As per case facts, the selection for Knitting Instructor posts was initiated in 2012. The original advertisement required 10+2 with Diploma in Knitting from ITI. During the process, a clarification ... was sought regarding other textile-related diplomas, and later a notification was issued. Respondent No.1, who failed to get selected, challenged the selection, alleging midway change in criteria and inclusion of ineligible candidates. The Tribunal quashed the selection. The Petitioners appealed, arguing they were unheard, the Respondent No.1 was herself ineligible, and the clarification aligned with draft rules. The question arose whether changing selection criteria midway, by incorporating un-notified qualifications not present in the advertisement or draft recruitment rules, was permissible, and if a participating candidate could challenge such a flawed process. Finally, the court upheld the Tribunal's Order, dismissing the Writ Petitions. It found that the selection process was vitiated ab initio due to arbitrary midway changes in criteria, including qualifications not originally advertised or in draft rules, violating constitutional principles. The court affirmed that participation does not estop challenging such fundamental procedural illegalities.