### Rules of Selection Cannot Be Modified to Include Additional Eligibility Criteria After Recruitment Process Commences

The petitioner challenged a selection process for the post of Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Karhi Kalan.

After applications were submitted, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 12.08.2006 changing the eligibility criteria from High School (10+2 system) to Higher Secondary.

Based on this new criteria, Respondent No. 5 was appointed as he had higher marks in Higher Secondary (66.88%) compared to the petitioner (60%).

The petitioner’s initial challenges were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and Additional Collector, but following a remand order from the High Court in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 13679/2009(s)), the SDO again dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on 28.06.2011.

The petitioner subsequently filed this petition to quash the SDO's order and the 2006 resolution.

1. Whether the Gram Panchayat could legally alter the eligibility criteria for selection after the recruitment process had already commenced.

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy (appeal) and the withdrawal of a previous petition.

The court primarily applied the doctrine that the "rules of the game" cannot be changed once the selection process has begun, a principle rooted in the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14 and equality in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008), which held that introducing new criteria after the process is underway is impermissible.

The Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court (2013), which affirmed that candidates have a legitimate expectation of a fair and non-arbitrary selection process based on established rules.

The Court found that the Gram Panchayat’s resolution dated 12.08.2006, which introduced "Higher Secondary" as an additional eligibility criterion mid-way through the selection, was a clear attempt to "change the rules of the game".

Although the Panchayat claimed authority under Clause 3.3 of the Panchayat Karmi Yojna, the Court held such an exercise of power non est because it occurred after candidates had already submitted their applications.

Regarding maintainability, the Court ruled that since the petition had been pending for 15 years, it would be unjust to relegate the petitioner to an alternative appellate remedy at this late stage.

The Court concluded that the selection should have remained governed by the original criteria (High School with 10+2 system) as per Clause 3.1 of the Yojna.

The Court directed the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Satna, to scrutinize the original candidates based on the initial criteria (High School with 10+2 system) and pass fresh appointment orders within 60 days.

It was further ordered that the appointee would not be entitled to back wages.