JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This bunch of Writ Petitions is being decided by way of a common judgement since common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. 2. A number of posts of Pharmacist (Allopathy) exist in the department of Health and Family Welfare in the State of Himachal Pradesh. These posts are filled up in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Department of Health and Family Welfare, Pharmacist, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Prior to the year 2001, the essential educational qualifications for filling up these posts were that the candidate was required to be a matriculate and should have obtained a diploma in Pharmacy. Vide notification dated 12th September, 2001 fresh Rules were notified and as per these rules the essential educational qualifications was changed to :- i) 10 plus 2 in Science or its equivalent from a recognized university/Board. ii) Bachelor’s Degree/Diploma in Pharmacy or its equivalent from a recognized University or an Institution duly recognized by the Central/State Government. iii) Must be registered with the Pharmacy council of the concerned State/Central Government. Petitioners in all these petitions had completed the course and obtained diploma in Pharmacy prior to the promulgation of the Rules of 2001. They are all matriculates. As per the Rules of 2001, they do not possess one of the essential qualifications of having passed 10+2 in science. Despite the fact that the rules making 10+2 an essential qualification had been promulgated on 12th September, 2001 the respondent-State issued an advertisement on 30th September, 2001 inviting applications for filling 81 posts of Pharmacists on contract basis. In this advertisement the essential qualifications mentioned was matriculation/High Secondary (Part-I) with diploma in Pharmacy. It is averred by the petitioners and this averment is not denied by the State that a number of candidates who were only matriculates were appointed as Pharmacist (Allopathy) pursuant to the said advertisement. 4. On 30th June, 2006 a fresh advertisement was issued by the Health Department for filling up 71 posts of Pharmacists. In this advertisement one of the essential qualifications mentioned was 10+2 in science or its equivalent. One, Sudesh Kumar, who was only a matriculate and had not completed 10+2 approached the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application in which it was prayed that the Employment Exchange in question be directed to sponsor his name. In this advertisement one of the essential qualifications mentioned was 10+2 in science or its equivalent. One, Sudesh Kumar, who was only a matriculate and had not completed 10+2 approached the erstwhile H.P.State Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application in which it was prayed that the Employment Exchange in question be directed to sponsor his name. His main grievance was that since he was entitled to be appointed as Pharmacist under the old rules, the amendment could not have been made to his detriment. The application was rejected by the learned Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, he approached this Court by filing the CWP No. 231 of 2006 titled as Sudesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. This petition was rejected by this Court holding that essential educational qualifications as applicable in the year 2006 will have to be complied with. 5. Since there was large number of persons in the State of Himachal Pradesh who were only matriculates but they had qualified the diploma in Pharmacy prior to 12th September, 2001 they made representations to the Government to either amend the essential qualification or relax the same. On 8th December, 2006, the Government of Himachal Pradesh after careful consideration decided to grant one time relaxation in educational qualification to those pharmacists who are matriculates/High Secondary Part-I with Science and diploma in Pharmacy prior to the amended notification of Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Pharmacists, 2001. In fact, this decision to relax the rules was not brought to our notice while deciding the CWP No.231 of 2006. In view of the relaxation granted no recruitment was made pursuant to the advertisement dated 30th June, 2006 and fresh advertisement was issued on 18th June, 2007 inviting applications for filling up 71 posts. This advertisement carried the following note:- “Note:-The State Government vide its notification No. Health-A-B(15) 23/93 dated 8.12.2006 has granted one time relaxation in minimum educational qualifications to those candidates who are Matric/Higher Secondary Part-1 with Science and Diploma in Pharmacy prior to the notification of amended R&P Rules notified on 12.09.2001. Thus, the candidates who possess Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized Institution prior to 12.09.2001 but have Matric/Higher Secondary Part-I with Science as minimum qualification will also be eligible to apply for these posts.” 6. Thus, the candidates who possess Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized Institution prior to 12.09.2001 but have Matric/Higher Secondary Part-I with Science as minimum qualification will also be eligible to apply for these posts.” 6. Thus all those persons who were only matriculates/Higher Secondary Part-I and had obtained diploma in Pharmacy prior to the notification of Rules dated 12.09.2001 were eligible to apply for these posts. The petitioners accordingly applied for the said posts. Thereafter the petitioners were called for interviews. Interviews were held in the months of October and November, 2007. In the meanwhile, general elections to the State Assembly in H.P. were announced on 10th October, 2007 and the model Code of Conduct became applicable and therefore, no appointment could be made. A new Government came into existence and it appears that though interviews had been conducted the result thereof was not announced. On 14.8.2008 the Recruitment and Promotion Rules were again amended. The method of recruitment was changed and now 50% of the posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment or on contract basis and 50% by direct recruitment or on contract basis on batch-wise basis at departmental level. Pursuant to this amendment fresh advertisement was issued on 18th August, 2008 for filling up 258 posts of Pharmacists. This advertisement provided that as per the amended rules 50% posts were to be filled in on batch wise taking into consideration the batch in which they had passed the diploma and 50% directly. Immediately after this advertisement was issued a number of petitioners started making representations that the fresh selection process should not be started and even if started should not affect the earlier process of recruitment, which had never come to an end. Since the Government did not accede to the request of the petitioners they filed the present writ petitions in which it is alleged that the Government cannot be permitted to scuttle the selection process conducted in furtherance to the advertisement dated 30th June, 2006 and 18th June, 2007. It is prayed that the result of the said selection be declared and appointments be made in accordance with the said result. It is also urged that once relaxation had been given to a specific category of persons the said relaxation could not have been withdrawn and this action of withdrawing the relaxation is arbitrary and illegal. It is prayed that the result of the said selection be declared and appointments be made in accordance with the said result. It is also urged that once relaxation had been given to a specific category of persons the said relaxation could not have been withdrawn and this action of withdrawing the relaxation is arbitrary and illegal. It is further alleged that one Shri Nirmal Kumar Soni had been given relaxation not only in respect of the essential educational qualifications but also in respect of the maximum age prescribed, after the interviews held in the year 2007. According to the petitioners, some of them are placed in an identical situation like Nirmal Kumar Soni in as much as they have either completed or shall soon be attaining the maximum age of 45 years, after which they shall not be entitled to apply for the said post. Based on these premises, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the fresh advertisement and for a direction to the Government not to cancel the selection process. It is urged that the decision of the Government to cancel the process may be set aside and the State be directed to declare the result of the selection process held pursuant to the earlier advertisements issued in 2006 and 2007 and make appointments in accordance with the result. 7. The State in its reply has relied upon the judgement dated 1st January, 2007 passed by us in CWP No. 231 of 2006. There is virtually no dispute with regard to the factual aspect of the case. It has been urged that the department is woefully short of Pharmacists and the vacancies must be filled up at the earliest to ensure that there is proper patient care. It is not denied that in the year 2006 one time relaxation was granted in favour of the petitioners and similarly situated candidates whereby those candidates who were only matriculates were permitted to appear for interviews and be considered for being appointed against the posts of Pharmacists. According to the respondents “due to the changed circumstances the Government decided that the process initiated for filing up 126 vacancies of Pharmacists and also for the vacancies of other categories be cancelled”. According to the respondents “due to the changed circumstances the Government decided that the process initiated for filing up 126 vacancies of Pharmacists and also for the vacancies of other categories be cancelled”. At the same time, the Government also took a decision that against 258 vacancies of Pharmacists, 50% be filled up by direct recruitment through the HP Subordinate Services Selection Board and 50% on the basis of Batch wise recruitment through direct recruitment. It is not denied that interviews were held in October, 2007 but according to the respondent-State since no select list was prepared nor any selection notified the process has been abandoned. According to the respondent-State, the petitioners cannot question the cancellation of the earlier selection process. It was further alleged that since the petitioners do not possess the essential qualification of 10+2 they are not eligible to be appointed. According to the respondent-State fresh advertisement had to be issued because now it has been decided to fill up 50% of the vacancies on batch wise basis. Certain other changes have been made in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules necessitating the issuance of fresh notification. It was denied that the case of Nirmal Kumar Soni was similar to that of the petitioners. As far as the allegation of the petitioners in para 19(B) with respect to relaxation is concerned an evasive reply has been given and no reasons have been spelt out as to why such relaxation which was given to the petitioners, has now been withdrawn. 8. We have heard Shri Dilip Sharma and other learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.K.Bawa learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of H.P. 9. During the course of arguments, Shri Dilip Sharma strenuously contended that the Government had failed to give any plausible reason for cancelling the recruitment process started in the year 2006-07. He urged that such process could not have been cancelled unilaterally and therefore, the State should be directed to declare the result and make appointments accordingly. In the alternative, it is urged that one time relaxation should be extended to the petitioners and similarly situated persons for the proposed recruitment process. It has also been argued that the State be directed to relax the maximum age requirement in respect of those candidates who have become over-age during this period. 10. In the alternative, it is urged that one time relaxation should be extended to the petitioners and similarly situated persons for the proposed recruitment process. It has also been argued that the State be directed to relax the maximum age requirement in respect of those candidates who have become over-age during this period. 10. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that this Court in CWP No. 231 of 2006 has held that posts in the year 2006 have to be filled in as per the essential educational requirements applicable in this year and the petitioners have no right to claim that the rules could not be amended or that they are governed by the previous rules. It has been urged that one time relaxation was granted to the petitioner but due to the changed circumstances the process initiated for filling up 126 vacancies of Pharmacists had to be cancelled. While canceling the selection process the State simultaneously took a decision to fill up 258 vacancies of Pharmacists as per the existing recruitment and promotion rules and the Cabinet took a conscious decision not to extend the benefit of relaxation in the present selection. 11. Shri R.K.Bawa, learned Advocate General, has cited a number of judgements to the effect that this Court cannot exercise the powers of judicial review in respect of the policy matters which is solely within the domain of the Government. 12. The Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, held as follows:- "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab." (emphasis supplied) 13. In R.S.Mittal vs. Union of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 230, the Apex Court laid down the following law:- "10. … …It is no doubt correct that a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. He has a right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case, there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr Murgad within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified." (Emphasis supplied) 14. In Asha Kaul vs. State of J & K, (1993) 2 SCC 573, the Apex Court held as follows:- "8. The appointment should have been offered to Mr Murgad within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified." (Emphasis supplied) 14. In Asha Kaul vs. State of J & K, (1993) 2 SCC 573, the Apex Court held as follows:- "8. It is true that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer upon the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment (State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha; Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana; State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty) but that is only one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the obligation of the Government to act fairly. The whole exercise cannot be reduced to a farce. Having sent a requisition/request to the Commission to select a particular number of candidates for a particular category, in pursuance of which the Commission issues a notification, holds a written test, conducts interviews, prepares a select list and then communicates to the Government the Government cannot quietly and without good and valid reasons nullify the whole exercise and tell the candidates when they complain that they have no legal right to appointment. We do not think that any Government can adopt such a stand with any justification today" [See also A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another (2000) 1 SCC 600] 15. In Food Corporation of India vs. Bhanu Lodh (2005) 3 SCC 618, the Apex Court laid down the following law:- "14. Merely because vacancies are notified, the State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies unless there is some provision to the contrary in the applicable rules. However, there is no doubt that the decision not to fill up the vacancies, has to be taken bona fide and must pass the test of reasonableness so as not to fail on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Again, if the vacancies are proposed to be filled, then the State is obliged to fill them in accordance with merit from the list of the selected candidates. Whether to fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision, and unless it is infected with the vice of arbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review." 16. Whether to fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision, and unless it is infected with the vice of arbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review." 16. In Jitendra Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 2 SCC 161, after considering the entire law on the subject, the Apex Court held as follows:- “47. It is, therefore, evident that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior court in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on its part. Each case, therefore, must be considered on its own merit. 48. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan would submit that the negative right contemplated by reason of the aforementioned decisions should be held to have conferred a positive right on the selectee so as to hold that if there was no bonafide on the part of the State or if the State had not assigned any sufficient or cogent reasons for not appointing the selected candidates, the same would give rise to a legal right in the selectees which is although not an unqualified one. It was further submitted that the right become stronger when the selection process is completed and the candidates are selected. 49. Whether we apply the negative test or the positive test, the decision making process should veer round the question in regard to the lack of bona fide or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the State. If lack of bonafide or arbitrariness on the part of the State is proved, whether the right is considered to be a vested or accrued right, or otherwise a negative right, the superior court may exercise its power of judicial review. The judicial intervention would, thus, be possible only when a finding of fact is arrived at in regard to the aforementioned acts of omissions and commission on the part of the State and not otherwise. 17. In Director, SCTI for Medical Science and Technology and another vs. Pushkaran, AIR 2008 SC 559, the Apex Court considered the similar point and held as follows:- “18. The application of law would, therefore, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. 17. In Director, SCTI for Medical Science and Technology and another vs. Pushkaran, AIR 2008 SC 559, the Apex Court considered the similar point and held as follows:- “18. The application of law would, therefore, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The judgement of the High Court in view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements cannot be said to be perverse. The respondent was to be offered with the appointment at a point of time when no policy decision was taken. There was, thus, no reason not to offer any appointment in his favour. Why the select panel was ignored has not been explained. Even the purported policy decision was not in their contemplation. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgement.” 18. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General had relied upon Union of India and others vs. R.Reddappa and another, 1993( 4) SLR 794, Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and others, (2002) 2 SCC 333, Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others, (2008)9 SCC 242, State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and another, (2008) 5 SCC 550. In all these judgements, the Apex Court has clearly held that the power of judicial review is limited and the Court cannot sit in judgement over the policy decisions of the Government. The Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Government. It is urged that therefore, this Court cannot sit in judgement over the decision of the Cabinet whereby it has decided not to grant relaxation during the recruitment process now started. 19. There is one difference in the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the case in hand. In all those cases, the select list had already been prepared. In the present case, the select list was not prepared therefore, the selection process was not complete. It may be true that the selection process was on the verge of completion but the fact remains that when elections were announced or even later no select panel had been drawn up. In the present case, the select list was not prepared therefore, the selection process was not complete. It may be true that the selection process was on the verge of completion but the fact remains that when elections were announced or even later no select panel had been drawn up. True it may be that in case the State acts arbitrarily this Court can issue directions directing the State to make appointments but we find that in the present case the State has given valid reasons for not permitting the previous selection process to reach its natural end. There was a change in the rules. The recruitment process was changed. The method of recruitment also underwent a change. The number of posts advertised became much larger and therefore, we cannot find any fault with the decision of the Government to start the process of selection afresh. 20. Having held so, the next question gains importance. The question is whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the State would abide by its previous decision to grant one time relaxation. The detailed facts given here-in-above will show that selections to the posts of Pharmacist (Allopathy) were made after a long period. On the representations of the petitioners the State decided to give one time relaxation to persons like the petitioners who did not fulfill the necessary educational qualification of 10+2 but were only matriculates. The selection process was started on these lines. When the selection process was started on the basis that relaxation would be given to the petitioners and similarly situated persons, they had a legitimate expectation that selection would be made accordingly and they would be considered for appointment. Even if the selection process is set at naught then also this expectation does not die. The relaxation was a one time relaxation and in our opinion this relaxation would apply to the next selection process if no appointments were made pursuant to the abandoned selection process. The decision to relax the essential qualification must be taken to its logical end unless reasons are given for withdrawing the same. 21. As far as the judgement of this Court in Sudesh Kumar’s case is concerned we are of the considered opinion that judgement has no application to this case. The decision to relax the essential qualification must be taken to its logical end unless reasons are given for withdrawing the same. 21. As far as the judgement of this Court in Sudesh Kumar’s case is concerned we are of the considered opinion that judgement has no application to this case. Here we are considering the question whether the relaxation of the rules given for the recruitment process which was abandoned should be extended to the fresh recruitment process or not. 22. We have gone through the records of the case and we find that in the memorandum prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet the authorities had proposed that relaxation on the lines earlier given should be granted. The Cabinet note gave detailed reasons for relaxing in the minimum educational qualification. Though the note was approved in all other aspects with regard to the cancellation of the earlier process, the proposal with regard to relaxation was rejected. The learned Advocate General relying on the authorities cited here-in-above submits that this decision having been taken by the highest authority in the State and being a policy decision cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. We are unable to accept this contention. As pointed out above, the note put forward clearly recommended that one time relaxation should again be given, since earlier also relaxation had been given but the selection process was abandoned. This proposal was rejected. It may be true that the Cabinet is not required to give any reason while rejecting the proposal of the administrative department but when this action was challenged before this Court, some reasons must be given to justify the Cabinet decision not to extend the benefit of relaxation which had been given but the process was abandoned. Other than stating that the decision has been taken at the highest level, there is not a word justifying this decision. One time relaxation means one time relaxation. The previous Cabinet had taken a conscious decision to give such one time relaxation. This relaxation must be taken to its logical end. If the selection process for which the relaxation was given is abandoned then it would be expected in normal course that the same relaxation would be given to the next selection process. The previous Cabinet had taken a conscious decision to give such one time relaxation. This relaxation must be taken to its logical end. If the selection process for which the relaxation was given is abandoned then it would be expected in normal course that the same relaxation would be given to the next selection process. The State can for reasons to be stated withdraw such relaxation but as pointed out above no reason has been given either in the reply or during the course of arguments. The plight and situation of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons did not undergo any change to justify a change in the decision of the State. 23. We also find that in Nirmal Kumar Soni’s case the State gave relaxation not only in respect of essential educational qualifications but also in respect of the maximum age limit. Shri Nirmal Kumar Soni is not a party in the present proceedings and therefore, we do not want to comment in detail on the manner in which relaxation was made in his favour. Suffice to say that he had filed a petition claiming relaxation which was opposed by the Government but after the change of Government suddenly the relaxation was given. Powers of relaxation should normally be exercised not in favour of particular individuals but in favour of classes of persons. It is indeed very odd that in one case the State thought it fit to exercise its power of relaxation for one person but when this entire class to whom such relaxation had already been granted comes up before the State their prayer for relaxation is opposed tooth and nail. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the State has acted unreasonably, unfairly and arbitrarily in not extending the one time relaxation granted for the abandoned selection process to the new selection process. We are also of the view that such a decision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the State has discriminated between two similarly situated classes of persons. 24. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the writ petitions and hold that the State is entitled to fill up the vacancies on the basis of the fresh selection process pursuant to the letter dated 18th August, 2008. 24. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the writ petitions and hold that the State is entitled to fill up the vacancies on the basis of the fresh selection process pursuant to the letter dated 18th August, 2008. We further hold that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons who are only matriculates but had obtained diploma in Pharmacy prior to 12th September, 2001 shall be entitled to be considered for these posts. We also issue a direction to the State that in case any such persons have become over-age they can apply to the State for relaxation of the age criteria and the State may take appropriate decision in the matter keeping in view the hardship faced by such a person(s). 25. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Stay order stands vacated.