JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners, who had submitted applications for being considered for appointment on the post of Livestock Extension Officer pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 issued by the Joint Director (Administration), Animal Husbandry, U.P. Lucknow, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 5th January, 2009 issued by the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry in so far as it excludes the petitioners from participation in the written examination to be held at the end of two years training. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the report dated 10th October, 2008 submitted by the Additional Director (Godhan Vikas), Animal Husbandry Department in so far as it relates to the petitioners. A further direction has been sought that the respondents should permit the petitioners to appear at the written examination to be held at the end of two years training. 2. The advertisement provided that the application forms for the 489 posts of Livestock Extension Officer could be submitted by 17th January, 2005 and after selection but before appointment on the said post, two years’ training would be imparted. A perusal of the advertisement also shows that the posts of Livestock Extension Officer were allocated Region-wise; that the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry of the concerned Region was the Appointing Authority; that the post was a Group ‘C’ post falling outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission and that the number of vacancies could increase or decrease. 3. The process of selection, including the holding of the written examination under the provisions of the U.P. Animal Husbandry Department of Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 notified on 16th July, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Animal Husbandry Rules’) was assailed by certain applicants in various writ petitions on the ground that the selection could have been done only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of “Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Post (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission), Rules, 2002" (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Public Service Commission 2002 Rules’) as subsequently amended by “The Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘’C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003. The writ petitions were allowed and the written examination held on 11th September, 2005 was cancelled for the reason that the selection could have been made only in accordance with the provisions of Public Service Commission 2002 Rules. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Court on 21st March, 2006 in Satish Kumar Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (3) ESC 1792 is as follows: “From the facts which have been noticed herein above, it is not in dispute that the advertisement for making appointment on the post of Livestock Extension Officer was published on 29th December, 2004. On the date the advertisement was published, the only Rules inforce for regulating the appointments on Group ‘C’ posts in the State of U.P. were the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Out Side the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. It is settled law that the process of selection commences with the issuance of advertisement inviting applications for appointment. The date so notified is the crucial date for determining the procedure and the rules, which are to be applied for the said selections. Any new set of Rules or any subsequent amendments to the existing Rules will have prospective application only and cannot be applied for the purposes of making selections in pursuance of the advertisement which was published earlier. ...................... ......................................... In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002, which have been enforced after publication in official gazette only on 16th July, 2005, will have no application so far as the process of selections qua the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 is concerned. Therefore the entire written examination conducted by the respondents in alleged compliance of Rule 15 of U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 (notified on 16th July, 2005) is patently illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents were under legal obligation to complete the process of selections initiated under the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 in accordance with the Rules applicable i.e. U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Out Side the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 and in strict adherence thereto. .......................................... The respondents were under legal obligation to complete the process of selections initiated under the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 in accordance with the Rules applicable i.e. U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group ‘C’ Posts (Out Side the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 and in strict adherence thereto. .......................................... In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to record that the written examination which have taken place on 11.9.2005 pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 cannot be legally sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondents are directed to complete the process of selection with reference to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 in accordance with law as applicable on the date the advertisement was published, at the earliest possible. Writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made herein above.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Subsequently, the selection was made in accordance with the Public Service Commission 2002 Rules as amended in 2003 and after publication of the select list, 630 candidates including the petitioners were sent for two years training to four different training centres in two batches. Such training of two years was necessary in terms of the advertisement which provided that the appointments shall be made only after the two years’ training is imparted. In this connection, the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry passed an order on 17th August, 2006 directing the candidates of the first batch to report for training on 21st August, 2006. The training of the second batch commenced from 7th October, 2006 as was notified by the Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry by the order dated 27th September, 2006. The two years training for both the batches was imparted to the 630 selected candidates and it concluded on 18th August, 2008 and 6th October, 2008. 5. The Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. by the letter dated 22nd September, 2008 then issued directions to the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry for holding the examination at the earliest after examining the certificates produced by the candidates at the time of selection. However, as examination was not held, certain writ petitions were filed but thereafter an order dated 23rd December, 2009 was issued by the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry directing that the examination of only 489 selected candidates shall be held and they shall be given appointments after the process is completed by 31st January, 2010. 6. However, as examination was not held, certain writ petitions were filed but thereafter an order dated 23rd December, 2009 was issued by the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry directing that the examination of only 489 selected candidates shall be held and they shall be given appointments after the process is completed by 31st January, 2010. 6. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that on 10th October, 2008, the Additional Director (Godhan Vikas). Animal Husbandry Department submitted a report to the Director, Animal Husbandry Department that on enquiry from the Deputy Directors of the different Divisions, it was found that the sport certificates submitted by 13 candidates on verification were not found to be correct and in respect of 10 candidates, marks for participation in sport activities were wrongly given. As a result of the aforesaid report, a direction was issued on 5th January, 2010 by the Director that such candidates may not be permitted to appear at the written examination. These three writ petitions have been filed to assail the exclusion of the petitioners from appearing at the written examination and in Writ Petition No. 39179 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 45149 of 2009, interim orders were passed permitting the petitioners to appear at the written examination. No interim order, however, was granted in Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2010. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were prohibited from appearing at the written examination on the basis of the report dated 10th October, 2008 submitted by the Additional Director (Godhan Vikas), Animal Husbandry Department which report was totally ex parte and no opportunity whatsoever had been given to the petitioners to place their version. 8. The petitioners have also placed various paragraphs in the writ petition in support of their contention that the finding recorded against each of the petitioners in the report dated 10th October, 2008 is factually incorrect. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the report dated 10th October, 2008, which prohibits the petitioners from appearing at the written examination for the reason that either sports certificates issued in their favour were not correct or they have been wrongly given marks on the basis of the said certificates, deserves to be set aside. 9. 9. Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has, however, submitted that the report dated 10th October, 2008 submitted by the Additional Director (Godhan Vikas), Animal Husbandry Department is based on the certificates enclosed by the petitioners in their application forms which certificates, on verification, were not found to be correct and in some cases marks were wrongly awarded to the petitioners on the basis of the certificates submitted by them as a result of which they were placed higher in order of merit. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 11. Appointments to the posts of Livestock Extension Officer, in view of the decision of the Court in Satish Kumar Yadav (supra), were required to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Commission 2002 Rules as amended in 2003. Thus, in order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of these Rules. Rules 4 and 5 as amended are relevant and are as follows : “4. Determination of vacancies.—The appointing authority shall determine the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year as also the number of vacancies to be reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories in accordance with the relevant service rules. In case the Chairman of the Selection Committee is an officer other than the appointing authority, the appointing authority shall intimate the vacancies to the Chairman of the Selection Committee.” 5. Procedure for direct recruitment.—(1) For making direct recruitment the vacancies shall be notified in the following manner : (i) by issuing advertisement in daily newspaper having wide circulation; (ii) by pasting the notice on the notice board of the office or by advertising through Radio/Television and other Employment newspapers; and (iii) by notifying vacancies to the Employment Exchange. (2) ................................ (3) The selection shall carry one hundred marks. The merit list of the candidates shall be prepared in the following manner : (a) (1) Such posts for which only academic qualifications are prescribed, the marks shall be awarded to each candidate in the following manner : ................................ (2) Such posts for which academic qualifications and technical qualifications both are prescribed, the marks shall be awarded to each candidate in the following manner : ................................ (2) Such posts for which academic qualifications and technical qualifications both are prescribed, the marks shall be awarded to each candidate in the following manner : ................................ Provided that the post for which some physical standards have been prescribed as essential qualification or as mode of recruitment for the post, the candidates shall be required to undergo prescribed physical tests before the selection and only those candidates shall be considered for selection who come up to the minimum standards prescribed for the post. (b) Marks to a retrenched employee shall be awarded in the following manner subject to the maximum of fifteen marks : (i) For the first completed year of service-Five marks (ii) For the next and every completed year of service-Five marks for each year. (c) Marks to a sportsman shall be awarded in the following manner subject to the maximum of five marks : (i) If the candidate is a sportsman of International level-Five marks. (ii) If the candidate is a sportsman of National level-Four marks. (iii) If the candidate is a sportsman of State level-Three marks (iv) If the candidate is a sportsman of University/College/School level-Two marks. (d) ....................... (4) (a) After the results of the evaluations under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-rule (3) have been received and tabulated, the Selection Committee shall having regard to the provisions of reservation referred to in rule 4, hold an interview. The number of candidates to be called for interview against the number of vacancies shall be such as is considered appropriate by the Selection Committee, but in any case it shall not exceed ten candidates for one vacancy. In the case of candidates to be selected for a post for which typewriting or shorthand and typewriting has been prescribed as an essential qualification, only such candidates who qualify the typewriting test or shorthand and typewriting test, as the case may be, under clause (d) of sub-rule (3) shall be called for interview. (b) The interview shall carry fifty marks. Marks at the interview shall be awarded in the following manner : (i) Subject/General Knowledge-Up to ten marks. (ii) Personality Assessment-Up to twenty marks. (iii) Power of Expression-Up to twenty marks. (b) The interview shall carry fifty marks. Marks at the interview shall be awarded in the following manner : (i) Subject/General Knowledge-Up to ten marks. (ii) Personality Assessment-Up to twenty marks. (iii) Power of Expression-Up to twenty marks. (c) The Chairman and Members of the Selection Committee shall, in no case, be provided any information with regard to marks obtained by candidates under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (3) at the time of interview. (5) The marks obtained by each candidate at the interview under sub-rule (4) shall be added to the marks obtained under sub-rule (3). The final select list shall be prepared on the basis of aggregate of marks so arrived. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher in the select list. (6) The select list referred to in sub-rule (5) shall be forwarded to the appointing authority.” 12. Thus, marks for sportsman have to be awarded in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rule 5(3)(c) of the Public Service Commission 2002 Rules. The petitioners were awarded marks against the sports category and they were selected and sent for two years training. They have, however, been prohibited from appearing at the written examination conducted at the end of two years training for the reason that either the sports certificates were not correct or marks have been wrongly given to them on the basis of the certificates enclosed by them. 13. There is nothing in the report or in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents which may suggest that opportunity was given to the petitioners before recording the finding against the petitioners in the report dated 10th October, 2008. The petitioners have stated that the report dated 10th October, 2008 is factually incorrect though this fact had been controverted by learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. It is not necessary for the Court to examine the matter in this petition at this stage as the report dated 10th October, 2008 deserves to be set aside for the sole reason that it has been prepared without giving opportunity to the petitioners to place their version. 14. The report dated 10th October, 2008 as also the consequential order dated 5th January, 2010 are, accordingly, set aside. 14. The report dated 10th October, 2008 as also the consequential order dated 5th January, 2010 are, accordingly, set aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the petitioners. In case, the version of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 39179 of 2009 and Writ Petition Nos. 45149 of 2009 is found to be correct, their result shall be declared and steps shall be taken for their appointments. In case, the version of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 3274 of 2010 is found to be correct, the written examination for them shall be held after which further steps shall be taken. 15. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. —————