emerge as the candidate with the higher aggregate marks after completion of the exercise, as directed in Paragraph 49 above. The respondent no. 6 must have joined the post of Secretariat Assistant on the basis of the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016 after leaving her earlier post. Her removal from the said post would definitely bring hardship and inconvenience to her. The respondent no. 6 must have joined the post of Secretariat Assistant on the basis of the impugned Order dated 03.08.2016 after leaving her earlier post. Her removal from the said post would definitely bring hardship and inconvenience to her. If the petitioner is still serving in a post with scale of pay and is not inclined to join in the post of Secretariat Assistant in the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland after lapse of such a long period, then it is open for the petitioner to inform the official respondents accordingly. In such a case, the exercise, directed in Paragraph 49 above, is not to be undertaken and the appointment of the respondent no. 6 is not to be disturbed. If the petitioner expresses her inclination to join, this Court would further like to observe, for adjustment of equities, that if after the exercise, as directed above, the respondent no. 6 emerges second in terms of merit and if there is a second vacancy in the Governor’s Secretariat, Nagaland, then the official respondents would consider her case for absorption appropriately. If any such appointment is made, it has to be treated to be fresh appointment and the inter-se seniority has to be fixed accordingly. This observation is made by taking into purview the observations made in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation [supra], as it might give a quietus to the selection dispute involved herein, attributable only to the official respondents, and to avoid displacement of the respondent no. 6 from her present post. But if there is only one vacancy and the petitioner emerges as the candidate with higher merit, then the respondent no. 6 must have to give way to the petitioner herein. 52. The other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 are not discussed as they are not of much assistance for the case of the respondent no. 6. 53. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.