IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITIONS NO.138/2002, 172/2002 & 180/2002 WRIT PETITION NO.138/2002 Mr. Tanveer Khatib, Major of age, Resident of 179/30, Alto Bella Vista, Sangolda, Bardez, Goa. .... Petitioner. V/s. 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Panaji, Goa. 3. Shri Datta Guru Sawant, residing behind Laximibai Talaulikar Hospital, Boca de Vaca, Panaji, Goa. 4. Milind M. Bhuimbar, age 22 years, residing at House No.1012/17, Goa Police Housing Co-op. Soc. Jos Waddo, Succurro, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa 403 501, 5. Loveleen Jeane Dias, major of age, residing at C/o. Delia Dias, Bambolim, Ilhas, Goa. 6. Navlesh Suresh Dessai, major of age, residing at Veroda, Cuncolim, Goa. 7. Paresh Rajanikant Navelkar, major of age, residing at H.No.325, Durgawadi, Taleigao, Ilhas, Goa. 8. Devyani H. Ambetkar, major of age, residing at - 2 - H.No.161, Cobo Vaddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 9. Ramkrishna S. Mangeshkar, major of age, residing at D-3-E, Govt. Quarters, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 10. Roopa A. Kharde, major of age, residing at H.No.87-39, Near Govt. High School, Pandavwadi, Headland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 11. Deepak Madhuker Pednekar, major of age, residing at H.No.248, Caper Wada, Curti, Ponda, Goa. 12. Pravin Prakash Gawas, Major of age, residing at H.No.899, Gokulwadi, Sanquelim, Bicholim, Goa. 13. Tejaswini K. Gaunker, Major in age, residing at B1-F4, Vijayaanagar Housing Society, Corlim, Ilhas, Goa 403 110. 14. Virendra B. Veluskar, major of age, residing at H.No.280, Behind Kamat Plaza, Near Shri Ganesh Temple, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 15. Krishna P. Sinari, major of age, residing at H.No.153, Pimpal Wada, P.O. Marcela, Amona, Bicholim, Goa. 16. Narayan A. Chimulkar, Major of age, residing at B-1-12, Police Quarters, Porvorim, Goa. 17. Kalindi G. Naik Burye, major of age, residing at House No.87, Souza Vaddo, Quitla, Aldona, Bardez, Goa. - 3 - 18.Praven Powar, major of age, residing at D/A-3, H.No.1012/2, Goa Police Housing Co-op. Society, Zoswaddo, Succorro, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 19.Prajyot S. Fadte, major of age, residing at Akhada, St. Estevem, Ilhas, Goa. 20. Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, major of age, residing at H.No.D-17, at Dhaigodem, Keri, P.O. Kerim, Ponda, Goa. 21. Shailesh A. Narvekar, Major of age, residing at H.No.2, Maimulem, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 403 802. 22. Sanjay G. Dalvi, major of age, residing at C-10-6, Junta Quarters, Pajifond, Margaon, Goa. 23. Tushar G. Lotlikar, Major of age, residing at St. Anthony’s Ward, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. 24. Kapil alias Ramnath B. Nayak major of age, residing at H.No.183, Dhoirem, Rivona Via Quepem, Goa 403 705. 25. Brendan E.F. D’Souza, major of age, residing at H.No.217, Bairo Alto, Ribandar, Goa 403 006. 26. Sudesh M. Velip, Major of age, residing at H.No.33, Velipwada, Kavrem, Quepem, Goa. 27. Paresh G. Naik, Major of age, residing at Lotus Apartment, F.L. Gomes Road, - 4 - Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 28.Rahul T. Parab, major of age, residing at B/2, Asilo Hospital Qtrs., Feiro Alto, Mapusa Goa- 403 507. 29. Pradeep M. Tamhanker Major of age, residing at H.No.98/1, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswado, Bardez, Goa. 30. Ravindra D. Dessai, Major of age, residing at Canacona, Goa. 31. Neenad G. Deulkar, major of age, residing at Post Sal, Madlawada, Assonora, Goa. 32. Bristano Peixoto, Major of age, residing at H.No.56/B, Cavorim, Covatem, Chandor, Goa - 403 714. 33. Job Rajesh, Major of age, residing at C/o. Thomas Job, Nagargao, Valpoi, Goa 403 506. ..... Respondents. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. H.R. Bharne, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Joel J. de Souza, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 33. WRIT PETITION NO.172/2002 1. Shri Shankar alias Sameer Kamat, r/o. H.No.E-161, Aquem Alto, Margao, Salcete, Goa. - 5 - 2. Shri Roque Richard Rebello, r/o. H.No.302, Davonderi, P.O. Fatorda, Margao, Goa 403 601, 3. Kum. Shami Rasaikar, r/o. Block-I, L-199, Housing Board, Gogol, Margao, Goa. 4. Shri Vincent R.S. D’Cunha, r/o. Corlim - Volwaddo, H.No.74, P.O. Corlim Industrial Estate, Ilhas, Goa 403 110. 5. Shri Sawant Premnath Soiroji, r/o. H.No.570, Dhargalem, Pernem, Goa. 6. Areena Monica D’Silva, r/o. H.No.124, Opp. Margao Urban Co-Op. Bank, Old Market, Margao, Goa. 7. Kum. Supriya Naik, r/o. H.No.264, Green Valley, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 8. Shri Jitendra R. Gaonkar, r/o. Pirla, Quepem, Goa. 9. Shri Savio Francisco Marian P. R/o. 523/A, Odlem Bhat, Taleigao, Ilhas, Goa 403 003. .... Petitioners. V/s. 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Director General of Police, State of Goa, having Office at Police Headquarters, Panaji, Goa. 3. Goa Public Service Commission, through its Member Secretary, having Office at EDC House, Panaji, Goa. - 6 - 4. Shri Dattaguru K. Sawant, residing behind Laximibai Talaulikar Hospital, Boca de Vaca, Panaji, Goa. 5. Milind M. Bhuimbar, age 22 years, residing at House No.1012/17, Goa Police Housing Co-op. Soc. Jos Waddo, Succurro, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa 403 501, 6. Loveleen Jeane Dias, major of age, residing at C/o. Delia Dias, Bambolim, Ilhas, Goa. 7. Navlesh Suresh Dessai, major of age, residing at Veroda, Cuncolim, Goa. 8. Paresh Rajanikant Navelkar, major of age, residing at H.No.325, Durgawadi, Taleigao, Ilhas, Goa. 9. Devyani H. Ambetkar, major of age, residing at H.No.161, Cobo Vaddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 10. Ramkrishna S. Mangeshkar, major of age, residing at D-3-E, Govt. Quarters, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 11. Roopa A. Kharde, major of age, residing at H.No.87-39, Near Govt. High School, Pandavwadi, Headland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 12. Deepak Madhuker Pednekar, major of age, residing at H.No.248, Caper Wada, Curti, Ponda, Goa. 13. Pravin Prakash Gawas, Major of age, residing at H.No.899, Gokulwadi, - 7 - Sanquelim, Bicholim, Goa. 14. Tejaswini K. Gaunker, Major in age, residing at B1-F4, Vijayaanagar Housing Society, Corlim, Ilhas, Goa 403 110. 15. Virendra B. Veluskar, major of age, residing at H.No.280, Behind Kamat Plaza, Near Shri Ganesh Temple, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 16. Krishna P. Sinari, major of age, residing at H.No.153, Pimpal Wada, P.O. Marcela, Amona, Bicholim, Goa. 17. Narayan A. Chimulkar, Major of age, residing at B-1-12, Police Quarters, Porvorim, Goa. 18. Kalindi G. Naik Burye, major of age, residing at House No.87, Souza Vaddo, Quitla, Aldona, Bardez, Goa. 19.Praven Powar, major of age, residing at D/A-3, H.No.1012/2, Goa Police Housing Co-op. Society, Zoswaddo, Succorro, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 20.Prajyot S. Fadte, major of age, residing at Akhada, St. Estevem, Ilhas, Goa. 21. Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, major of age, residing at H.No.D-17, at Dhaigodem, Keri, P.O. Kerim, Ponda, Goa. 22. Shailesh A. Narvekar, Major of age, residing at H.No.2, Maimulem, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 403 802. - 8 - 23. Sanjay G. Dalvi, major of age, residing at C-10-6, Junta Quarters, Pajifond, Margaon, Goa. 24. Tushar G. Lotlikar, Major of age, residing at St. Anthony’s Ward, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. 25. Kapil alias Ramnath B. Nayak major of age, residing at H.No.183, Dhoirem, Rivona Via Quepem, Goa 403 705. 26. Brendan E.F. D’Souza, major of age, residing at H.No.217, Bairo Alto, Ribandar, Goa 403 006. 27. Sudesh M. Velip, Major of age, residing at H.No.33, Velipwada, Kavrem, Quepem, Goa. 28. Paresh G. Naik, Major of age, residing at Lotus Apartment, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 29.Rahul T. Parab, major of age, residing at B/2, Asilo Hospital Qtrs., Feiro Alto, Mapusa Goa- 403 507. 30. Pradeep M. Tamhanker Major of age, residing at H.No.98/1, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswado, Bardez, Goa. 31. Ravindra D. Dessai, Major of age, residing at Canacona, Goa. 32. Neenad G. Deulkar, major of age, residing at Post Sal, Madlawada, Assonora, Goa. - 9 - 33. Bristano Peixoto, Major of age, residing at H.No.56/B, Cavorim, Covatem, Chandor, Goa - 403 714. 34. Job Rajesh, Major of age, residing at C/o. Thomas Job, Nagargao, Valpoi, Goa 403 506. ..... Respondents. Mr. M.S. Sonak with Ms. Pooja Bharne, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. H.R. Bharne, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Joel J. de Souza, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 34. WRIT PETITION NO.180/2002 Mr. Victor J.A. Lobo, B-52, Angelina Filomena Complex, Moloco Merces, Goa. .... Petitioner. V/s. 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Panaji, Goa. 3. Shri Dattaguru K. Sawant, residing behind Laximibai Talaulikar Hospital, Boca de Vaca, Panaji, Goa. 4. Milind M. Bhuimbar, age 22 years, residing at House No.1012/17, Goa Police Housing Co-op. Soc. Jos Waddo, Succurro, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa 403 501, - 10 - 5. Loveleen Jeane Dias, major of age, residing at C/o. Delia Dias, Bambolim, Ilhas, Goa. 6. Navlesh Suresh Dessai, major of age, residing at Veroda, Cuncolim, Goa. 7. Paresh Rajanikant Navelkar, major of age, residing at H.No.325, Durgawadi, Taleigao, Ilhas, Goa. 8. Devyani H. Ambetkar, major of age, residing at H.No.161, Cobo Vaddo, Tivim, Bardez, Goa. 9. Ramkrishna S. Mangeshkar, major of age, residing at D-3-E, Govt. Quarters, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 10. Roopa A. Kharde, major of age, residing at H.No.87-39, Near Govt. High School, Pandavwadi, Headland Sada, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 11. Deepak Madhuker Pednekar, major of age, residing at H.No.248, Caper Wada, Curti, Ponda, Goa. 12. Pravin Prakash Gawas, Major of age, residing at H.No.899, Gokulwadi, Sanquelim, Bicholim, Goa. 13. Tejaswini K. Gaonker, Major in age, residing at B1-F4, Vijayaanagar Housing Society, Corlim, Ilhas, Goa 403 110. 14. Virendra B. Veluskar, major of age, residing at H.No.280, Behind Kamat Plaza, Near Shri Ganesh Temple, - 11 - St. Inez, Panaji, Goa. 15. Krishna P. Sinari, major of age, residing at H.No.153, Pimpal Wada, P.O. Marcela, Amona, Bicholim, Goa. 16. Narayan A. Chimulkar, Major of age, residing at B-1-12, Police Quarters, Porvorim, Goa. 17. Kalindi G. Naik Burye, major of age, residing at House No.87, Souza Vaddo, Quitla, Aldona, Bardez, Goa. 18.Praven Powar, major of age, residing at D/A-3, H.No.1012/2, Goa Police Housing Co-op. Society, Zoswaddo, Succorro, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 19.Prajyot S. Fadte, major of age, residing at Akhada, St. Estevem, Ilhas, Goa. 20. Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, major of age, residing at H.No.D-17, at Dhaigodem, Keri, P.O. Kerim, Ponda, Goa. 21. Shailesh A. Narvekar, Major of age, residing at H.No.2, Maimulem, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 403 802. 22. Sanjay G. Dalvi, major of age, residing at C-10-6, Junta Quarters, Pajifond, Margaon, Goa. 23. Tushar G. Lotlikar, Major of age, residing at St. Anthony’s Ward, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. 24. Kapil alias Ramnath B. - 12 - Nayak major of age, residing at H.No.183, Dhoirem, Rivona Via Quepem, Goa 403 705. 25. Brendan E.F. D’Souza, major of age, residing at H.No.217, Bairo Alto, Ribandar, Goa 403 006. 26. Sudesh M. Velip, Major of age, residing at H.No.33, Velipwada, Kavrem, Quepem, Goa. 27. Paresh G. Naik, Major of age, residing at Lotus Apartment, F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 28.Rahul T. Parab, major of age, residing at B/2, Asilo Hospital Qtrs., Feiro Alto, Mapusa Goa- 403 507. 29. Pradeep M. Tamhanker Major of age, residing at H.No.98/1, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswado, Bardez, Goa. 30. Ravindra D. Dessai, Major of age, residing at Canacona, Goa. 31. Neenad G. Deulkar, major of age, residing at Post Sal, Madlawada, Assonora, Goa. 32. Bristano Peixoto, Major of age, residing at H.No.56/B, Cavorim, Covatem, Chandor, Goa - 403 714. 33. Job Rajesh, Major of age, residing at C/o. Thomas Job, Nagargao, Valpoi, Goa 403 506. ..... Respondents. - 13 - Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. H.D. Naik, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Joel J. de Souza, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 33. CORAM : N.N. MHATRE & P.V. HARDAS, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: FEBRUARY 03, 2004. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : MARCH 12, 2004. J U D G M E N T : (Per MHATRE, J.) These three petitions challenge the select list dated 16.4.2002 for the post of Police Sub-Inspector of the Police Department of the Government of Goa. The challenge arises mainly on the ground that after the commencement of the selection process, new criteria were introduced as a result of which, the petitioners have been prejudicially affected and as a result have not been selected. 2. The undisputed facts are as follows : On 6.2.2001, an advertisement appeared in the news papers inviting applications to the post of Police - 14 - Sub-Inspector in the Police Department of the Government of Goa. The qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were as follows : (I) Degree of a recognized University or equivalent. (II) Age 20 to 25 years as on 31.01.2001 (III) Physical requirements : (IV) Should pass written and oral examination conducted by the Department. (V) Knowledge of Konkani, desirable knowledge of Marathi. Twenty six posts were to be filled by male candidates and five by female candidates. The number of reserved posts was also advertised. Since the petitioners possessed the required qualifications as sought in the advertisement, the petitioners applied for the posts within the specified times i.e. on or before 26th February, 2001. In December, 2001, the petitioners received a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Panaji stating that preliminary selection tests for the post of Police Sub-Inspector were fixed on 12.12.2001. The petitioners were directed to appear for the preliminary - 15 - tests along with their original certificates. The petitioners successfully completed and passed the preliminary selection tests. On 25.1.2002, the petitioners were informed that the written examination for the posts was to be held on 10.2.2002. The syllabus for the written examination was also forwarded to the petitioners. On 7.3.2002, the petitioners were directed to produce original as well as certified copies of certain documents, which included the various certificates showing that the petitioners had completed their Graduation and achieved excellence in extra- curricular activities and other fields of study. Accordingly, all the petitioners produced these certificates. The petitioners were informed on 18.3.2002 when they produced these certificates that additional marks were proposed to be allotted to certain heads under caption "Career Profile". On 3.4.2002, the petitioners attended the oral interview. On 16.4.2002, a list of selected candidates was displayed on the notice board. However, the petitioners were not found to be successful. Being aggrieved by the omission of their names from the list of successful candidates, the petitioners have filed the present petition. According to the petitioners, they learnt for the first time through a press - 16 - statement issued on behalf of the Police Department on 12.12.2001 that 35 marks would be allotted for written tests for recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, 15 marks for oral interview and 50 marks for what was described as "Career Profile". The press statement, however, did not specify as to what comprised the career profile. According to the petitioners, the entire selection process was vitiated as the persons were selected to the post of Police Sub-Inspector de hors the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners have, in their petitions, submitted that despite specific criteria being stipulated in the Recruitment Rules, which all the petitioners satisfied, the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. the State of Goa and the Director General of Police had added to this criteria after the selection process had commenced. 3. After filing of these petitions, an affidavit of A.K. Singh, Superintendent of Police was filed in Writ Petition No.138/2002. According to the affiant, the selection process adopted was within the format of the Recruitment Rules. It was disclosed in the affidavit that the Government on 10/12/2001 had evolved a mode of evaluation of the merits of the candidates, splitting the assessment into two rounds. - 17 - In round one, only the eligible candidates who possessed the essential qualifications would be called for a physical test which would carry no marks, but an incumbent would have to be qualified to be considered in the second round for evaluation on merit. This assessment was based on 50 marks allotted for career profile, 35 marks allotted for written examination and 15 marks allotted for oral examination. The total marks being 100. The break-up of marks allotted for each head was as follows : Written Test (I) i. General Knowledge 10 marks. ii. General (English) 15 marks. iii. Aptitude test 10 marks. Oral interview (II) 15 marks. Career profile (III) i. Graduation. 10 marks. ii. Graduation above 60 % 10 marks. iii.Post Graduation 5 marks. iv. Law Graduate 5 marks. v. Computer literate 5 marks. vi. N.C.C. (C) Certificate 5 marks. vii. Sportsmen (National/ International level) 5 marks. viii.Sportsmen at University/ State level. 5 marks. University 3 marks ) subject to maximum State 5 marks) of 5 marks. --------- Total 100 marks. 4. The successful candidates who are - 18 - respondents No.3 to 33 in Writ Petition No.138/02 and 180/02 and respondents No.4 to 34 in Writ Petition No.172/02 support the selection process adopted by the respondents No.1 and 2. Almost all of them have individually filed affidavits-in-reply to the petitions basically stating that the selection process was conducted properly and that the petitioners could have no grievance as they had all appeared for the oral interview and the written examination and that all the candidates appearing for the selection were judged on the same basis. Two more affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.138/2002. Muktesh Chander holding charge of Superintendent of Police, in his affidavit has stated that the selection process started on 12.12.2001, the written test was held on 10.2.2002, the selected candidates were asked to undergo Medical Test and were sent for training for a period of 2 years. According to the affiant, the career profile came to be introduced in order to prevent any nepotism and discrimination as the allotment of marks for the oral interview always led to arbitrariness in the selection process. A supplementary affidavit was then filed on 9.7.2003 by Shri R.S. Krishnia, Superintendent of Police mentioning the expenses incurred for training of - 19 - the selected candidates and the expenses incurred on payment of their salaries after their appointments to the post of Police Sub-Inspector. 5. Writ Petition No.138/2002 came up for admission before the Division Bench on the basis that the select list dated 16.4.2002 of the post of Police Sub-Inspector of the Police Department of Government of Goa was illegal. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the select list and the respondents were directed not to issue appointment letters on the basis of the select list. It appears that respondents No.3 to 33 moved the learned Single Judge during the vacation when the stay granted earlier was vacated on the basis of an application made by respondents No.3 to 33. While admitting these petitions i.e. Writ Petitions No.138/2002 and 172/2002 on 4.6.2002, by way of the interim relief, this Court directed that the appointments made, if any, to the post of Police Sub-Inspector would be subject to the result of the petitions. 6. The facts involved in Writ Petition No.180/02 are similar. The petitioners in this petition challenge the select list principally on the - 20 - ground that by introduction of the ‘career profile’, the petitioners have been prejudicially affected. Moreover, according to the petitioner, a sportsman who had represented the State at the National Football level as well as represented the Country in the International Football tournaments and also had participated in football tournaments at the University level has been neglected. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that assuming the career profile could be used, respondent No.3 i.e. one of the successful candidates, did not possess the requisite height of 171 cms., which was an essential qualification under the Recruitment Rules.The marks given to the said respondent was not as stipulated in the career profile. According to the petitioner, a person who had played only at the State level was given more marks than himself although he had played at the international level. 7. In Writ Petition No.172/2002, the petitioners No.3 and 7 are the female candidates, who had applied for the post of female Sub-Inspector. The challenge in this petition is similar to the challenge made out in Writ Petition No.138/2002, except for the fact that the petitioner No.1 in this petition claims - 21 - that he is eligible to be selected to the post of reserved against sportsman category and that the select list did not name any person against the reserved post for a sportsman category. 8. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.138/2002 submits that the advertisement published on 6.2.2001 contained certain criteria which the the candidates were required to fulfil for being selected to the post of Sub-Inspector. This advertisement was issued in accordance with the Recruitment Rules then prevailing. He submits that by introduction of the career profile after the selection process had commenced, the first and second respondents had committed a grave and serious illegality prejudicially affecting the career of the petitioners. He submits that the Recruitment Rules cannot be substituted by stipulation made in the career profile. The petitioners had learnt of the introduction of the career profile only through a press statement. The number of marks to be allotted as per the career profit was learnt by them only when the affidavit in reply was filed. He submits that the selection process could be considered to have commenced after the last date of the receipt of the applications - 22 - as per the advertisement. The last date scheduled in the advertisement was 26.2.2001 and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, that is the date when the selection process commenced. He relies on the Judgments in the case of Praveenkumar Trivedi vs. Public Service Commission M.P., 1986 Lab. I.C. 1990; Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & ors., AIR 1986 SC 1043; Shri Durgacharan Misra vs. State of Orissa and ors., AIR 1987 SC 2267; P. Mahendran and ors. vs. State of Karnataka and ors. (1990) 1 SCC 411; Union of India and ors vs. Raj Kumar Gupta & Ors., 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 607 and Chandra Prakash Tiwari and ors. vs. Shakuntala Shukla and ors. (2002) 6 SCC 127. 9. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.180/2002 adopts the arguments of Mr. Lotlikar and urges that the weightage of marks given to the successful candidates was not based even on the career profile. He submits that assuming without admitting that the career profile could have been introduced, the marks allotted to the respondents No.3 to 33 (in Writ Petitions No.138/2002 and 180/2002) and respondents No.4 to 34 (in writ Petition No.172/2002) (both sets of - 23 - respondents, hereinafter, after referred to as the "successful candidates") were not in accordance with the career profile. 10. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.172/2002 while adopting the arguments of Mr. Lotlikar, submits further that the process of selection commences with the issuance of the advertisement. He submits that the career profile contained in the Circular dated 12.10.2001 are the executive instructions and cannot supersede the Recruitment Rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. He submits that in fact respondents No.1 and 2 treated this as a draft amendment to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Police Sub-Inspector - male as well as female-as it was obvious from the letter dated 10.10.2001. He submits that when the first and the second respondents had considered that this career profile and allocation of marks on the basis of it would be considered as an amendment to the Recruitment Rules, the respondents No.1 and 2 could not supplant the criteria which was already provided for in the Recruitment Rules. He submits that the career profile does not bring about the mere cosmetic change to the selection process, but - 24 - is a substantive change. He also submits that the Memorandum of 7.3.2002 directing the candidates to produce certain