ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, by advertisement dated 26th December, 2017, inter aila, applications were invited for one post of Peon reserved for Scheduled Caste category. He submits, his client belongs to Scheduled Caste. He received call letter for interview on 24th May, 2018. When his client went for interview he found the Board consisted of five interviewers. His client thereupon lodged protest regarding constitution of Interview Board and also as a mark of protest did not subject himself for interview. 2. Mr. Dutta relies on notification dated 25th August, 2017 published by authority in Kolkata Gazette Extraordinary on 29th August, 2017. He refers to guideline no. 3 which is reproduced below:- "3. The College authority shall constitute a Selection Committee for conducting the selection process and such selection Committee shall comprise of a nominee of the State Government, a nominee of the affiliating University and a nominee of the Governing Body/Administrator, as the case may be. A selection Committee constituted for this purpose shall remain valid for a period of one year or until completion of the selection process, whichever is earlier." 3. He hands up copy of G.O. dated 15th February, 2018 in which the following was said:- "In continuation of the Department's Notification No. 940-Edn(CS) dated 25.08.2017, the Governor is hereby pleased to direct that the constitution of Selection Committee as specified in paragraph 3 of the said Notification is now partially modified and shall comprise the following members:- (1) A Nominee of the State Government, (2) A Nominee of the affiliating University, (3) A Nominee of the Governing Body/Administrator, as the case may be, (4) The Principal/the Vive-principal/the Teacher-incharge, as the case may be, of the concerned College. (5) An Expert, to be nominated by the West Bengal College Service Commission. This order shall take effect from the date of its issuance." Mr. Bhattacahryya, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the College. He submits, since at the time of conducting interview order dated 15th February, 2018 had already taken effect, constitution of Selection Committee taking interview was in compliance thereof. Mr. Manna, learned advocate appearing on behalf of State submits, order dated 15th February, 2018 was partial modification of earlier notification dated 25th August, 2017 with object of improving selection process. 4. In reply Mr. Dutta relies on judgement of Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 , paragraph 27. He submits, Supreme Court had declared law to be that changing rules of the game after game was played is clearly impermissible. 5. Facts in context of which Supreme Court declared in K. Manjusree (supra), the law as view taken by several decisions of that Court, were whether after entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview would amount to changing rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. In this case State had partially modified a rule to be followed in selection process. Petitioner noticed the modification or effect of it when he went for interview. He found instead of expected three members in interview board, there were five. According to him, this was a change in rule of the game and hence he instead of being interviewed, moved Court. 6. Petitioner appears to be very well informed. He was aware of notification dated 29th August, 2017, that it provided for three members selection committee. On being confronted by a five-member selection committee he decided not to subject himself to interview by it. On query from Court Mr. Dutta's specific submission is grievance of his client is regarding change in constitution of interview Board. No submission on prejudice caused has been made. In the circumstances this Court, on absence of challenge to order dated 15th February, 2018 by petitioner who, as aforesaid, is well aware, is not inclined to exercise discretion. 7. Writ petition is therefore found does not warrant interference and same is dismissed. Interim order passed is vacated.;