JUDGMENT Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.: - This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 25791, 1219 of 2012 and 12646 of 2013 as common question of law and facts arise in all these cases. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 25791 of 2012. 2. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the selection of permanent stamp vendor licensee in view of the advertisement dated 27.8.2009 by the respondent. 3. Petitioner No.1 is a physically handicapped person to the extent of 50% as per the Disability Certificate (Annexure P1) and is a permanent resident of Distt. Gurgaon as per the Voter Identity Card (Annexure P2). He was granted licence to work as an ad-hoc stamp vendor in the Court Compound vide order dated 30.1.2003 and since then he kept on working uptill 26.6.2009 (Annexures P3 to P13). 4. Respondent No.2 is a permanent resident of District Gurgaon and is 10th pass. He has been working as an ad-hoc stamp vendor in the Court Compound since 23.5.2005 till 27.5.2009. 5. Respondent No.3 is a permanent resident of District Gurgaon and is 46 years of age. He is 10th pass and has been working as an ad-hoc stamp vendor at Court Compound in Gurgaon since 3.6.2005 till 8.9.2009 without any adverse remarks. 6. Applications were invited to fill up the posts of Permanent Stamp Vendors in District Gurgaon vide Advertisement dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure P14) with the following conditions:- “A. The candidate must be matriculate. B. The candidate should be permanent r/o of same tehsil in which one wants to get licence. C.He should have good financial status. D.The application should be received by 15.09.2009. 7. The petitioners had filed C.W.P. Nos. 18168 and 19506 of 2009 in this Court seeking the benefit of past experience on account of working as ad-hoc stamp vendors at the time of regular selection. These petitions were disposed of vide order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P15) by observing that weightage be given to the petitioners on the basis of experience as ad-hoc stamp vendors. 8. Just two days before the interview, respondent No.3 formulated a new criteria (Annexure P16) as under:- “1. Candidate should be matriculate. 2. Applicant who interested to get the licence in the Tehsil be permanent resident of the said Tehsil. 3. Applicant should be of good financial position. 4. 8. Just two days before the interview, respondent No.3 formulated a new criteria (Annexure P16) as under:- “1. Candidate should be matriculate. 2. Applicant who interested to get the licence in the Tehsil be permanent resident of the said Tehsil. 3. Applicant should be of good financial position. 4. The applicant should provide original certificates and one photostate copy thereof. 5. Only those application of candidates will be consdiered for the interview which received by 15.9.2009. 6. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX There are following categorization in the reservations for ten seats of Gurgaon. XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX 9. The following qualifying marks shall be allotted on the basis of qualification and experience:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Qualifications Mark Sheet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 0 10+2 05 B.A. 05 M.A. 05 Experience 0 year to 01 year 01 1 year to 2 year 02 2 year to 4 year 03 Above more than 4 years 05 Computer education 05 Interview 10 Others Blank ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. The petitioners in the present petition are challenging the criteria formulated by the respondents for calculating the marks kept for educational qualifications. There are no marks kept for the basic qualification i.e. Matric and special marks have been provided for computer education and higher qualifications. The said criteria is against the basic qualification mentioned under Rule 26 of the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934, which is reproduced hereunder:- “26. Grant of license to any person – (i) Subject to the provision of these rules the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Local Government in this behalf, may grant of license for the sale of stamps to any person at any place or within any area within the limits of his District, of any value or description provided - (a) that no person may be licensed to sell any single stamp exceeding Rs.1000(a1) in values; (b) that no person employed in any department of the public service shall be granted a license to sell stamps without the previous consent of the head of such department. (c) that no person shall be licenced until the licensing officer has satisfied himself that the person to be licenced bear good moral character and possesses a minimum qualification of Matric or its equivalent from recognized institute.” 11. (c) that no person shall be licenced until the licensing officer has satisfied himself that the person to be licenced bear good moral character and possesses a minimum qualification of Matric or its equivalent from recognized institute.” 11. In the written statement dated 20.4.2012 filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 in the connected case i.e. C.W.P. No. 1219 of 2012, the respondents have denied that the criteria adopted for the grant of licence was discriminatory. With the change in the working conditions the criteria regarding higher qualifications and knowledge of computer had been made. Further as per the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.11.2010 (Annexure R1) a committee of three officers consisting of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), South Gurgaon, Tehsildar Manesar and Treasury Officer, Gurgaon was constituted to hold the interview of all the applicants. The committee was directed to hold the interviews pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 18168 of 2009 for appointment of stamp vendors at the earliest. 12. In the written statement filed by respondent No.13 it has been stated that after the advertisement dated 29.8.2009 no temporary licences were issued. The respondent was a 10+2 pass candidate having requisite experience as ad-hoc stamp vendor. As per Annexures R13/1 and R13/2 he fulfilled all the criteria laid by the selection committee and was selected on merit on 7.2.2011. 13. The petitioners by way of C.M. No. 5781 of 2014 have placed on record a communication dated 30.6.2009 sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner (Annexure P19) seeking permission for increasing the posts of Stamp Vendors from 18 to 57. Vide letter dated 18.6.2009 a prayer is being made that the petitioners be appointed as ad-hoc stamp vendors as similarly situated persons who could not get regular selection have been appointed as adhoc stamp vendors vide letters dated 4.3.2014 (Annexures P17 and P18). 14. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the petitioners’ case for regular selection was duly considered by the respondents and they were given their due weightage for the ad-hoc service as stamp vendors pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 18168 of 2009 decided on 8.9.2009 (Annexure P15). 14. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the petitioners’ case for regular selection was duly considered by the respondents and they were given their due weightage for the ad-hoc service as stamp vendors pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 18168 of 2009 decided on 8.9.2009 (Annexure P15). While disposing of this writ petition, this Court had observed that the petitioners had worked for a long time on ad-hoc basis as stamp vendors, therefore, they should be given due weightage for the experience. After this order was passed on 8.9.2009, the new criteria (Annexure P16) was issued. In this criteria separate marks were kept for experience. At the same time, marks for higher qualification were prescribed. The essential qualification as per Rule 26 of the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934 was Matric but in the Criteria (Annexure P16) for higher qualification i.e. 10+2, B.A, M.A. and Computer Education higher marks were prescribed. 15. The grievance of the petitioners that they should be given higher marks for experience and the candidates who have higher qualifications are not entitled for higher marks is liable to be rejected. In the Advertisement dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure P14) there was no provision for giving preference to or marks rendered on ad-hoc basis. The only condition was that he should be a matriculate and of the same Tehsil in which he wants to get licence and have good financial status. Since in view of the judgment dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P15) criteria was altered before the date of interview vide Annexure P16 the grievance of the petitioners that while on one side marks were rightly awarded for experience on ad-hoc basis, higher marks for higher qualifications would not be awarded. Keeping in view the present scenario, people with higher qualification and computer education would be more suited and preferred, therefore, the challenge to the selection on the ground of altering the selection criteria (Annexure P16) is liable to be rejected. More so, the said criteria was altered on the writ petition filed by the petitioners which was disposed of vide order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P15). 16. The regular appointments made by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure P14) and the selection criteria (Annexure P16) does not require any intereference. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. 18. More so, the said criteria was altered on the writ petition filed by the petitioners which was disposed of vide order dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure P15). 16. The regular appointments made by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.8.2009 (Annexure P14) and the selection criteria (Annexure P16) does not require any intereference. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. 18. It is important to note that after the regular selection was made, some stamp vendors have again been appointed on temporary basis vide letters dated 4.3.2014 (Annexures P17 and P18). However, while giving them licence, a condition has been imposed that no preference shall be given for permanent post of stamp vendor. Keeping in view that a Deputy Commissioner has already sought sanction of more vacancies vide letter dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P19) to the extent of 57 posts, the petitioners shall be at liberty to apply for the same as and when those posts are sanctioned. —————————