Aligearun Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 4315 Tel

Telangana High Court

Aligearun Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 13 December, 2023

Author: T.Vinod Kumar

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT PETITION Nos.40714 AND 40731 OF 2022 AND 1041 AND
                    14827 OF 2023


COMMON ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

Having regard to the similarity of the controversy involved

in this batch of writ petitions, the same are taken up for hearing

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2nd

respondent authority in issuing recruitment notifications, vide

R.C.No. 41/Rect./Admn-1/2022, dated 25.04.2022 and R.C.No.

42/Rect./Admn-1/2022, dated 25.04.2022, whereby the 2nd

respondent had sought to undertake recruitment to the State Police

Force without giving preference to NCC 'C' certificate over NCC

'B' certificate and similarly NCC 'B' certificate over NCC 'A'

certificate, and, instead considering all of the certificate holders

equal as per merit secured by them in the final selection, by

applying the Rule 3 (D) (vi) as substituted under G.O. Ms. No. 14,

Home (Legal) Department, dated 08.04.2022, as being illegal,

arbitrary, discriminatory and against principles of natural justice,

violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of

India and also contrary to the Circular issued by the Ministry of

Home affairs, Government of India, dated 20.04.2020.

Contentions of the Petitioners:

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent had

issued notifications RC No. 41 and 42, both dated 25.04.2022,

inviting applications through online mode in respect of various

posts notified thereunder with the unit-wise distribution of

vacancies; that the 2nd respondent chose to treat the candidates

possessing NCC certificate of different grade/ranking issued by the

competent authorities as equally eligible and to be considered as

per merit secured by them in the final selection, without taking into

consideration, the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India, dated 20.04.2020; and that the candidates

possessing NCC 'C' certificate would have to be given higher

incentive/bonus marks than the candidate possessing NCC 'B'

certificate, similarly a candidate possessing NCC 'B' certificate

over NCC 'A' certificate holder.

4. Petitioners further contend that in order to secure a particular

grade/rank of NCC certificate, a candidate would have to undergo

a different level of training before being issued with such

certificate; that all the certificates namely NCC 'C', 'B' and 'A'

cannot be treated as equal; that as per the Circular issued by the

Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 20.04.2020, the candidates

possessing NCC 'C' certificate is entitled to 5% incentive/bonus

marks, while the candidates possessing 'B' and 'A' certificate are

entitled to incentive/bonus mark of 3% and 2% respectively; and

that the condition (vi) of Rule 3(D) as substituted under G.O. Ms.

No.14, dated 08.04.2022 as incorporated in the Notifications RC

No.41 and 42 specifying that for applying the 3% reservation/

quota for National Cadet Corps in the selection process, would be

as per merit secured by the candidates in the final selection, is apart

from arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles

14,19 and 21 of Constitution of India.

Contentions of the Respondents:

5. The 2nd respondent by the Counter Affidavit filed would

contend that the recruitment was undertaken strictly as per the

Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (for

short the 'Rules') as amended from time to time; and that the

G.O. Ms. No.14, dated 08.04.2022 was issued substituting some of

the Rules in force; and that Rule 3 (D) (vi) of the Rules was earlier

amended by G.O. Ms. No.49, Home (Legal) Department, dated

10.05.2018, whereby sub-clause (a) has been added by treating the

NCC 'C' and 'B' certificate holders as equal in respect of

recruitment to posts mentioned there against.

6. The respondent by the counter-affidavit would further

contend that the candidates possessing NCC certificate irrespective

of rank/grade of certificate possessed by them have been

considered as a special category and have been made eligible to

claim the reservation/quota on horizontal basis; that the 2nd

respondent had applied reservation/quota on horizontal basis in

respect of candidates possessing NCC certificates, having regard to

the minimum educational qualification required to be possessed for

applying to the post; that the petitioners having participated in the

Selection process and having failed/being unsuccessful in the

preliminary examination or having failed in the physical

measurement and physical efficiency test held on 19.12.2022 have

come up with the present writ petitions as an afterthought.

7. The 2nd respondent would also contend that insofar as the

application of the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India, dated 20.04. 2020 is concerned, the same is

only an advisory to the state authorities; and that it does not bind

the state authorities in as much as the state authority is the

recruiting Authority. It is also contended by the 2nd respondent that

in order to implement the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948, the

State is required to provide for reservation in the recruitment

process; that it is for the State authority to specify the selection

criteria; and that the same is not open for challenge.

8. The 2nd respondent further contends that the State being the

recruiting authority is only required to provide for reservation in

respect of candidates possessing NCC certificate, which in the facts

of the case is contended to have been duly provided; and that

therefore the claim of the petitioners of a higher percentage of

incentive/bonus mark to NCC 'C' certificate holder over NCC 'B'

certificate and similarly, 'B' certificate holder over 'A' certificate

holder as prescribed by the Ministry of Home affairs cannot bind or

thrust upon the State authority.

9. The 2nd respondent further contended that the Rules were

amended, vide G.O.M.S. No.49 Home (Legal) Department, dated

10.05.2018; that thus the Rule providing for considering the NCC

'C' and 'B' certificate as equal has been in existence even before

issuance of G.O. Ms. No.14, dated 08.04.2022; and that in absence

of any challenge to G.O.Ms. No.49, providing for a horizontal

reservation, the petitioners cannot seek to challenge the impugned

notifications RC Nos. 41 and 42, dated 25.04.2022.

10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well

as the Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of

India and Sri. M V. Rama Rao, learned Special Government

Pleader (Home) appearing on behalf of respondents and perused

the record.

Consideration by the Court:

11. Having regard to the contentions urged, the following

questions arise for consideration of this court:

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing

notifications Nos.41 and 42 dated 25.04. 2022 in treating all

the NCC certificate holders as equals is valid and justified?

2. Whether the petitioners who have taken part in the selection

process by appearing for the preliminary examination,

requiring to appear for physical measurement/efficiency test

thereafter and on clearing such test being eligible to appear

for final written test, can call in question the notifications

Nos.41 and 42 dated 25.04.2022, as being contrary to the

circular issued by the Ministry of Home affairs, Government

of India, dated 20.04.2020?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of relief as

prayed for?

12. It is the case of the petitioners that they have applied for

notifications issued by the 2nd respondent for direct recruitment of

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT), Sub inspector of police, Station

Fire Officer and Deputy Jailer under notification No. 42 and

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police constables under

notification No.41 both the dated 25.04.2022.

13. The petitioners have contended that the 2nd respondent in the

selections made for the aforesaid posts in the year 2015 had given

preference to candidates having NCC 'C' certificate over

candidates having NCC 'B' certificate.

14. While it is the case of the petitioners' that before issuing

notification RC Nos.41 and 42, dated 25.04.2022, the 2nd

respondent got the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet trainee)

Rules, 1999 notified under G.O.Ms. No.315 dated 13.10.1999

substituted by the State, vide G.O. Ms. No. 14, Home (Legal)

Department, dated 08.04.2022 and in particular clause (vi) to sub

rule (D) of Rule 3 has been substituted reading as under:

vi) NCC (National Cadet Corps) -

a) candidates who possess NCC-B and NCC-C certificates issued by the competent authorities shall be considered as per merit secured by them in the final selection for the recruitment of (i) SCT RSI (SAR CPL) (Men), (iv) SCT RSI (TSSP) (Men).

b) Candidates who possess NCC-A, NCC-B and NCC-C certificates issued by the competent authorities shall be considered as per merit secured by them in the final selection for the recruitment of

(i) SCT PC (Civil), (ii) SCT PC (AR), (iii) SCT PC (SAR CPL) (Men),

(iv) SCT PC (TSSP) (Men), (v) SCT PC (IT &CO), (vi) SCT PC (Mechanics) (Men) in PTO and SCT PC (Drivers) (men) in PTO.

c) When two or more candidates secure the same marks preference shall be given to the candidates who possesses a higher certificate among the above certificates for the relevant category of the post.

15. It is contended by the petitioner that the action of the 2nd

respondent in substituting the Rule which existed hitherto by the

aforesaid G.O. and issuing the notifications dated 25.04.2022 by

treating the NCC 'C' certificate holders as equal to other NCC

certificate holder for the selection of candidates under the 'Special

Category' whereby 3% reservation has been provided for

candidates possessing NCC certificates and in its place considering

all NCC certificate holders as equal and providing for horizontal

reservation across the NCC certificate holders as per the merit

secured by them in the final selection results in un-equals being

treated as equal.

16. Before adverting to the questions which arise for

consideration in the present petitions, it is important to examine the

scope of judicial review in the matters of selection process for

public employment.

17. It is trite law that the High Court in Writ Petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as a court of

appeal either with regard to the prescription of the eligibility

criteria or selection procedure adopted.

18. The scope and limits of judicial review had been succinctly

stated by the Supreme Court in Union of India and ors. V. Pushpa

Rani and ors., 1 as under:

"37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration."

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Maharashtra Public

Service Commission and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and

Ors, 2 while dealing with scope of judicial review in recruitment

process dealing with prescription of eligibility criteria/conditions

(2008) 9 SCC 242

(2019) 6SCC 362

had held as under:

"9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same."

20. A Full Bench of this court referring to the above decisions of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallesh Korukoru and Ors. V. The

State of Telangana 3, on the aspect of prescribing procedure of

selection for direct recruitment had observed that the employer was

the best person to prescribe the qualifications required to hold a

post. The relevant observations are as under:

"76. Two fundamental aspects which govern public employment are prescribing eligibility criteria to a post, and transparent procedure of selection. Eligibility criteria include educational qualifications, age,

2020 SCC Online TS 1073

experience, etc. Procedure of selection may include selection exclusively based on written examination, or oral examination, or both; the employer may prescribe minimum pass mark in the written examination, and/or prescribe minimum pass mark in the oral examination; the employer may resort to short listing of candidates for further selection, by holding screening test; the employer may also prescribe preference based on higher educational qualifications, age, experience etc. Assigning weightage to service rendered on temporary basis and weightage to seniority in acquiring educational qualifications also come under procedure of selection. Employer may prescribe tests to assess the skill in a particular discipline, such as typing, short hand, physical endurance etc. Thus, it is for the employer to custom-tailor the eligibility criteria and/or selection procedure as per his/her requirements. The employer is the best person to assess qualifications required to hold a post, and the method of selection.

77. However, it is imperative that in the recruitment notification the employer must clearly specify the eligibility criteria, and the procedure of selection for recruitment to a public post. There must be wide publicity about the recruitment."

The Full bench taking into consideration the law laid down by the

Apex Court had prescribed the principles dealing with the scope of

judicial review as under:

"80. From precedent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in matters of prescribing eligibility criteria, selection procedure and right of a candidate seeking public employment, the following principles can be culled out:

1. . . .

2. The Courts should not usurp the function of determining the appropriate method of selection, and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. That would be amounting to re-writing the rules;

the courts should not undertake such an exercise. [Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan33 : Paragraph-9]

3. Matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, prescribing additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference, criteria of selection fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The Court has no role either in determining the methodology of recruitment, or in laying down the criteria of selection. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements that a candidate must possess, according to the needs of the employer, and the nature of work. In the garb of judicial review, a Court cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority, and decide what is best for the employer. Moreover, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer, and ordain that a particular post be filled in a particular manner. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. In such matters, the power of judicial review can be exercised only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision, or is patently arbitrary, or is vitiated due to mala fide. It is also not open to the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving the efficiency of administration. [Union of India v. Pushpa Rani34 : Paragraph- 37]. [Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) : Paragraph- 9]."

21. Applying the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and the

Full Bench of this Court to the facts of the case on hand, it is to be

noted that the prescription of eligibility criteria of treating all the

NCC certificate holders equal by the 2nd respondent is within the

exclusive jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent being employer.

Since, the 2nd respondent having notified the criteria/eligibility of a

candidate claiming quota/reservation under 'National Cadet Corps'

of 'Special Category' at the time of issuance of notification itself,

would be as per merit, it is not open for the petitioners to claim

and contend that the 2nd respondent ought to have followed the

selection process adopted during the year 2015 and not based on

the amendments made to the Rules under G.O. Ms. No.14.

22. Though the petitioners have laid their challenge to the

amendment made to Rule 3 (D) of the Rules on the ground that the

same is contrary to the circular dated 20.04.2020 issued by the

Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, it is to be seen that

the subject of 'Police' is specified in Entry 2 of List II to the VII

Schedule whereunder only the State has exclusive power to make

laws as per Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India. Having

regard to the exclusive power conferred on the State, the circular

issued by the Ministry of Home affairs states that the same was

'advisory' in nature to grant similar incentives by the respective

police forces of the State.

23. In the background of the scheme of the Constitution and the

language employed in the circular, it would be clear that the same

is in the nature of an advisory/request to the State Government and

not mandatory. Thus, the claim of the petitioners that the

notifications RC. No.41 and 42 issued by the 2nd respondent in

providing for horizontal reservation for all ranks of NCC certificate

holders as being contrary to the circular dated 20.04.2020, does not

hold much water.

24. This takes us to the next question as to whether the

petitioners who have taken part in the selection process by

appearing for the preliminary exams can thereafter question the

condition relating to all the NCC certificate holders being treated

equally without preference being given to NCC 'C' certificate

holder over 'B' certificate holder and similarly 'B' certificate

holder over 'A' certificate holder.

25. Even this issue should not detain us for a long as it is well

settled that a candidate having taken part in the selection process

cannot thereafter lay a challenge to the notification. However,

before stating the legal position on this aspect, it is necessary to

note some of the important dates which have a bearing on the

conclusions being arrived at by this court. The same are as under:

• The notification for filling up of vacancies by recruitment under the Rules is issued vide Notifications RC No. 41 and 42, dt. 25.04.2022;

• The applications were to be submitted through online between 02.05.2022 to 22.05.2022;

• Preliminary exam was to be held on 07.08.2022 and on 28.08.2022 for notifications No. 41 and 42 respectively;

• The list of candidates who have qualified in the preliminary exam becoming eligible to take part Physical Measurements / Efficiency Test was published on 21.10.2022 ;

• The 1st Writ petition i.e., WP No. 40714 of 2022 was filed on 04.11.2022 and other writ petitions thereafter.

26. The sequence of dates from the date of notification to the

date of filing of the 1st writ petition into this court are mentioned to

take note of the fact as to whether the petitioners having taken part

in the 1st round of examination namely preliminary examination in

some cases and after taking part in the physical

measurement/physical efficiency test in some other cases and

having failed to clear such test can be allowed to challenge the

notification at a later date.

27. As stated above, the law is well settled on this aspect. This

Court does not wish to burden this order by referring to various

judgments of the Apex Court on the issue. Suffice to refer to the

decision rendered in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. V.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors 4. The Apex Court by

referring to the earlier precedents on this aspect had observed as

under:

"68. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:

i) In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.

ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after

2023 SCC Online 344

participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:

"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."

iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for promotion to Class-III posts from amongst Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90 : 10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks - 90 and qualifying marks - 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class-III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:

"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, 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, (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that:"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 also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil, (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 12 SCC 724)".

69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence."

28. In the light of the aforesaid position of law as enunciated by

the Apex Court and having regard to the filing of the 1st writ

petition itself on 04.11.2022, it would be clear that the petitioners

having realized their position in the selection process, thereafter

chose to lay a challenge to the notification. The said practice

resorted to by the petitioners would not only fail to yield any result,

but also needs to be deprecated as it is evident that the same is an

after - thought.

29. Though, the petitioners have also laid a challenge to the

notifications on the ground that the conditions relating to all the

NCC certificate holders being treated equally subsequent to the

substitution of clause (vi) to sub- rule (D) of Rule 3 under G.O.

Ms. No.14, it is to be noted that the first part of the sub clause (a)

of Clause (vi) had been introduced by amendment brought about

vide G.O.Ms. No.49, Home (Legal) Department, dated 10.05.2018

whereby the NCC certificate holders of 'C' and 'B' certificates are

treated equal in respect of recruitment specified therein. By the

amendment brought about under GO.Ms. No.14, dated 08.04.2022,

the Government only added sub-clause (b) thereto whereunder all

the three NCC certificate holders are treated equally in respect of

recruitment to the posts mentioned thereagainst as per merit

secured by them in the final selection for the recruitment. Further,

with regard to the minimum qualification prescribed, as rightly

contended by the 2nd respondent, the respondents have amended

Clause (vi) of sub-Rule (D) of Rule 3 of the Rules by inserting sub-

clause (b) after sub-clause (a) which was amended earlier under

G.O.Ms. No.49 dated 10.05.2018. Thus, the claim of the

petitioners that the impugned notifications having been issued after

the substitution of Clause (vi) of sub-rule (D) of Rule 3 being

notified vide G.O. Ms. No.14, dated 08.04.2022 cannot be accepted

as valid ground, to challenge the notification.

30. Though the petitioners by their reply to the counter-affidavit

filed by the respondent, had also claimed that a challenge to G.O.

Ms. No.49 dated 10.05.2018 with respect to the amendment

brought by the respondent, is pending consideration before this

Court, except stating so, no details are furnished with respect to

Writ Petition number or the year of filing. In absence of petitioners

placing before this Court such details, the statement made in the

reply affidavit does not merit any consideration.

31. Thus, considered from any angle the petitioners have not

been able to show to this Court any justiciable ground to interdict

the respondents from proceeding with the recruitment under the

impugned notifications by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

32. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the

Writ Petitions as filed are devoid of merit and have to fail.

33. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as

to costs.

34. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed in

the light of this order.

_____________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 13.12.2023 MRKR/VSV