Chattisgarh High Court
Arvind Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 10 October, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 5204 of 2014
Arvind Kumar Nishad S/o late Dhur Singh Nishad, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Village & PO Tarra, Via Mandhar, PS Vidhansabha
Chowki, Distt. Raipur C.G., (C.G.).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Health &
Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur
(C.G.).
2. The Director, Medical Education , Chhattisgarh Old Nurses Hostel,
D.K.S. Bhawan Compound, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
3. The Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd., through its
Managing Director, 3rd Floor, Govind Sarang Vyavasayik Parisar, New
Rajendra Nagar Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPS No. 7711 of 2018
Neeraj Sahu, Aged About 25 Years, S/o Shri Derha Ram Sahu, R/o. New Changorabhatha, Karan Nagar, Police Station - D. D. Nagar, Post Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, D. K. S. Bhawan Compound, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate.
For Respondents/Intervenor : Mr. Raheem Ubwani, Advocate For State : Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, G. A. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 10.10.2022
1. Since an identical question of law is involved in both W.P. (S) Nos.
5204 of 2014 & W.P. (S) No. 7711 of 2018, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (s) No. 5204 of 2014 would be taken-up as lead case.
3. The petitioner has filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 5204 of 2014, has prayed for issuance of direction to the State to conduct fresh recruitment process as per terms & conditions prescribed in advertisement dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Director Medical Education, Chhattisgarh mainly contending that as per clause 20 of the advertisement the written examination should be conducted and merit list on the basis of marks secured by the candidate in the written examination which will be of 90 marksand marks obtained in interview would be 10 marks will be prepared and if the candidate has secured 50 or more marks then only he will be called for interview, but all of a sudden the whole selection process has been changed and skill test has been conducted which is change of rules of game therefore, whole selection process is unsustainable and bad in law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the petitioner has participated in the selection process but he was not aware about the result, therefore, he applied for the same under the Right to Information Act before the respondents to get the copy of the result, then only the petitioner came to know that he has secured zero marks. Since the entire selection process has been changed, which is against the law, therefore, the entire selection process needs to be quashed by this Court. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & another 1 & Hemani 1 (2008) 3 SCC 512 3 Malhotra v. State of Delhi2.
5. This Court while considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vide its order dated 28.10.2014, has directed the State that one post of Assistant Grade-III be kept vacant till disposal of the writ petition and the said Interim relief granted by this Court still continued.
6. The State has filed their return denying the allegation made in the petition mainly contending that the written skill examination has been conducted as per sub-Clause 3 of Clause 20 of the advertisement, therefore, it is not amounting to change of rules of game. It is further submitted that respondents have conduced skill examination on 26.5.2014 and on the basis thereof a merit list of the candidates, who passed the examination was prepared and thereafter, the candidates from this merit list were called for the interview. It has been further contended that petitioner has secured zero mark out of 100 in the written skill examination because he could not type 1250 keys depression in 15 minutes which was requirement for clearing the skill test. It has been further contended that it is in incorrect on the part of the petitioner to say that no written examination has been taken place or the rules of game has been changed. It has been further submitted that for the purpose of interview 10 marks were allotted and after total marks obtained int the skill test and interview, final list of candidate was prepared. It has been further contended that as per the Chhattisgarh Medical Education Class-III Non-Gazetted (Ministerial and non-Ministerial) Service Rules, 2011, written skill examination of 5,000 depression per hour has to be conducted, but after considering the number of candidates they have curtailed the time period and has granted 15 minutes time to each candidates and directed to type 1250 depression in 15 minutes, which is in conformity with rules as looking to the number of candidates, the time period has been curtained and 15 minutes time has been granted to the candidates and accordingly, the depression of 5000 per hour has been reduced to 1250 per 15 minutes, which is in conformity with the rules. As such, no discrimination between the candidates has been done by them 2 (2008) 7 SCC 11 4 and all the candidates have been equally treated by the respondent authorities. The selection process has been conducted in fair manner and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. The intervenor namely-Neeraj Sahu, who was last selected candidate was not arrayed as party to the case, therefore, he has filed an application for intervention. Learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the intervenor was last selected candidate but his appointment has been withheld by the respondent authority in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 28.10.2014, the substantive rights of the intervenor are at stake, therefore, he would pray for that the intervenor ought to have been impleaded in the instant petition as respondent.
8. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the intervenor and looking to the facts that his right is adversely affected in view of the interim order passed by this Court, he is allowed to be impleaded as intervenor and liberty is granted to him to make his submission.
9. Learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that before issuing the advertisement, the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department has issued a circular dated 01.02.2013 wherein for the recruitment on the post of Assistant Grade-III, candidate should have possessed 10+2 examination as per new course or if the candidate should have 11th pass with old course, he should be passed first year degree course in any subject from the recognised University or the candidate should have one year diploma certificate of Data Entry Operator /Programming. The candidate should have typing skill of 5000 key depression per hour (for speed Skilll Test will be taken). Accordingly, all the service rules have been directed to be modified and amended accordingly and thereafter, the process of selection be carried out.
10. Learned counsel for the intervenor has also drawn attention of this Court towards Chhattisgarh Medical Education Class-III Non- Gazetted (Ministerial and non-Ministerial) Service Rules, 2011. He would draw attention of this Court to clause 3 & 4 of the Rules 6 5 method of recruitment, which reads as under:
"(3) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purposes of filing any particular post or posts in the service, as may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment, and the number of persons to be recruited by each method, shall be determined on each occasion by this Government.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the option of the Government, the exigencies of the service so require, the Government may adopt such method of recruitment to the service, other than those specified in said sub-rule, as the Government may, by order prescribe in this behalf."
11. Learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that circular dated 01.02.2013 issued by the Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, GAD Department provides that all the Services Recruitment Rules should be amended accordingly and since this notification has been issued prior to the date of advertisement dated 26.02.2014, it is applicable in the selection process, therefore, the selection process conducted by the respondents is legal and justify and there is no change of rules of game and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
13. This Court has to examine whether there is any change of Rules relating to selection process done by the State after issuance of advertisement on 26.04.2014 or not.
14. For better understanding, the issue raised in the petition, the relevant clause of the advertisement dated 26.04.2014 has to be seen, which reads as under:-
Clause 20 of the advertisement also provide that "p;u izfdz;k& ¼1½ mDr inksa ds fy, mEehnokjksa ls izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh tkap dj ik=@vik= dh lwph lapkyuky; fpfdRlk 6 f'k{kk] jk;iqj N-x- ds uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dh tk,xhA ftldh lwpuk lekpkj i=ksa ds ek/;e ls nh tk,xhA ¼2½ vkosnu&i=ksa dh tkap i'pkr~ ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fyf[kr ijh{kk ds fy, mifLFkr gksus dh lwpuk Mkd@LihV iksLV rFkk lekpkj i=ksa ds ek/;e ls nh tkosxhA ¼3½ fyf[kr ijh{kk esa p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh esfjV lwph ijh{kk esa izkIr vadksa ds vk/kkj ij cukbZ tk,xh ,oa esfjV lwph esa lcls mij dze esa p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqyk;k tk,xkA rRi'pkr~ fyf[kr ijh{kk esa izkIrkad rFkk lk{kkRdkj esa izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk p;u fd;k tk,xkA ¼4½ fyf[kr ijh{kk 90 vad dh gksxh rFkk fyf[kr ijh{kk esa 50 vad vFkok blls vf/kd izkIr djus okys vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks esfjV ds vk/kkj ij gh lk{kkRdkj ds fy, cqyk;k tk,xkA ¼5½ lk{kkRdkj ds fy;s ,d in ds fo:) 10 mEehnokj dks cqyk;k tkosxkA
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that from bare perusal of the advertisement, it is quite vivid that the written examination should be conducted, but in the present case, no written examination has been conducted only skill test and interview have been conducted, as such, there is a clear cut change of rules after issuance of advertisement. In support of his submission, he would draw attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (supra), wherein it has been held in paragraphs 15 and 16 which read as under:-
"15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal.
16. The contention raised by the learned Counsel for 7 the respondent that the decision rendered in K.Manjusree (Supra) did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 as well as K.H.Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395 and therefore should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or nor, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K.Manjusree (Supra) the Court noticed the decisions in (1) P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 141; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 646, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K.Manjusree (Supra) can neither be regarded as Judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the Larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision."
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of K. Manjushri Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008 (3) SCC 512 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 29 to 33 which read as under:-
"29. In Umesh Chandra (supra), the scope of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 came up for consideration. The rules provided that those who secured the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in the written examination will be called for viva voce; and that the marks obtained in the viva voce shall be added to the marks obtained in the written test and the candidates ranking shall depend on the aggregate of both 27 candidates were found eligible to appear for viva voce on the basis of their having secured the minimum prescribed marks in the written examination. The final list was therefore, expected to be prepared by merely adding the viva voce marks to the written examination marks in regard to those 27 candidates. But the final list that was prepared contained some new names which 8 were not in the list of 27 candidates who passed the written examination. Some names were omitted from the list of 27 candidates who passed the written examination."
30. It was found that the Selection Committee had moderated the written examination marks by an addition of 2% for all the candidates, as a result of which some candidates who did not get through the written examination, became eligible for viva voce and came into the list. Secondly, the Selection Committee prescribed for selection, a minimum aggregate of 600 marks in the written examination and viva voce which was not provided in the Rules and that resulted in some of the name in the list of 27 being omitted. This Court held neither was permissible. Dealing with the prescription of minimum 600 marks in the aggregate this Court observed :-
14.There is no power reserved under Rule 18 of the Rules for the High Court to fix its own minimum marks in order to include candidates in the final list.
It is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition 4363 of 1985 that the Selection Committee has inherent power to select candidates who according to it are suitable for appointment by prescribing the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate in order to get into the Delhi Judicial Service But on going through the Rules, we are of the view that no fresh disqualification or bar may be created by the High Court or the Selection Committee merely on the basis of the marks obtained at the examination because clause (6) of the Appendix itself has laid down the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the written papers or in the aggregate in order to qualify himself to become a member of the Judicial Service. The prescription of the minimum of 600 marks in the aggregate by the Selection Committee as an addition requirement which the candidate has to satisfy amounts to an amendment of what is prescribed by clause (6) of the Appendix.. We are of the view that the Selection Committee has no power to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate different from the minimum already prescribed by the Rules in its Appendix. We are, 9 therefore, of the view that the exclusion of the names of certain candidates, who had not secured 600 marks in the aggregate including marks obtained at the viva voce test from the list prepared under Rule 18 of the Rules is not legal.ﾵ
31. In Durgacharan Misra (supra), this Court was considering the selection under the Orissa Service Rules which did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks to be secured in viva voce for selection of Munsifs. The rules merely required that after the viva voce test the State Public Service Commission shall add the marks of the viva voce test to the marks in the written test. But the State Public Service Commission which was the selecting authority prescribed minimum qualifying marks for the viva voce test also. This Court held that the Commission had no power to prescribe the minimum standard at viva voce test for determining the suitability of candidates for appointment of Munsifs.
32. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve 2001 (10) SCC 51, this Court observed that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game has been played and the results of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and impermissible.
33. The resolution dated 30.11.2004 merely adopted the procedure prescribed earlier. The previous procedure was not to have any minimum marks for interview. Therefore, extending the minimum marks prescribed for written examination, to interviews, in the selection process is impermissible. We may clarify that prescription of minimum marks for any interview is not illegal. We have no doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection, can prescribe by rules, the minimum marks both for written examination and interviews, or prescribe minimum marks for written examination but not for interview, or may not prescribe any minimum marks for either written examination or interview. Where the rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe the minimum marks, as stated above. But if the Selection Committee want to prescribe minimum marks for interview, it should do so before the commencement of selection process. If the selection committee prescribed minimum marks only for the written examination, before the commencement of selection process, it cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process, add an additional requirement that the candidates should also secure minimum marks in the interview. What we have 10 found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the circular dated 01.02.2013 for Assistant Grade-III, the skill test of Hindi Typing with 5000 depression per hour is essential qualification but in the present case only 1250 depression per 15 minutes was given to the candidates which is also violation of the circular date 01.02.2013, therefore, the selection process initiated by the respondents is bad in law.
18. Learned counsels for the intervenor and the State would submit that there is no change of rules of game after issuance of advertisement by the respondents as the skill test was conducted as per the circular dated 01.02.2013 and in place of 5000 depression per hour 1250 depression per 15 minutes was given to the candidates, which is in accordance with the circular dated 01.02.2013 by which the GAD has directed to amend the recruitment rules for appointment of Stenographer, Assistant Grade-III, Steno Typist and Data Entry Operator. Even in the skill test 90 marks was given and 10 marks were allotted for interview therefore, there is no change of rules therefore, the judgment referred by the petitioner is not applicable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the intervenor in his support contention has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Basic Education Board, U.P. V. Upendra Rai and others reported in 2008 (3) SCC 432 in paragraph 15 which reads as under:
"15.Grant of equivalence and /or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it."
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the petitioner has participated in the selection process, therefore without any demur or objection, therefore, he is estopped from challenging the said selection process and he would refer to the 11 judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others V. Sanjeev Kumar and Others report in AIR 2020 SC 2060 in paragraph 39 to 44 which reads as under:
"39.The preposition that a candidate, who participates in a selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and the constitution of the selection committee is well settled. The appellants have placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486; K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 515; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 576; Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 and Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357.
40. In Madan Lal and Others(supra), this Court laid down following in paragraph 9:-
"9. ............................It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp SCC 285, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
41. The above preposition has been reiterated in other judgments of this Court noted above. In the present case, whether the respondents-writ petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection? While noticing the facts of the case, we have noted above that both appellants and the respondents had submitted applications in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.07.2006 No.6/2006. In advertisement, it was provided that the Commission may shortlist the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or on the basis of a rational criteria to be adopted by the 12 Commission. The Commission on 28.12.2006 published the criteria for calling the candidates for interview. Notice dated 28.12.2006 provided that written examination shall be held for post of PTI on 21.01.2007, on 100 objective type multiple choice questions, each question carrying two marks. The notification also prescribed the minimum qualifying marks- 50% for General category, SC BC and ESM 45% and 25% marks was assigned to the viva voce. The above criteria was implemented and written examination was conducted on 21.01.2007, which examination was cancelled citing complaints regarding malpractices in the written examination. Further notice dated 11.06.2008 was published fixing 20.07.2008 for written examination as per criteria earlier notified. Before the above examination could take place, by public notice dated 30.06.2008, it was cancelled. Another public notice dated 11.07.2008 was published where Commission decided to shortlist eight times the candidates of the advertised post with minimum weightage secured in each category. The said shortlisting was also given up by notice dated 31.07.2009 when it was decided to call all eligible candidates for interview. Commission did not publish any criteria or marks on the basis of which interview was to be held. The criteria, which was published by the Commission on 28.12.2006, 11.06.2008 and 11.07.2008 were given up step by step and no criteria was published for interview, which was scheduled to take place in from 2nd September to 17th October, 2008. When Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of which candidates were going to be subjected for selection process and the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the criteria of selection, they cannot be shut out from challenging the process of selection when ultimately they came to know that Commission step by step has diluted the merit in selection. When candidate is not aware of the criteria of selection under which he was subjected in the process and the said criteria for the first time is published along with final result dated 10.04.2010, he cannot be estopped from challenging the criteria of selection and the entire process of selection. Further when the written examination as notified earlier was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting the candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection has to be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to challenge the entire selection process so conducted. This Court in Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527 held that when glaring illegalities have been committed in the procedure to get the candidates for examination, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application. Referring to judgment of this Court's judgment in Madan Lal (supra), this Court laid down following in paragraph 16:-
13"16. ................................................The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law."
44. One more judgment of this Court which supports the view taken by the High Court is Bishnu Biswas and others Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 774. An advertisement was published calling applications for appointment to the post of Group D staff. The Recruitment Rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks. After holding written examination notice was issued calling the successful candidates for interview. Although such interview was not part of the recruitment process, a select list was published which was challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal returned a finding that the manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated. This Court laid down following in paragraphs 19 and 20:
"19. In the instant case, the rules of the game had been changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of the selection process. The marks allocated for the oral interview had been the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had been given only 20 marks in the interview while a large number of candidates got equal marks in the interview as in the written examination. Candidate who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. The fact that today the so-called selected candidates are not in employment, is also a 14 relevant factor to decide the case finally. If the whole selection is scrapped most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than six years ago.
20. Thus, in the facts of this case the direction of the High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated does not require interference. In view of the above, the appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs."
20. From the above stated factual and legal matrix and considering the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that there is no change of rule of game, the selection process as provided in the advertisement is written examination which will be consisted of 90 marks and 10 marks for interview. The respondent in pursuance of the GAD circular dated 01.02.2013 has conducted selection process of conducting skill test which is of 90 marks and 10 marks for interview has been provided, thus, the marking pattern has not been changed which may call change or rule of game. The written examination and the skill test are having similar marking of 90 marks and for Assistant Grade-III, the candidate should have skill to perform his duty, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents to conduct skill test of typing in place of written examination. The said skill test is requirement for the service and the duty which has to be discharged while working as Assistant Grade-III, therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent which warrants interference by this Court. Looking to the other angle of the matter, from records, it is quite clear that the petitioner without demurring has participated in the selection process of skill test wherein he has secured zero marks thereafter he has challenged the selection process, which is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Ramjit Singh (Supra) and the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of the Court in Kalam Singh Rajput and Other Vs. State of C.G. in WPS No. 1291/2021 decided on 23.02.2022.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition No. 5204 of 2014, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 28.10.2014 stands vacated. The respondents/ State is directed to issue appointment order on the post of Assistant 15 Grade-III in favour of intervenor - Neeraj Sahu within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
22. In view of dismissal of writ petition (S) No. 5204 of 2014, nothing to be adjudicated in the writ petition filed by the selected candidate in Writ Petition (S) No. 7711 of 2018 and this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the direction issued by this Court in WPS No. 5204 of 2014 directing the respondents/State to issue appointment order on the post of Assistant Grade-III in favour of the petitioner- Niraj Sahu within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge amita