OF CHHAmS^RH. BIU4SPUR BENCHl HON'BLE MR. &H2RENDRA & MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ W.A. Ho.332/09 (VVrit App&ai u/s 2 (1) of th®C.G. Hiqh Court (Apped to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Petitioner Vs Sangharsh Kumar Mishra, 5/o Late Shri D,M Mishra, aged about 38 years, R/o D- 119, Sector-I, &evendra Nagar, Raipur, Distnct Raipur (C&') 1. Chhattisaarh Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Raipur, District ftaipur (C.B) 2, Additiona! Secretary (Examinatjon) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, R.aspur, Djstrict Raipu" (C.6.) Prescnt^ Mr- Prateek Shurnia, Advocate for the appeiiant. Mr% A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate Senera! for the State. ORAL JU&^MENT (03.12.2009) Dhjrendra Mishra. J;- 1. This writ-appea! is directed against the order dated 26J0.2009 passed in W.P* (s) No,4l51/2009 whereby the iearned Single Judge has diswiissed the writ petition filed by the petjtioners/appeiiarit herein. 2. Mr. Sharma, Icarned counsel for the appelEant ^ubmits that in to the advertisement dated 22Jl.2008 publjshed by.the respondent, the appeIJant applied for the post of Food Inspector. By the advertisement, vacancies of 38 posts of Food Inspector, 16 posts. of Drug Inspector and one post of Drug Analyst were adverstised. EJigibiJJty criteria for appointment to the post of Food Inspector given in the advertj-serneiit according to which the appellant was eIiQibSe for the post, In Cjause 9.2 of the advertisement it was clearjy mentioned 1tiat if the C.G. Public Service Commission (for short 'CommJssIon') decs'des to conduct written examination, jn that case on!y those candidates, who are found to be provisjonaJly eJjgible on scrutiny, would be intimated for DarticlDatjna in the written e^^mination and if the Commjssion ^z after short iistinQ the applications to make recruitment onJy on the basis of personal interayjew without conductjng written examination, then notice for 'interview would be sent. However, after almost eight rnonths of the coinmenccment of recruitment proceedings, notjfication 6,7.2009 pubiished in the and it notified that recryitnient wiil be m accordance with Ciause 12 of the advertisenient 22/11.2008 and aJI thc candjdatas, who have submit'ted their appJications tili the last date fixed for submittjng applications/ shaJ? be 'provisJonaiJy permitted to appear in the wrltten examination wlthout scrutiny of their applications. The above charsge in the seiection is impermissible under the bw as the procedure of recruitrnent cannot be changed after c.0mmencement of the recruitment process. The appellant is the on!y. candidate havina required qualifjcation and experience.-as prescribed under the advertisement, He further araued that action of the respondents in takina the' above decision a-fter .such a bna period is deiiberate. The respondents had ample 'tsme to scrutinize ail the applications received for the appointment.in the meanwhile and .oniy after elimination and shortiisting of number of applicatjons on the basis of their eilQJbiiir/, as per conditions'of advertjsement, the written examination couid be conducted amongst eJiglbb candidates. The aforesaid conduct of the respondents can neither3 be termed to be bonafide nor reasonabte and the judgment upon by the Sing.Ie Judge deliv'ered in the matter of Tr3jdjp & Vs. of W^st Bengal and reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768 is not appiicable in the facts of fhe present case. He further araued that a different yardstick has adopted for recrultmcnt on the post of Drua Analyst as after obtainsng appiications for the aforesaid post, the respondents have decjded not to conduct wntten exaiTiination. 3< We have heard Jearned counseE for the parties- ^ ^^f^" 4. It is true that in CJause 9,2 of fne adverts'sement dated 22.11.2008 it js mentjoned that in event of decision of written examination onJy those candidates, who are provisjondly found eijgibje on scrutiny, would be called for DarticiDatina in the written exarninatson and the aforesaid decjsjon- subsequentJy changed by the Commission and jn pyrsuance thereof advertisement dated 5*7,2009 pubiished callina up.on aIJ "the candjda-tes, who had .appiled for the. post wjthin time, to particjpate in the wrjrten-'examinatjon without scrutjny of their appjication forms. However, CIause i2J of the oriainal advertisement .empowers the Comrnission to conduct written examinatjon for the &urooses of short- Ijstjrig the candidates^ NotificatJon^dated 6J.2009 cjearly mentions that a ca^tdjdate wouid not become eJjgjbb only he permjtted to partjcipate in the wrjtten examination- and •only such candida'tes would be cailed for inl'erview who fuIfiJJ the reaujred ejiajbjjj-ty.crj-teria for the postand the same wouid be doneafter.minute scrutiny of their appJJcalion forms, 5. Learned Singte Judge after aolna through both the notjfications has that it cannot be heid that the rules of the aarne have chanaed after the piayed. Shortlistina of the candidates was to be on the of number of appiications received as ckarly provided in clause 12.1 of the earller notification 2641-2008. « 6. If the is only cligjbje candidate, as claimed by him, in that also no prejudjce is likaJy to be to 'the appeJJant if the Commissjon conducts written axamination to shortlist the candidates who have applieci against the vacancy advertlsed, Z In the result, we- fmd oo substance in this writ appea!,. the same to be dJsrYiissed and accordngJy, it is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge