Tej Prakash Pathak, (2013) 4 SCC 540 doubted K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512. If covered by K. Manjusree, in keeping with Tej Prakash Pathak [Salam Samarjeet Singh, (2016) 10 SCC 484 and Sivanandan C.T., (2018) 1 SCC 239], instant matter must either be Referred to a Larger Bench or must await decision of a Larger Bench. There is a fundamental distinction between principle laid down in K. Manjusree and followed in Hemani Malhotra, (2008) 7 SCC 11 on one hand and situation at present.

– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit [Three Judge Bench], Ram Sharan Maurya v. State of U.P., [Civil Appeal No. 3707 of 2020].

_____

The facts of K. Manjusree, (2008) 3 SCC 512 are quite different from present case.

– Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh [Two Judge Bench], State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar, [Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022] decided on 12.12.2022.

_____

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Patwalia has fairly stated before this Court, State will abide by any appropriate direction given by Court. In considered opinion of this Court, to effectively change the rules of the game after the game was played, which is impermissible, deprives candidates of their legitimate right of consideration. K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 explicitly held, introducing new requirements into a selection process after entire selection process was completed amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. Fresh Select List must be appropriately revised.

– Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma [Two Judge Bench], Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7257 of 2023] decided on 04.10.2024.