Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 22 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.NO.208413/2017 (S-RES)
C/W
W.P.NO.207476/2017, W.P.NO.208440/2017,
W.P.NO.204646/2018 W.P.NO.204648/2018,
W.P.NO.204854/2018
In W.P.No.208413/2017
BETWEEN
1. CHINNI BABU
S/O JAMBANNA
AGE: 40 YEARS,
ASKIHAL,
RAICHUR-584101. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI
RAVINDRA REDDY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALURU-560001
2
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101.
4. M SUBHAS REDDY
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
5. GOVINDARAJ
S/O SIDDAPPA ADHIKARI
6. AMARESH KURI
S/O MAHANTESH KURI
7. TAJUDDIN BABA
S/O MOHAMMED BASHA
8. RAGHAVENDRA A S
S/O NAGENDRAPPA
9. UMESH N
S/O MARASIMHALU
10. GURURAJ S/O PRAHLAD
11. NAGARAJ N S/O NARAASING RAO
12. SHIVARAJ S/O YELLAPPA MADIVAL
13. SIDDALINGA S/O THIMMAPPA
14. GURUNATH S/O VISHVANATHA
15. T OMKARI S/O DODDANAGOUDA
3
16. VEERESH S/O LAXMAN
17. SURESH S/O RAGHAVENDRA
18. JAMBANNA S/O GOVINDAPPA
ALL ARE MAJORS IN AGE
SELECTED FOR THE POST OF DRIVERS
LV), AND NOTICES MAY BE SERVED
ON THESE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 18
THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.3, THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
RAICHUR - 584101. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R.1,
SRI AMRESH S ROJA, ADV. FOR R.2 & 3,
SRI A M NAGARAL - ADV. FOR R.4 TO 18)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO--
a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R/RECTT/B-26/SCORECARDS/2016,
DATED-09.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND
CORRIGENDUM-II IN NO.R/UASR/RECTT/ADVT.10/2016
DATED-11.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND
NOTIFICATION IN NO. DATED-04.09.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE - L PRODUCTION OF C.C. OF ANNEXURES - D,
E, M, AND L. SD-14.12.2017
IN WP NO 207476 OF 2017 (S RES)
BETWEEN
1. BASAVARAJ
S/O TAYAPPA YADAV,
4
AGE: 40 YEARS,
NEAR WATER TANK,
POST: RAMPUR,
TALUK & DIST.
RAICHUR-584101
2. SANDEEP S/O ANJINAYYA
AGE: 23 YEARS,
NO.35-1-103, WARD-35,
RAMAKAMMAPET, RAMPUR,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S. BASAVARAJ SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101
3. THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101.
4. KAVITHA
AGE: 35 YEARS
D/O PAMPANNA, R/O NIRMANVI,
MANVI TALUK,
RAICHUR DIST.-584148.
5. RAJSHEKAR BHADARI
AGE: 38 YEARS
S/O SIDDANNA BHANDARI
5
R/O KALMALA TALUK
RAICHUR.
6. SUJATHA K S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O SANTHOSH APPA
R/O 1-11-45-41
SHIVAPUR COLONY
RAMPUR ROAD
RAICHUR - 574 101.
7. RAMESH K
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
R/O 36-6-84, NEAR HANUMAN
TEMPLE, TIMMAPUR PET
RAICHUR - 584 101. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, AGA FOR R.1,
SRI AMRESH S ROJA, ADV. FOR R.2,
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R.3,
SRI THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MANJUNATH Y SHIRUR FOR R.4, 5,6, AND 7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION IN No.KANKYE:KUSA:NAVE:10:2017
DATED 4.09.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE K.
IN WP NO 208440 OF 2017 (S RES)
BETWEEN
1. VENKATESH S/O SUGAPPA
AGE: 34 YEARS
6
2. RAMESH S/O ESHWARAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS
3. GIRIMALLIKARJUN S/O SAVARAPPA
AGE: 33 YEARS,
4. SHIVAPPA S/O KAREPPA
AGE: 27 YEARS,
5. MOHAMMED ALI S/O GULAM RASOOL
AGE: 41 YEARS
ALL ARE WORKING ON
TEMPORARY BASIS IN THE
OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.3
UNIVERSITY IN THE WORK OF
ASSISTANT /TYPIST, AND
R/O RAICHUR-584101. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALURU-560001
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101
4. SRI. NAGINDRA BADADALLI S/O. RACHANNA
AGE: MAJOR,
7
5. SRI. PRABHU OMKARI S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
6. SMT. ANJALADEVI W/O. M.VENUGOPAL
AGE: MAJOR,
7. SRI. D.ANAND S/O. D.DEVAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
8. SRI. SHANKARNAG S/O. THIMMAPPA K
AGE: MAJOR,
9. SRI. ABHIJIT S/O. LINGAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
10. SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O. MARIYAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
11. MS.LAXMI SEELIN D/O. SHAMRAO SEELIN,
AGE: MAJOR,
12. MS. RAJESHWARI K D/O. AMBANNA,
AGE: MAJOR,
13. MS. SUMANGALAMMA MUKKADDAYYANAVARA
D/O. SHANKARAPPA, AGE: MAJOR,
14. SRI. C.SREENIVASULU S/O. GOVINDAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
15. SRI. MANJUNATHA T.M.,
AGE: MAJOR,
16. SRI. RAVICHANDRA V.,
AGE: MAJOR,
8
17. SRI. HULLUR SHARANAPPA
AGE: MAJOR,
18. SRI. K.KRISHAMURTHY S/O. ANJINAYYA
AGE: MAJOR,
ALL ARE WORKING AS TYPISTS/
COMPUTER OPERATOR
IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, RAICHUR.
THROUGH,
THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURE SCIENCE,
RAICHUR, RAICHUR - 585 101.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERNAGOUDA M BIRADAR, AGA FOR R.1,
SRI AMRESH S ROJA, ADV. FOR R.2 AND R.3,
NOTICE TO R.11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 HELD
SUFFICIENT,
SRI ARUN KUMAR A AND SRI SHIVANAND PATIL,
ADV. FOR R.4 TO 10
SRI ARUN KUMAR A, ADV. FOR R.12)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R/RECTT/B-26/SCORECARDS/2016,
DATED-09.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND
CORRIGENDUM-II IN NO.R/UASR/RECTT/ADVT.10/2016,
DATED-11.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R/RECTT/ TYPIST(SCORECARD)/
2016/1300A, DATED-15.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND
NOTIFICATION IN NO. DATED-04.09.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L AND ELIGIBLE LIST DATED-10.11.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-M IN SO FAR AS POST TYPIST/COMPUTER
OPERATOR IS CONCERNED ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
TO THE PETITIONERS, b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE SELECTION
9
LIST TO THE POST OF TYPIST/COMPUTER OPERATOR ON
THE BASIS OF NOTIFICATION DATED-04.11.2015 BY
FOLLOWING SCORECARD DATED-20.09.2010 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY. PASS INTERIM ORDER OF STAY OF
THE ELIGIBLE LIST DATED-10.11.2017 TO THE POST OF
TYPIST/COMPUTER OPERATOR ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-M DURING PENDING
DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION,
IN WP NO 204646 OF 2018 (S RES)
BETWEEN
1. YOGESH S/O VAIJINATH
AGE: 38 YRS, OCC: PUBLIC GARDEN ROAD,
NEAR BHAVANI TEMPLE BIDAR-585401
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
M.S. BUILDING BANGALURU-560001
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR-584101
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RAICHUR-584101
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, AGA FOR R.1,
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R.2 & 3)
10
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO--
a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R/Rectt/B-26/Scorecards/2016,
DATED-09.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND
CORRIGENDUM-II IN NO.R/UASR/Rectt/Advt.10/2016,
DATED-11.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, AND
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R/Rectt/Typist(Scorecard)/2016/
1300A, DATED-15.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND
NOTIFICATION IN NO. DATED-04.09.2017, VIDE
ANNEXURE-L, AND ELIGIBLE LIST DATED-10.11.2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN SO
FAR AS POST TYPES/COMPUTER OPERATOR IS
CONCERNED b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE SELECTION LIST TO THE
POST OF TYPIST/COMPUTER OPERATOR ON THE BASIS OF
NOTIFICATION DATED-04.11.2015
IN WP NO 204648 OF 2018 (S RES)
BETWEEN
1. HANAMANTARAO S/O VIJAYA RAO
AGED: 42 YRS
R/O KALLOOR TQ:MANVI DIST: RAICHUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
M.S. BUILDING BANGALURU-560001
11
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RAICHUR--584101
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RAICHUR--584101
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, AGA FOR R.1,
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R.2 & 3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
NOTIFICATION IN NO. ADHISUCHANE NO:KUSA:NEVI:
JAHI-10:2017 DATED 04.09.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE -K
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R/USAR/RECTT/ ADVT.10/2884/
2015, DATED 04.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE - F;
NOTIFICATION IN NO.R./RECTT/B-26/SCORECARDS/2016,
DATED 09.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE - G; CORRIGENDUM-
II IN NO.R/UASR/RETT/ADVT.10/2016, DATED 11.04.2016
SCHEDULE FIXED FOR CONDUCTING COMPETITIVE
EXAMINATIONS/PRACTICAL TESTS, DATED: NIL, VIDE
ANNEXURE-J, AND ELIGIBILITY LIST ISSUED
DATED:10.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - L, ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3, ETC
.
IN WP NO 204854 OF 2018 (S RES)
BETWEEN
1. HANUMESH S/O KRISHTACHAR JOSHI,
WORKING ON A CONTRACT BASIS
AS AN ASSISTANT IN THE
OFFICE OF COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL
ENGINEERING,
RAICHUR - 584101.
...PETITIONER
12
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES, RAICHUR - 584101.
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR - 584101.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M BIRADAR, AGA FOR R.1,
SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R.2 & 3)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari
quashing the notification in No.R/Rectt/B-
26/Scorecards/2016, dated 9.4.2016 vide Annexure-E and
Notification in No.KUSA:NEVI:CHAHE-10:2017 dated
4.9.2017 vide Annexure-K and Corrigendum-IV dated
28.09.2017 in No.R/UASR/Rectt/Advt.10/4082/2017 vide
Annexure-L adn eligible list dated 31.10.2017 in
No.R/Rectt/Advt.10/852/2017-18 vide Annexure-M passed
by R.3 to the post of Library Assistant is concerned and
etc.
These petitions having been heard and reserved for
Orders on 08.04.2022, coming on for "pronouncement of
Orders", this day the Court made the following:-
13
ORDER
'Rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun'.
This phrase, which has found its place in many of the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and High Courts when the Courts have taken exception to the employer's decisions, changing the criteria for selection of employees, after the commencement of the process of selection, is the trump card for the petitioners.
2. Petitioners cling to the ratio in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of K.Manjusree etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another - AIR 2008 SC 1470 and in the matter of N.T.Bevin Katti, etc. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others - AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1233 to justify their stand.
3. Changes in the selection criteria are notified and you have consciously participated in the selection process without any demur or protest. You took a chance, 14 waited for the result, and now cannot turn around to say that a change in criteria midway through the selection process is impermissible, is the response of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur/appointing authority (for short' University').
4. The other contesting respondents who apparently benefited from the changed criteria would echo the same defence. Respondents seek to take shelter under the doctrine of estoppel and contend that parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
5. The above-referred writ petitions revolve around these principles among others. The petitioners in these petitions have questioned the notification of the respondent-University published on 4.9.2017, wherein the evaluation criteria are partially changed after the examinations. The petitioners also seek Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the selection as per the evaluation criteria prescribed in the year 2010 and 2015.
15
6. Before getting into the discussion on the merits, it is relevant to state that the ratio laid down in the case of K.Manjusree and the principle that the 'Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun in the context of the recruitment of employees under the State or instrumentalities of the State' is referred to the larger Bench, by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the mater of Tej Prakash Patak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others - (2013) 4 SCC 540. Merely because the ratio in the said case is doubted and the matter is referred to a larger bench, it does not lose its value as a precedent. The ratio holds good till it is overruled.
7. The dates of publication of various notifications relevant in these petitions are presented in chronological order for easy reference:
Date Events
2009 University of agricultural sciences Raichur is
established.
16
2010 University of Agricultural Sciences Act 2010
is enacted.
20.09.2010 University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur issued the notification adopting the Score Card method for recruiting employees.
04.11.2015 University invited applications for filling up various posts in different cadres.
31.12.2015 The Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by competitive examination and selection) (General) Rules - 2006 were amended and competitive examination was introduced for the selection of employees. 2016 The Coordinate Committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences, in the State as well as the Board of the University, decided to adopt the procedure for employing 'C' group employees as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules 2006 as amended in the year 2015 and competitive examinations were introduced for selection of 'C' group employees.
09.04.2016 University issued notification modifying
Score Card method published on
20.09.2010. The decision was taken
17
pursuant to the decision of the Coordinate Committee of the University of Agricultural Sciences and the Board of the University. The decision was taken in view of the amendment to the 2006 Rules. Written tests were introduced for the selection of 'C' group employees and allocation of marks under the earlier scorecard.
11.04.2016 Corrigendum to the notification dated 09.04.2016 issued, slightly modifying the criteria prescribed under the notification dated 09.04.2016.
29.04.2016 Three petitioners submitted a representation to the University requesting retention of the Score Card method of 2010. 05.05.2016 Petitioner No.1 in W.P.Nos.207476- 477/2017 applied for the post of Field/Lab Assistant.
03.12.2015 Petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.207476-477/2017 applied for the post of Assistant.
28.02.2017 Notice was published prescribing the syllabus for various posts.
15.03.2017 The notification was published modifying 18 the criteria for selection for the post of typist and computer operator. Practical tests were introduced for the said posts. 13.04.2017 A call letter was sent to conduct the prescribed tests for the post of Field/Lab Assistants and the candidates were informed that 60% minimum marks to be secured to be eligible for verification. 15.04.2017 A call letter was sent to conduct the prescribed tests for the post of Assistant and the candidates were informed that 60% minimum marks were to be secured to be eligible for verification.
26.04.2017 Written/Practical Tests were held for the post of Field/Lab Assistants.
04.05.2017 Written/Practical Tests were held for the post of Assistants.
04.08.2017, Key-Answers published.
26.08.2017 30.08.2017 08.03.2017 Co-Ordinate committee of the agricultural universities of the State resolved to have a uniform selection process for 'C' group 19 employees and decided to adopt the procedure prescribed under the Rules 2006 as amended in 2015 and evaluate the candidates based on written test/skill tests and practical test.
29.08.2017 The board adopted the resolution dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Coordinate committee and university 04.09.2017 The University, issued a notification dropping the score card method and notified that the candidates will be evaluated based on written test/skill test and practical test.
8. The University, has not yet framed the Statute, however, has adopted the Statute of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Said Statute, does not prescribe any eligibility criteria for the selection of employees. The eligibility criteria and the selection process are to be determined by the Board of the University.
9. In terms of the notification dated 20.09.2010, the University adopted the 'Score Card' method for the 20 recruitment of service personnel, which was prevailing in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The notification further reveals that the Score Card method adopted is subject to changes if any to be made by the Co- ordination Committee. The Score Card method provided evaluation of candidates under different heads. The noticeable feature is, that no written test is prescribed under this method.
10. Pursuant to above said notification, applications were invited for various posts in the year 2012 and 2014. However, the recruitment process did not proceed further till 2015 for various reasons.
11. On 04.11.2015, one more notification was issued inviting applications to fill up vacancies. The applicants who applied under earlier notifications of 2012 and 2014 were exempted from applying again. They were permitted to produce additional documents if any, suggesting thereby, that the applicants under the earlier notification will be considered for recruitment. 21
12. On 09.04.2016, the respondent/University issued a notification partially modifying the 'score card' which prescribed the criteria for the selection process of service personnel. Written tests were introduced and in addition, certain other changes were made to the original score card. The notification dated 31.12.2015 issued by the Government of Karnataka is said to be the reason for the modification. In terms of the said notification dated 31.12.2015, Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 ( For short 'Rules 2015') which amended some of the provisions of The Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules, 2006 (For short 'Rules 2006') was enacted. The amendments came into effect on 31.12.2015.
13. Subsequently, on 11.04.2016, the respondent/University issued corrigendum and extended the timeline to file applications up to 10.05.2016. The said 22 notification at Annexure-D reveals that the Score Card method is modified pursuant to the Government Notification dated 31.12.2015, which notified amendment to Rules - 2006 and also the Resolutions passed in 24th meeting Coordination Committee and 26th meeting of the Board of the Management. It is further clarified that the candidates, who already submitted the applications in response to the recruitment notification dated 04.11.2015, need not apply again. They were permitted to submit an additional document, if any, on or before 10.05.2016. The modified method introduced the written test. The allocation of marks under certain other heads was either deleted or altered to some extent.
14. The University in terms of the notification dated 28.02.2017 published the syllabus. In the said notification, it is again specified that the tests will be conducted as per the modified Score Card published on 09.04.2016.
23
15. It appears, the University took one more decision to partially modify the Score Card for the post of Typist/Computer Operator, and the modification was published on 15.03.2017. As per the said notification, the practical test was introduced for Typist/Computer Operator post.
16. The examinations were conducted by the University. Except for three petitioners, all others participated in the examination without raising any protest for the changes made in the criteria for selection. Even the three petitioners who submitted a representation on 29.04.2016, after the publication of notification dated 09.04.2016, who requested for retention of the earlier Score Card, did not object to the modification introduced on 15.03.2017. Said petitioners also did not object to the syllabus published vide notification dated 28.02.2017.
17. The University published the key answers for various tests conducted by the University. The key 24 answers were published on different dates for different posts.
18. On 04.09.2017, the respondent-University issued one more notification abolishing the Score Card method. The notification says the selection will be made based on written test/practical test/skill tests which were already conducted by then. This notification is under challenge. In the said notification it is said that the Score Card method is dropped in respect of 'C' group employees. The notification further reveals that all other conditions in the notification dated 09.04.2016 are unaltered. The decision in this regard is said to have been taken pursuant to the decision of the Coordination Committee and the Board of the University. The University claims to have decided in this regard, to bring the selection process on par with the selection process of 'C' group employees in other Agricultural Universities in the State.
19. It is also the stand of the University that the decision to drop the Score Card method brings the 25 selection process in tune with the requirement of Rules 2015.
20. On 27.11.2015, the respondent/University appointed typist cum computer operator in the respondent/University by issuing appointment orders.
21. Since the 'Score Card' was dropped candidates were evaluated based on written tests/practical tests/skill tests. The petitioners were not selected. Hence the petition to quash the notification dated 04.09.2017 and to announce the results as per the scorecard method notified in the year 2010 and 2015.
22. Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri. S. Basavaraj, and learned counsel Shri. Ravindra Reddy appearing for the petitioners learned Senior counsel Shri. Tharanath Poojary, the learned counsel Shri. Shivanand Patil, Shri Arun Kumar Amaragundappa, for some of the selected respondents and learned counsel Shri. Amaresh Roza and Shri. Mahantesh Patil for the respondent- University.
26
23. The petitioners urged the following grounds:
(i) The respondent/University cannot change the criteria for selection of the employees after the cut-off date fixed for applying for the post.
(ii) Once the applications are filed pursuant to the notifications, it confers a right on the applicants to be considered for the post as per the criteria notified and prevailing as on the date of application.
(iii) The respondent/University is under the obligation to complete the selection process in terms of criteria as on the last date of applying unless the notification itself is withdrawn abandoning the selection process.
(iv) The petitioners have got the right to enforce the duty cast on the respondent/University to complete the selection process as per the criteria fixed in terms of the notification of the year 2015 by following the score card method.
(v) The criteria are altered to accommodate certain persons of their choice and the same is done by disregarding the merit of the petitioners and criteria 27 changed after the first notification seeks to ignore merit.
24. The petitioners relied on the following judgments.
i. A.A.Calton v. The Director of Education and another
- AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1143;
ii. K.Manjusree etc. v. the State of A.P and Another -
AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1470;
iii. N.T.Bevin Katti etc. V. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others - AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1233;
iv. Snehansu Jas v. State of West Bengal and others -
2001 SCC OnLine Cal 198;
v. Nitesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others - (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 70; vi. Writ Petition No.4923/2010 (S-RES) - Dr. Raghavendra H.K v. The State of Karnataka and others; and vii. B.L.Gupta and another v. M.C.D - 1998 AIR SCW 3969.
28
25. On behalf of respondents the following points are urged.
(a) The criteria are changed by the
respondent/University by following the procedure
applicable to the University and the petitioners cannot question the decision of the University in changing the criteria.
(b) The changed criteria did not prevent the petitioners from participating in the examination. Thus, the petitioners are not put to any prejudice.
(c) The petitioners despite being notified about the changes, without any demur or protest, have participated in the examination, waited for the result, and after realising that the results are not in their favour, have chosen to question the same. The petitioners are estopped from questioning the change of criteria.
(d) The respondent/University has not changed the criteria midway and has changed the criteria before the commencement of the examination. Thus, there is no illegality in the act of the University changing the criteria.
(e) The criteria are changed to bring the recruitment process in tune with Rules, 2015, which did not permit 29 the Score Card method in the selection and appointment of 'C' group employees.
26. The respondents relied on the following judgments.
i. Ashok Kumar and another v. State of Bihar and others - (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357; ii. Niesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others - (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 70; iii. Anupal Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department, and others - (2020) 2 Supreme Court Case 173; iv. Pradeep Kumar Rai and others v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others - (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 493;
v. Union of India and Others v. Dinesh Prasad - (2012) 12 Supreme Court Cases 63;
vi. Govardhan M v. State of Karnataka and others -
2012 SCC OnLine Kar 9088;
vii. Tej Prakash Pathak and others v. Rajasthan High Court and others - (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 540;
30viii. Union of India and others v. Dhanwanti Devi and others - (1996) 6 Supreme Court Case 44;
ix. Pankjeshwar Sharma and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others - (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 188; and x. Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar - (2021) 8 Supreme Court Case 347.
27. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and the judgments referred above. Discussion :
28. Admittedly the respondent/University which came into existence in the year 2009, is governed by the University of Agricultural Sciences Act 2009. In terms of Section 52 of the said Act, the Statute of the University may provide for various affairs of the University specified in sub-sections 1 to 13 of Section 52 of the Act. Sub- section 4 of Section 52 provides for classification, qualification, and manner of appointment, terms, and conditions of service, and powers and duties of teachers and other employees of the University.
31
29. Under the Statute, the eligibility criteria for appointing 'C' class employees are not specified. However, in terms of the Statute, the board of the University is empowered to determine the eligibility criteria for the selection of service personnel to the University.
30. The eligibility criteria notified in terms of notification of 2010, are decided by the Board of the University. The eligibility criteria modified in terms of the notification dated 09.04.2016 are also decided and fixed in terms of the 24th meeting of the Co-ordinate Committee and adopted in the 26th meeting of the Board of Management of the University which is forthcoming in the corrigendum dated 11.04.2016.
31. The further modification notified in terms of the notification dated 15.03.2017, partially modifying the Score Card Method which applies to the post of Typist and Computer Operator is also in terms of the decision taken by the Co-ordinate Committee and the Board. 32
32. Three petitioners, on 29.04.2016, submitted a representation and requested the respondent/University to conduct the selection by conducting the skill test as notified in the 2010 notification. However, there was one more change introduced by the University in the criteria for the selection. This change effected vide notification dated 15.03.2017 is not objected and all the six persons including three petitioners (Petitioners no. 4 and 5 in W.P. no.208440/2017 and petitioner no. 1 in W.P. no.207476- 77/2017) who requested for retention of Score Card method participated in the examinations without any protest. It is also relevant to state that on 28.02.2017, the syllabus for the tests to be conducted by the University was published. This was a clear statement of the fact that examinations will be conducted as per the modified criteria. None of the petitioners objected to it and petitioners participated in the examination.
33. The University published the key answers for the various written tests conducted for various posts. 33 Thereafter, the University in terms of the notification dated 04.09.2017, pursuant to the decision of the 25th meeting of the Co-ordinate Committee and 32nd meeting of the Board has dropped the Score Card method for selecting the candidates. The decision is also taken to select the candidates based on written test/practical test/skill test.
34. The last notification modifying the criteria for selection was published on 15.03.2017. All examinations are held after 15.03.2017.
35. The University claims that the decision to drop the Score Card method is taken pursuant to amended Rules, 2015 which amended the Rules 2006 referred above. Admittedly the Rules are not adopted either by incorporation or by reference. Thus the Rules are not binding on the University.
36. In the backdrop of the above-said facts and the contentions raised by the petitioners, the Court has to examine whether the ratio laid down in the cases cited by the petitioners, particularly the case of K.Manjusree and 34 N.T.Bevin Katti referred supra, would come to the aid of the petitioners.
37. In K.Manjusree's case referred above, the examination for the post of District Judges, was conducted and the results were announced. The committee appointed for the purpose approved the result and placed the results for final approval of the Full Court of the High Court. The Full Court, of Andra Pradesh High Court at this juncture altered the marks earmarked for the written test and the interview. As a consequence, the candidate who is selected earlier is not selected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the light of the facts obtained in the said judgment held that decision to vary the marks allotted for the written test and the interview cannot be made after the announcement of the result. As could be noticed from the said judgment even the marks obtained by the candidates were published, a merit list was prepared and candidates were recommended for appointment. The selection process was initiated pursuant to the resolution/standing order issued 35 by the Full Court which prescribed a method of recruitment. Though, the lists were announced as per the procedure prescribed, later it was sought to be unsettled by prescribing the different methods of evaluation. The Hon'ble Apex court said the rules are changed after the game is over.
38. The ratio laid down in the aforementioned case to some extent applies to the present set of facts of these petitions. Though the criteria for the selection are not changed after the announcement of the results as was the situation in K.Manjusree's matter, the criteria for evaluation were changed after the examination was conducted. In other words, practically the game was over and the criteria for selection are changed thereafter. However, there are certain distinguishable factors in K.Manjusree's case and the case on hand which are noted below:
i. The examinations of the petitioners are held as per the modified criteria and not as per the original criteria 36 fixed in 2010. In K.Manjusree's case, the examination was held as per the originally notified criteria and results are declared and a list of selected candidates was published as per the originally notified criteria in the first instance.
ii. Though three petitioners requested for retention of the Score Card method, vide petition dated 29.04.2016, did not register the protest after some modifications are introduced pursuant to their protest and they did not object to the notification prescribing the syllabus under the changed criteria. All the three petitioners without protest participated in the examination. In K.Manjusree's case, there were no changes introduced till the results are announced in the first instance.
iii. In K.Manjusree's case, the petitioner made a prayer to announce the results as per the criteria fixed under the notification. From the date of notification till the alteration of the result, there were no other changes 37 in the selection procedure. However, in the present cases, the criteria were changed on 09.04.2016 and 15.03.2017. The petitioners participated in the examination after the change of criteria.
39. After the examinations the impugned notification dated 04.09.2017 is issued. This change is introduced after the examinations were held as noticed above. Thus, the impugned notification, changing the criteria after the examination is in the teeth of ratio in K.Manjusree's case. However, to what extent the petitioners who participated in the examination after changes were introduced can be granted the relief is a question. The same will be discussed later.
40. Heavy reliance is also placed on the judgment of N.T.Bevin Katti referred supra. The ratio in the said case does not apply to the facts of these cases for the following reasons -
i. In N.T.Bevin Katti case the recruitment for the post of Tahasildar which was called in question was 38 governed by Karnataka Recruitment of Gazette Probation (Class-I and II posts appointment by Competitive Examinations) (Rules) 1966). The notification also provided that for the matters not covered under the Rules 1966, Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules) 1957 shall apply. The notification for recruitment was issued on 23.05.1975. After the notification inviting the applications, the rules relating to the reservations based on caste were amended on 9th July 1975. The Public service commission published the list of candidates as per the law prevailing at the time of publication of the notification inviting applications. The authority did not consider the amendments to the rules made after the publication of the notification. The question before the court was whether the recruitment is to be made as per the rule prevailing on the date of notification or rule which is modified or amended after the publication of notification for the recruitment. The Apex Court held that unless the amended rules are made retrospective, the rules prevailing as on the date of inviting application for the posts shall be followed. The ratio in Bevin Katti's case is not applicable for the following reasons. ii. There was no rule or regulation binding on the University, prescribing the criteria for the recruitment 39 process when the notification for recruitment was published. Unlike in N.T.Bevin Katti's case, the petitioners in these petitions cannot seek to enforce any rules or regulations as no rules/regulations were there prescribing the eligibility criteria for 'C' group employees.
iii. In N.T.Bevin Katti's case, the examinations were conducted without changing the rules and results were announced as per the law prevailing on the date of publication of notification for the recruitment. In these petitions, the examinations were held as per the changed rules and the petitioners participated in the written tests after the changed criteria.
41. The University under the Statute enjoys a certain degree of freedom in the matter of employment. The eligibility criteria for the appointment of employees are to be fixed by the Board of the University, if required, the Board may, have consultation with the Co-ordination Committee. (Co-ordination Committee as provided under S.67 of the Act of 2009). The eligibility criteria evolved by the respondent/University was the outcome of the meeting of the Co-ordination Committee and the Board of 40 University. These decisions are taken by the Board of University, nevertheless have to be adhered to, by the University. However, to meet the exigencies of changed circumstances, the University may make suitable changes in the criteria for selection as long as such changes do not violate any binding provisions of law or violate the vested rights of the applicants. As long as the changes in the criteria for selection do not violate any provision of law and the changes are not arbitrary and not done with any mala- fide intentions, such changes cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
42. 'Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun', is a principle evolved by the Courts while interpreting the facts and law applicable to a given case. It is not a codified provision of law. It cannot be applied like a mathematical formula. Thus, the principle has to be understood in the backdrop of cases in which such principle is enunciated. Before applying the said rule, the Court has to consider various factors viz., 41
(a) What are the changes made after the initial notification prescribing criteria for selection;
(b) At what stage changes are made? Whether the changes are made after the commencement of the examination or before the examination or after the announcement of results?
(c) To what extent, the changes have caused the prejudice to the candidates who applied for the posts;
(d) Whether the persons who have applied under the initial notification are prevented from participating in the process after the changes are made;
(e) The reasons for making changes; Whether the changes are made to bring the selection process in conformity with the binding law or regulation or whether the changes are made in violation of the binding law or regulation;
(f) Whether the changes are made with a malafide intention of conferring undue favour to a particular or a section of candidates?
(g) More importantly, whether candidates who participated in the process after the change of criteria can maintain the challenge to the decision changing the criteria.
42
43. If the petitioners demonstrate that the changes made violate any law/rule/regulation, binding on the University, then despite having participated in the examinations without protest, petitioners can question the decision changing the criteria. In a situation, where the petitioners seek to bring the selection process in conformity with applicable law, then the rule of estoppel does not apply.
44. The decision of the University in changing the criteria for selection has to be examined in the light of the aforesaid propositions. If the decision is impermissible and invalid, then the petitioners should succeed.
45. The respondent/University to justify its decision to change the criteria has placed heavy reliance on the amended Rules of 2015. In terms of the said Rules, the eligibility criteria for selecting the 'C' group employees under the State are amended. The University contends that the decision to drop the Score Card method is to bring 43 the selection criteria on par with the selection criteria adopted in other Universities. The Rules referred to above are not adopted by the University in the manner known to law. Thus, the Rules are not binding on the University. Then the question is, whether the University is justified in changing the criteria by following the procedure prescribed under Rules, 2006 as amended by Rules 2015 or whether the changes made to bring the eligibility criteria on par with Rules, 2015 are impermissible when the Rules are not formally adopted?
46. The answer to this question depends on the fact whether such a course of action by the University violates any of the rules or regulations binding on the University in a matter relating to the employment of personnel. There is no denial of the fact that, the University is not governed by any other law in the matter relating to eligibility criteria to be fixed, for the appointment of personnel to the University, except for the fact that the Board of the University is empowered to fix 44 the criteria. In addition to this the University has to adhere to the rules relating to reservation under the State Policy. However, in these petitions, the question relating to reservation to the posts is not involved.
47. Given the fact that the Board of the University is empowered to determine the eligibility criteria for 'C' group employees then, the decision of the University to follow the criteria applicable to the rest of the State in the selection and appointment of 'C' group employees which is formulated in terms of Rules, 2015, cannot be said to be an arbitrary decision to be struck down in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the University has decided to bring the selection process of its 'C' group employees on par with the selection of similar employees, in other Agricultural Science Universities in the State, without formally adopting the Rules, such a decision cannot be said to be a malafide decision. The good intention behind such a decision is apparent on the face of the decision itself. The changes are introduced in the year 45 2016, in the meeting of the Co-ordinate committee and the Board taking clue from the Rules 2006, as amended with effect from 31.12.2015. Thereafter the change criteria are published on 09.04.2016.
48. No doubt, the working effect of the said decision has resulted in petitioners being knocked down in the selection process and the respondents getting selected for the post applied by the petitioners. However, the adverse consequence of the said decision on the petitioners by itself cannot be the criteria to quash the appointments. If the petitioners were able to demonstrate that the decision is intended to favour a particular section of the respondents or the decision is taken with a malafide intention of targeting the petitioners, then the Court could have proceeded to dwell deep into the reason behind the change of criteria. From the materials placed on record and from the pleadings, it cannot be construed that the decision of the University suffers from malafide intentions. Effect of participation in the examination under the changed criteria 46
49. The fact that the petitioners were notified about each of the changes made in the selection criteria is not in dispute. The examinations have taken place, after a long time, after the changes are made to the criteria. The petitioners had sufficient time to challenge the changes. However, petitioners have not chosen to challenge the same. On the other hand, the petitioners have opted to participate in the written examination (introduced by way of change) without any demur. Petitioners waited for the result. And only after realizing that they have not succeeded under the modified selection criteria, do petitioners approach the Court with a prayer not to consider the marks obtained in the written test and petitioners want the selection to be made without reference to the marks in the written test. After having participated in the written examination under the changed criteria without protest, the party cannot object to considering the marks in the written test, unless he can demonstrate that the changes introduced are contrary to 47 law. Such a stand is hit by the doctrine of estoppel. The Judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of ASHOK KUMAR & ANOTHER vs STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2017)4 SCC 357, NITESH KUMAR PANDEY vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2020)4 SCC 70, ANUPAL SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2020)2 SCC 173, PRADEEP KUMAR RAI vs DINESH KUMAR PANDEY reported in (2015)11 SCC 493 would lend support to the contention of the respondents.
50. There is one more dimension to the case that needs to be discussed. It was urged by Shri. S. Basavaraj the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.207476-77/2017, that the changed criteria seek to ignore the merit. It is his submission that the practical test and other tests found in the earlier method are more suitable than the one adopted in terms of the impugned order. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the Court would not sit over the decision of the employer in prescribing the 48 selection criteria. It is the domain of the employer. Employer will be having the expertise and wisdom to determine the eligibility criteria. The Courts can interfere in such matters, only if, the criteria fixed are contrary to the law. That is not the position here. Shri. S. Basavaraj the learned Senior counsel, in his fairness would submit that that there is no violation of any express provision of law. However, he would submit that the criteria fixed by the Board of the University have a statutory flavour and the same is to be retained till the completion of the selection process. Since the criteria determined in the meeting of the Board, is not a Statute or law, in an appropriate case and circumstances, the employer can make modifications to the criteria as long as such changes do not prevent the applicants from participating in the process, as long as such changes do not violate any provisions of law and such changes do not suffer from malafides.
51. After the 2015 notification, one more notification was issued on 09.04.2016, partially modifying 49 the Score Card method and the written test was introduced. The petitioners no. 4 and 5 in W.P.No.208440/2017 and petitioner no.1 in W.P. Nos.207476-477/2017 have applied to the posts, after the notification dated 09.04.2016. All the petitioners participated in the examination process which was held under the notification dated 09.04.2016. Thus the petitioners who have applied after the notification dated 09.04.2016 cannot make a claim to be considered as per the guidelines prevailing before 09.04.2016. The prayer of these petitioners to consider their eligibility in terms of the notification dated 20.09.2010 and 04.11.2015 cannot be considered for the simple reason that these petitioners applied for the posts only after the publication of modified eligibility criteria in terms of the notification dated 09.04.2016.
52. Sri. Shivanand Patil learned advocate for the respondent would submit that three petitioners initially requested not to change the criteria for selection under the 50 changes notified on 09.04.2016. Thereafter, one more change was effected and they did not raise any objection to the change and participated in the examination process. This conduct of the said petitioners would indicate that they agreed to the changes made and if they had any objection to the changes, they could have objected as they did in the earlier instance. There is merit in the contention.
53. Learned Senior counsel Shri. S. Basavaraj appearing for some of the petitioners referring to the Judgment of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v.s Union of India (2019) 20 SCC 17, would urge that by participating in the selection process candidate, accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. Thus according to him, there cannot be any estoppels against the law.
54. This Court has considered the said contention in the backdrop of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned case. The ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable. In the said case, the person who 51 participated in the selection process, without any protest, later, on the announcement of the result which was against him, questioned the recruitment process by filing a writ petition. In the writ petition, he raised a contention that the selection process is contrary to the binding law and the selection process is held by misconstruing the existing provision of law. In such a situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the writ petition to challenge the selection process on the ground that it is contrary to the law governing the selection process is maintainable, even though the petitioner has participated in the examination without protest.
55. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no binding law that would come to the rescue of the petitioners to say that the examination is to be held as per the law. In the absence of law relating to criteria for selection of employees, the board of the university has evolved certain eligibility criteria and the eligibility criteria are modified on the ground that the modified eligibility 52 criteria will be in tune with the eligibility criteria fixed by other Universities in the State.
56. Another significant factor to be noticed in this case is, the corrigendum II dated 11.04.2016, issued under the notification dated 09.04.2016. This corrigendum reveals that the decision to follow the selection criteria prescribed in the amendment Rules 2015 is taken by the university in the 26th meeting of the Board. The Board's decision is preceded by the 24th meeting of the Coordinate committee. The decision to introduce the written tests is taken earlier to 09.04.2016.
57. In the light of the discussions made above, the findings are:-
i. The decision of the University to drop the Score Card method after conducting the examination in terms of the notification dated 09.04.2016 and 15.03.2017 is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in K.Manjusree's case. The University having taken the decision to hold the examination in terms of criteria fixed under notification dated 09.04.2016 in 53 which the petitioners participated without protest, could not have partially dropped the eligibility criteria fixed under notification dated 09.04.2016. Thus, the impugned notification dated 04.09.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent dropping the Score Card method prescribed in the notification dated 09.04.2016 is impermissible and is to be quashed.
ii. The changes introduced in the selection criteria vide notification dated 09.04.2016, and 15.03.2017 ( for the post of typist/computer operator) did not prevent the petitioners from participating in the examination and the petitioners participated in the examinations/tests. The petitioners have waived their right, if any, to challenge the changed criteria by participating in the process. Thus the petitions challenging the notifications dated 09.04.2016, 11.04.2016 and 15.03.2017 are not maintainable.
iii. The petitioners 4 and 5 in W.P. No. 208440/2017 and the petitioner no.1 in W.P. Nos. 207476-477/2017 who applied after 09.04.2016 i.e., the date on which criteria are changed, cannot claim the right to be considered for selection under the criteria fixed in 2015.
iv. There is no violation of any law or infringement of any right of the petitioners. The petitioners have not 54 acquired any right in terms of selection criteria for the year 2010 and 2015. Thus the petitions seeking a direction against the respondents to hold the selection process in terms of criteria of the year 2010 and 2015 are not maintainable. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Writ Petitions are allowed-in-part.In W.P.No.208413/2017
i) The notification dated 4.9.2017 at Annexure - L is quashed.
The prayer to quash selection list at Annexure-M, notification dated 9.4.2016 at Annexure-D and notification dated 11.4.2016 at Annexure-E is rejected.
The prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of the notifications dated 20.09.2010 and 4.11.2015 is rejected.
55In W.P.No.207476/2017
(i) The Notification dated 04.09.2017 at Annexure-K is quashed.
The prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of the notification dated 4.11.2015 is rejected. In W.P.No.208440/2017
(i) The notification dated 4.9.2017 at Annexure-L is quashed. The notification at Annexure-M dated 10.11.2017 is quashed insofar as it relates to typists/computer operators.
The prayer to quash notification dated 9.4.2016 at Annexure-C, Corrigendum II Dated 11.4.2016 at Annexure-D, notification dated 15.03.2017 at Annexure-F is rejected.
The prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of the notifications dated 20.09.2010 and 4.11.2015 is rejected.
56In W.P.No.204646/2018
(i) The notification dated 4.9.2017 at Annexure-L and the selection list dated 10.11.2017 marked at Annexure-M are quashed insofar as it relates to Typists/Computer Operators.
The prayer to quash notification dated 9.4.2016 at Annexure-C, Corrigendum II dated 11.4.2016 at Annexure-D and notification dated 15.3.2017 at Annexure-F is rejected.
The prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of the notifications dated 20.09.2010 and 4.11.2015 is rejected.
In W.P.No.204648/2018
(i) The notification dated 4.9.2017 at Annexure-K is quashed.
The prayer to quash notification dated 4.11.2015 at Annexure-F, notification dated 9.4.2016 at 57 Annexure-G and Corrigendum II dated 11.4.2016 at Annexure-H, the schedule dated 10.11.2017 marked at Annexure-L is rejected.
The prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of the notification dated 4.11.2015 is rejected. In W.P.No.204854/2018
(i) The notification dated 4.9.2017 at Annexure-K and eligible list dated 31.10.2017 at Annexure-M insofar as Library Assistant are quashed.
The prayer to quash notification dated 9.4.2016 at Annexure-E and Corrigendum IV dated 28.9.17 at Annexure-L is rejected.
The prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of the notifications dated 20.09.2010 and 4.11.2015 is rejected.
58Since, the selection criteria held pursuant to notification dated 09.04.2016 are changed after conducting the examinations, the respondents are directed to prepare the fresh list of selected candidates in terms of eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated 09.04.2016. Since, the criteria for the post of Typist/Computer Operator are partially modified in terms of notification dated 15.03.2017, the selection list of Typist/Computer Operator is to be prepared as per the eligibility criteria prescribed under the notifications dated 09.04.2016 and 15.03.2017.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE brn/sn/KJJ