Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Kamal Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 20188 of 2021
DR. RONAK SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 20442 of 2021
LOKESH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 20581 of 2021
ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR
AGRAHARI
Signing time: 10/29/2025
6:30:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
2
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION No. 20691 of 2021
DR KAMAL KHARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the State.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 06/10/2025
Pronounced on : 29/10/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions are aggrieved by the
prescription of interview as the sole criterion for selection prescribed in the
advertisement, dated 14.06.2021, (Annexure P/1) issued by M.P. Public
Service Commission, respondent no.2, for filling up posts of Medical
Officer in the Public Health & Family Welfare Department of State of
Madhya Pradesh. The issue raised in all these petitions is similar and,
therefore, the same is being decided by this common order. For
convenience sake, the facts are taken from W.P. No.20188 of 2021 filed by
Dr. Ronak Sharma and others.
[2]. In order to face the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the State of
Madhya Pradesh decided to fill-up 576 posts of Medical Officer, a Class-II
post, on emergency basis. The respondent no.2-Commission accordingly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
published an advertisement on 14.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) inviting
applications from eligible candidates for the aforesaid posts. As per the
advertisement, out of total 576 posts, 144 posts were to be filled-up from
unreserved (UR) category candidates while 72 from SC, 242 from ST, 60
from OBC and 58 posts from EWS category candidates.
[3]. The petitioners submitted their candidature for the post under UR
category. However, since they could not secure minimum eligibility
criteria, they were not called for interview. They are thus aggrieved by the
action of respondents in prescription of minimum qualifying marks on the
basis of their marks secured in MBBS course and also by prescription of
interview as the sole mode of selection for the post. The petitioners also
challenge the action of respondents in enhancing cut-off qualifying marks
subsequently which, according to them, is contrary to Procedure Rules of
Commission.
[4]. The learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that the
selection process, solely based on interview, is arbitrary inasmuch as it
gives a free hand to interview Board in selecting the candidates of their
own choice. It is his further submission that the advertisement does not lay
down the criteria for awarding marks in interview. The learned counsel
also submitted that the selection process adopted by Commission is
violative of provisions of M.P. Public Service Commission Rules of
Procedure 2019 which provides for conducting written examination when
the number of posts exceeds 500 and the number of candidates exceeds
five times the number of vacancies.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
[5]. The learned counsel also submitted that setting out cut-off marks on
the basis of eligibility examination (MBBS) for calling candidates for
interview is also arbitrary inasmuch as every College/University has its
own scoring pattern and it may happen that some college award good
marks to its students while the other may be strict in valuation. The learned
counsel also submitted that, after receiving the applications forms from
candidates, the Commission enhanced the cut-off qualifying marks
subsequently which is also not permissible and amounts to changing the
rules of game after the game began.
[6]. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance
upon Apex Court judgments rendered in the case of Ajay Hasia & Ors.
Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 and
also in the case of Ku. Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public Service
Commission and others reported in 2007(1) MPHT 196 (SC).
[7]. Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for
petitioner, in connected writ petition adopts the arguments of Shri Gaurav
Mishra, Advocate.
[8]. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported
the impugned selection process and at the outset raised a preliminary
objection that the petitioners participated in the process without any protest
and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to raise objection regarding process
of selection after when they remained unsuccessful. It is his submission
that the entire selection process including prescription of minimum
qualifying marks based upon MBBS qualification and the interview to be
the sole criteria for selection, was clearly set out in the advertisement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
Being fully aware about the same, the petitioners participated in the
selection process. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to challenge the
process subsequently.
[9]. The learned counsel also submitted that since the petitioners did not
cross the minimum qualifying marks for interview, the prescription of
interview being the sole basis of selection, is inconsequential for them.
[10]. The learned counsel further submitted that under the M.P. Public
Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 2019, the discretion has been
given to the Commission to fix the selection criteria. He also submitted
that candidates equal to five times of number of vacancies have to be
called for interview category-wise whereas the petitioners are taking the
same on total number of vacancies which is not the rule. He also submitted
that the selection was made in emergency situation and, therefore also,
interview was fixed as sole criteria for selection. The learned counsel also
submitted that none of the selected candidate is impleaded as party in the
writ petition and, therefore, the same is not maintainable. He thus prayed
for dismissal of writ petition.
[11]. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
[12]. The challenge in these petitions is primarily made on the ground of
fixation of selection criteria by the Commission. Therefore, before
adverting to facts of the case, the rule position needs to be examined.
Admittedly, the process is governed by M.P. Public Service Commission
Rules of Procedure 2019 (in short 'Rules'). Rule 5 provides for mode of
selection and for purposes of decision of these cases, provisions of Rule
5.4 are relevant and are accordingly reproduced hereunder:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
5. BY SELECTION:
(Recruitment through interview without holding
competitive examination)
Where recruitment to a service or post is to be made by
selection and consultation with the commission is
required, the commission shall-
5.1 to 5.3 xxx xxx xxx
5.4 5.4.(1) Consider all applications received and if
necessary shortlist them for interview either
through written examination or on the basis
of criteria relating to academic qualifications
and/or experience.
5.4.(2) Where short listing of candidates is made
either by holding written exam or on the
basis of educational qualifications and/or
experience the number of candidates to be
shortlisted in each category/ sub category for
interview shall be three times of posts
advertised, in addition to the number of
candidates securing marks equal to the last
candidate so counted, provided that number
of qualified candidates in each category/sub
category meets out the required strength.
5.4.(3) Where short listing is done by holding
examination, final merit list shall be
prepared on the basis of total marks obtained
in written examination and interview.
5.4.(4) Where short-listing is to be done on the basis
of essential educational qualifications and/or
experience the actual criteria regarding the
percentage of marks and/or experience,
which will differ from service to service,
shall be decided by the commission in
respect of each such recruitment. The
number of candidates to be short-listed will
be as follows:
No. of Posts No. of candidates to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
called for interview
For One post Up to 12 candidates
For 2-3 posts Up to 24 candidates
For 4-6 posts Up to 36 candidates
For 7-9 posts Up to 48 candidates
For 10 posts and above Up to 50 candidates or
above 5 times the number of
posts
Where the number of applicants exceeds 500 and their
number is also more than five times the number of
vacancies then a written examination shall be held. As a
result of the written examination, candidates to be called
for interview in each category/subcategory, shall be
unless otherwise decided by the commission, in the ratio
of 1:3 i.e., three candidates for one vacancy plus such
additional candidates who have secured marks equal to
the last candidate on the basis of the ratio aforementioned
subject to the availability of eligible candidates.
Provided that written examination shall not be necessary
when number of vacancies to be filled is ten or less,
irrespective of the number of applications that may have
been received. Provided further that the Commission may
decide to adopt a procedure with such modifications in
the procedure prescribed here-in-before as may be
warranted if the exigencies of the type of post, the
educational qualifications prescribed for the post and the
number of applications likely to be received so require.
[13]. Thus, Rule 5.4.(1) permits the Commission to shortlist candidates
for interview based upon result of written exam, wherever required, or on
the basis of their academic qualification. Rule 5.4(2) provides for
shortlisting of candidates in each category/sub-category equal to three
times the number of vacancies advertised. However, when the number of
posts exceeds 50, such ratio would be 1:5 i.e. five candidates for each post.
It is also clear from this rule that shortlisting of candidates equal to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
three/five times of the posts is to be done category-wise separately and not
on the basis of total number of aggregate vacancies in all categories.
[14]. Further, Rule 5.4(4) provides the situation in which the written
examination is required to be conducted. It provides that where number of
applicants exceeds 500 and their number is also more than five times the
number of vacancies then written examination shall be held. Thus, for
requiring written examination to be conducted, both the conditions are
required to be satisfied viz. number of candidates should be more than 500
and also should be more than five times the number of vacancies
advertised.
[15]. The proviso to Rule 5.4.(4) enables the Commission to adopt a
procedure with modifications in the prescribed procedure as may be
warranted in case of exigency of the type of the post.
[16]. As per the specific averments made in the return, looking to the
emergent situation due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the Commission
decided to shortlist the candidates based upon marks secured by them in
MBBS course and then to fill-up the posts based upon interview. Clause 9
of the advertisement provided for selection process which reads as under:
"ukS p;u çfØ;k%&
p;u lk{kkRdkj ds vk/kkj ij gksxkA vgZdkjh ijh{kk esa çkIr
vadksa ds xq.kkuqØe ds vk/kkj ij çR;sd Jsf.k;ksa@mi Jsf.k;ksa
gsrq foKkfir inksa ds 5 xquk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq
vkeaf=r fd;k tk,xk c'krsZ fd ik= vH;FkhZ miyC/k gksA
lk{kkRdkj esa çkIr vadksa ds xq.kkuqØe ds vk/kkj ij vafre p;u
lwph Äksf"kr dh tk,xhA lk{kkRdkj gsrq iw.kkaZd 100 gksxkA
vukjf{kr rFkk vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ gsrq 41 % rFkk e/;
çns'k ds ewy fuoklh vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr rFkk
vU; fiNM+k oxZ ¼xSj Øheh ys;j½ rFkk fnO;kaxtu Js.kh gsrq
31% U;wure mÙkh.kkZd gksaxsA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
Vhi%&
¼1½ vko';d gksus ij fyf[kr ijh{kk v‚uykbu i)fr ls
vk;ksftr dh tk,xhA fyf[kr ijh{kk esa çkIr vadks ds xq.kkuqØe
ds vk/kkj ij fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa@mi Jsf.k;ksa gsrq foKkfir inksa ds
3 xquk rFkk leku vad vftZr djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks
lk{kkRdkj gsrq vkeaf=r fd;k tk,xkA vafre p;u fyf[kr
ijh{kk rFkk lk{kkRdkj esa çkIr vadksa ds ;ksx ds xq.kkuqØe ds
vk/kkj ij fd;k tk,xkA fyf[kr ijh{kk dh fLFkfr esa lk{kkRdkj
gsrq dksbZ U;wure mÙkh.kkZd ugha gksaxsA
¼2½ fyf[kr ijh{kk dh fLFkfr esa ijh{kk ;kstuk rFkk
ikBîØe ;Fkkle; ^^jkstxkj ,oa fuekZ.k^^ lekpkj i= rFkk
vk;ksx dh osclkbV www.mppsc.nic.in rFkk
www.mppsc.com ij çdkf'kr fd;k tk,xk A fyf[kr
ijh{kk dh fLFkfr esa vkosndksa dks ijh{kk 'kqYd dk i`Fkd ls
Hkqxrku djuk gksxkA
p;u ifj.kke çdkf'kr gksus ds ckn Hkh ;fn dksbZ daEI;wVj
=qfV@fyfidh; =qfV /;ku esa vkrh gS rks vk;ksx dk p;u
ifj.kke dks lq/kkjus dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr gSA"
[17]. It is thus seen that the selection process prescribed in advertisement
was in consonance with provisions of Rule 5.4 of Procedure Rules.
[18]. The learned counsel for petitioners challenged the action of
respondents on the ground that since the posts advertised were more than
500, the shortlisting of candidates could have been done based on written
test and not based on MBBS marks of candidates. However, the fallacy of
this argument lies in the fact that for requiring written examination to be
conducted as per Rule 5.4(4), two conditions need to be satisfied firstly,
number of candidates should be more than 500 and also that this number
should exceed five times the number of post. In the instant case, 576 posts
were advertised and five times of this comes to 2880. The number of
applications received were 2550 which is less than five times of number of
posts. Thus, the Commission rightly did not conduct written examination.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
[19]. It is seen from document filed as Annexure R-2/4, the total number
of posts advertised in UR category was 144 for which total 1580
applications were received. Out of this, 205 applications were rejected as
the same were either incomplete or received after the cut-off date. Thus,
there remained 1375 posts. About 25 candidates were found to be
ineligible and, therefore, the total number of application reduced to 1350.
Since, five times of total number of posts advertised was 720, total 726
were shortlisted for calling them for interview. Six candidates acquired
equal marks in MBBS and, therefore, they were called for interview even
though the total number exceeded five time of the post. Similar is the
position in other categories.
[20]. Thus, the action of the respondent-Commission is found to be in
consonance with the Rules as also with the terms of advertisement.
Consequently, the contention of the petitioners that the shortlisting should
have been done by conducting written exam instead of marks of MBBS, is
not acceptable. Further, the decision of the Commission to make selection
based upon interview alone is also required to be upheld in view of
provisions of Rule 5.4 quoted above.
[21]. Another aspect to be considered is that the selection was done in
emergency situation facing outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. Thus,
conducting written exam was neither possible nor advisable. Proviso to
Rule 5.4(4) empowers the Commission to adopt selection criteria with
modification in case of exigency of type of post so warrants. Thus, the
Commission had the discretion to modify the selection criteria based on
exigency of Covid-19 pandemic in this case. Conducting written
examination was not possible as also advisable in the situation. Thus, for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
this reason also, the decision of Commission to make selection only on the
basis of interview, needs to be upheld.
[22]. Yet another ground on which the petitioners are not entitled to
challenge the selection criteria is that knowing well about the selection
process, they participated therein without any demur or protest. It is only
after they remained unsuccessful, the petitioners sought to challenge the
process of selection in the present writ petitions. This is not permissible in
view of law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State
of J&K reported in (1995)3 SCC 486 wherein, dealing with somewhat
similar situation, the Court held as under:
"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in
view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the
contesting successful candidates being respondents
concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of
marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be
called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no
dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared
at the oral interview conducted by the Members
concerned of the Commission who interviewed the
petitioners as well as the contesting respondents
concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to have emerged
successful as a result of their combined performance both
at written test and oral interview, they have filed this
petition. 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 PrakashShukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp
SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043] it
has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned
Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
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."
[23]. The legal proposition has been reiterated by Apex Court in the case
of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2017)4 SCC 357 as
under:
"12.The appellants participated in the fresh process of
selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision
to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy.
Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection
and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they
challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly
not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel
would operate.
13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several
decisions of this Court. In Chandra PrakashTiwari v.
ShakuntalaShukla [Chandra PrakashTiwari v.
ShakuntalaShukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S)
830], this Court laid down the principle that when a
candidate appears at an examination without objection and
is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to
the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a
petition challenging an examination would not arise where
a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she
cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the
process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein,
merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of
India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [Union of India v. S. Vinodh
Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792],
this Court held that : (SCC p. 107, para 18)
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates
who had taken part in the selection process
knowing fully well the procedure laid down
therein were not entitled to question the same.
(See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil [Munindra
Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 1052] and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P.
Public Service Commission [Rashmi Mishra v.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC
724 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 345] .)"
[24]. The petitioners were well aware that the selection is to be made only
based upon interview. They were further aware that shortlisting of
candidates is to be done based upon their MBBS marks. They participated
in the process without any demur or protest. Thus, they are now estopped
from challenging the selection process after having remained unsuccessful,
even to qualify for interview.
[25]. In view of the discussion made above, the judgments cited by
learned petitioner's counsel do not help them in any manner.
[26]. The next argument advanced by petitioners' counsel is that Rule 5.6
of Procedure Rules prescribed cut off marks for UR category as 41 while
for SC/ST/OBC category as 31 and, therefore, prescription of separate cut-
off marks subsequently for UR and other categories, for calling them for
interview, was also bad in law.
[27]. It is seen that under Rule 5.6, a cut-off mark is prescribed as
minimum qualifying marks for calling a candidate for interview. This is for
shortlisting of candidates as it was not conducive to conduct interview of
large number of candidates. However, based upon this cut-off, the number
of candidates to be called for interview in each category was still
exceeding the five times of number of posts. Therefore, the respondent
Commission enhanced the cut-off marks for shortlisting of candidate so as
to make it close to five times of number of posts. This is evident from
notice, dated 17.09.2021 (Annexure P/4) for calling candidates for
interview. For UR category candidates, the cut-off was fixed at 60% in
MBBS course. The petitioner could not cross this cut-off and were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
consequently not called for interview. This prescription of higher cut-off
marks for shortlisting of candidates cannot be said to be illegal as it was
done to satisfy the requirement of selecting candidates for interview equal
to five times the number of vacancies.
[28]. The Apex Court in the case of M.P. Public Service Commission
Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar reported in (1994)6 SCC 293, was considering
the validity of an order, issued by the Commission raising the period of
practice as an advocate from five years to seven and half years while
calling applicants for interview, for appointments against the posts of
Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts. The Court held thus:
"8. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and
select the best among the applicants. It is obvious that it
would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce
test if large number of candidates are interviewed each
day till all the applicants who had been found to be
eligible on basis of the criteria and qualifications
prescribed are interviewed. If large number of applicants
are called for interview in respect of four posts, the
interview is then bound to be casual and superficial
because of the time constraint. The members of the
Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly
the candidates who appear before them for interview. It
appears that Union Public Service Commission has also
fixed a ratio for calling the candidates for interview with
reference to number of available vacancies.
9. In Kothari Committee's Report on the "Recruitment
Policy and Selection Methods for the Civil Services
Examination" it has also been pointed out in respect of
interview where a written test is also held as follows:
"The number of candidates to be called for
interview, in order of the total marks in written
papers, should not exceed, we think, twice the
number of vacancies to be filled...."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
In this background, it is all the more necessary to fix the
limit of the applicants who should be called for interview
where there is no written test, on some rational and
objective basis so that personality and merit of the
persons who are called for interview are properly
assessed and evaluated. It need not be pointed out that
this decision regarding short-listing the number of
candidates who have applied for the post must be based
not on any extraneous consideration, but only to aid and
help the process of selection of the best candidates among
the applicants for the post in question. This process of
short-listing shall not amount to altering or substituting
the eligibility criteria given in statutory rules or
prospectus. In substance and reality, this process of short-
listing is part of the process of selection. Once the
applications are received and the Selection Board or the
Commission applies its mind to evolve any rational and
reasonable basis, on which the list of applicants should be
short-listed, the process of selection commences. If with
five years of experience an applicant is eligible, then no
fault can be found with the Commission if the applicants
having completed seven and half years of practice are
only called for interview because such applicants having
longer period of practice, shall be presumed to have
better experience. This process will not be in conflict
with the requirement of Section 8(3)(c) which prescribes
the eligibility for making an application for the post in
question. In a sense Section 8(3)(c) places a bar that no
person having less than five years of practice as an
advocate or a pleader shall be entitled to be considered
for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court. But if amongst several hundred applicants,
a decision is taken to call for interview only those who
have completed seven and half years of practice, it is
neither violative nor in conflict with the requirement of
Section 8(3)(c) of the Act."
[29]. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Yogesh
Yadav Vs. Union of India reported in (2013)14 SCC 623.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27117
[30]. Thus, the contention of petitioners that prescription of higher cut-off
marks subsequently by the Commission was illegal, is not acceptable. The
higher cut-off mark was prescribed only to shortlist the candidates to be
called for interview which would not amount to changing the rules of game
after the game has begun.
[31]. In view of the discussion made above, no indulgence can be shown
in favour of petitioners. The action of respondents is thus upheld. The
petitions are dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Vpn/-
