JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Suresh, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 05-08-2015 and also for directing the respondents to place the petitioner on top of the panel/selection list as per the guidelines/instructions issued by the respondents vide letter dated 23-10-2013. 3.1. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 25-07-2006 laying down the guidelines for selection of one FPU (Formed Police Unit) of women personnel and selection of Ministerial Staff and as per the said guidelines, selection is to be made by the IGP, N/S after obtaining nomination of two Ministerial Staff from its sector who will be required to undergo the test of personality/general knowledge and computer which will be done by a Board of Officers. The said order dated 25-07-2006 was followed by a corrigendum dated 03-08-2006, making certain amendments therein, wherein it is provided that PET would be organised by the IGP, RAF. 3.2. A letter was circulated through SELO Message dated 25-04-2012 in regard to the selection of FPU to be deployed in Liberia under UNMIL and the criteria to be followed was that selection would be made on the basis of 5 km race for constable and physical test for other ranks to be decided by the IGP (RAF). The relevant guidelines were revised vide letter dated 01-05-2012 stating therein that timings for conduct of 5 km race would be at par with NSG (excellent) and the exercise would be completed by 07-05-2012. 3.3. The respondent No. 2 issued another letter dated 23-10-2013 clarifying the instructions regarding the selection to the effect that the reserved officers/men of respective FPUs (Male and Female) be selected for subsequent FPUs and in case they completed all the screening tests and qualified therein, then they be kept on top of the panel/select list. According to the petitioner, he being eligible for deployment at Liberia applied for the selection in the year 2014 and since he being found to be qualified in the selection conducted by the respondents from October, 2014 till January, 2015, he was kept as reserved personnel in the Ministerial Staff, as is evident from Annexure-A/6. 3.4. According to the petitioner, he being eligible for deployment at Liberia applied for the selection in the year 2014 and since he being found to be qualified in the selection conducted by the respondents from October, 2014 till January, 2015, he was kept as reserved personnel in the Ministerial Staff, as is evident from Annexure-A/6. 3.4. The respondents called for nomination of 120 personnel of various ranks including nomination of one post of S.I. (Ministerial) for deployment at Liberia under UNMIL 2016–2017 dated 25-06-2015 which clearly stipulated that nominations be consolidated and be sent to Polcent RAF in one lot so as to reach there by 10-08-2015 and at that point of time, the instructions vide letter dated 23-10-2013 were in operation and were to be followed in the selection. In compliance of the said message dated 25-06-2015 of the respondent No. 2, the IGP, CRPF Manipur and Nagaland Sector directed the DIG, Range CRPF to conduct 5 km race of willing and eligible candidates and to submit a proceedings thereof. The petitioner along with 11 (eleven) others participated in the 5 km race conducted by the Board of Officers held at Group Centre CRPF, Imphal on 20-07-2015 and the petitioner was found to be qualified in the race. Accordingly, the IGP, Manipur and Nagaland Sector, CRPF, Imphal vide its letter dated 24-07-2015 submitted its proceedings of the race and the connected documents to the IGP, RAF/CRPF, New Delhi with the report that the petitioner was a reserved personnel of the previous selection. 3.5. The respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 05-08-2015 superseding the earlier guidelines/instructions wherein it is provided that the Ministerial Staff be exempted from the 5 km race and the reserved personnel of previous FPUs need not be automatically chosen for subsequent FPUs but would be given weightage provided they were qualified in the tests. This order was issued in spite of the fact that the selection process had already commenced pursuant to the letter dated 25-06-2015. The IGP, RAF/CRPF, New Delhi vide its message dated 19-09-2015 issued a list of names of about 650 plus personnel including the petitioner with instructions to keep themselves ready to undergo further selection process. In respect of S.I. (Ministerial), the said list included 4 (four) names out of which 1 (one) had not undergone 5 km race at all. The IGP, RAF/CRPF, New Delhi vide its message dated 19-09-2015 issued a list of names of about 650 plus personnel including the petitioner with instructions to keep themselves ready to undergo further selection process. In respect of S.I. (Ministerial), the said list included 4 (four) names out of which 1 (one) had not undergone 5 km race at all. The dates for various selection tests were to commence from 5th October, 2015 till 15th October, 2015 to be conducted at 103 RAF Wazirabad, New Delhi and all the personnel including the petitioner were directed to report for the said tests. The petitioner along with other candidates appeared in the written test held on 12-10-2015 at 103 RAF Wazirabad, New Delhi and the marks secured by the said four S.I. (Ministerial) are as under :- Sl. No. Name Marks secured out of 100 1. Shri P.S. Shibu Kumar 68 2. Shri Anil Kumar Khatri 58 3. Shri Sanjay Kumar 58 4. Shri K. Sundaresan (Petitioner) 51 4. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 05-08-2015 on the interalia grounds that the same was issued after the selection process had already commenced as stated herein above; that the fact that the petitioner was kept as reserved personnel in the previous selection as per the instructions dated 23-10-2015 was not taken into account and that the actions of the respondent were arbitrary and illegal. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition, on their behalf, contending interalia that since the selection is neither for appointment nor is it for enrolment into the CRPF service, the same is governed by the guidelines/instructions; that merit shall be drawn on the basis of the written examination with no cut off mark and selection is to be from the top; that the competent authority has issued the impugned order dated 05-08-2015 containing the consolidated and revised guidelines in order to carry out free and fair selection; that the responsibility of the IGP, RAF is, among others, for receiving nomination and to prepare list of candidates who are eligible for appearing in the written test to be conducted by the Board of Officers and that whenever there arise vagueness in the rules/ guidelines, clarification/clarifications is/are made and the same becomes/become part and parcel of the main rules/guidelines. 5. 5. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order dated 05-08-2015 is unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary and illegal or not. It is not in dispute that the process of selection, involved herein, is not for an appointment as a personnel in the CRPF and is only for selecting members of the contingent to be deployed in Liberia under the UN Mission. Such selection is governed by the executive instructions/guidelines, issued from time to time, which are not statutory rules nor are they framed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. No one or for that matter, the petitioner has no vested right to be selected as a member of the said contingent. But since the respondents being the Union of India and its subordinate officers are required to act fairly and reasonably and the failure to do so on their part would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and to that extent, the petitioner who is eligible, has an enforceable right in the court which is competent to examine whether he has been treated unfairly and unreasonably or not. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, being eligible for deployment at Liberia applied for the selection in the year 2014 and since he being found to be qualified in the selection conducted by the respondents from October, 2014 till January, 2015, he was kept as reserved personnel in the Ministerial Staff. As per the guidelines/instructions issued vide order dated 25-07-2006, the respondents No. 2 vide its letter/ message dated 25-06-2015 called for nomination of 120 personnel of various ranks including nomination of one post of S.I. (Ministerial) for deployment at Liberia under UNMIL 2016–2017 and the consolidated nominations were to reach Polcent RAF by 10-08-2015. It may be relevant to mention here that the respondent No. 2 had issued a letter dated 23-10-2013 clarifying the instructions regarding the selection to the effect that the reserved officers/men of respective FPUs (Male and Female) be selected for subsequent FPUs and in case they completed all the screening tests and qualified therein, they be kept on top of the panel/select list. In compliance of the said message dated 25-06-2015, the IGP, CRPF Manipur and Nagaland Sector directed the DIG, Range CRPF to conduct 5 km race of willing and eligible candidates and to submit its proceedings thereof. With the hope and expectation of being selected on the ground of his being kept as reserved personnel, the petitioner along with 11 (eleven) others participated in the 5 km race conducted by the Board of Officers held at Group Centre CRPF, Imphal on 20-07-2015 and the petitioner was found to be qualified in the race. Accordingly, the IGP, Manipur and Nagaland Sector, CRPF, Imphal vide its letter dated 24-07-2015 submitted its proceedings of the race and the connected documents to the IGP, RAF/CRPF, New Delhi with the report that the petitioner was a reserved personnel. While the process of selection was in full swing, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order superseding the earlier instructions/guidelines in respect of the eligibility criteria to the effect that Ministerial staff was exempted from the race and the reserved officers/personnel of the previous FPUs would be given only weightage, as a result the IGP, RAF vide message dated 19-09-2015 and 28-09-2015 issued a list of four names in respect of S.I./Ministerial Staff including the petitioner for appearing in the written examination, out of which one had not participated in the race. With the changes made in the eligibility criteria in the midst of selection process, the petitioner’s hope and legitimate expectation had shattered and the process of selection already commenced, was rendered meaningless. The only reason given by the respondents in their affidavit as to why the impugned order was issued, is to ensure free and fair selection of the members of the contingent in the national interest and the issuing authority has the competency to issue it. The power of the authority to issue the impugned order is not in dispute for the reason that no one has questioned it and the limited judicial review is to examine whether the actions of the respondents are fair and reasonable as regards the petitioner. The power of the authority to issue the impugned order is not in dispute for the reason that no one has questioned it and the limited judicial review is to examine whether the actions of the respondents are fair and reasonable as regards the petitioner. It is hard for this court to understand as to how and what free and fair selection be ensured and national interest be served, when the eligibility criteria with respect to requirement of running 5 km race and of keeping the reserved personnel on top of the select list provided one fulfilled other criteria, was revised vide impugned order deleting the requirement thereof. It can thus be held that the respondent No. 2 had not applied its mind while issuing the impugned order, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Both the counsels appearing for the parties have placed reliance on some of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely (2010) 7 SCC 560 ; (2007) 8 SCC 100 ; (2009) 5 SCC 473 and (2015) 6 SCC 727 and from the perusal thereof, it appears that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case and accordingly, the same are not referred to herein. 7. Admittedly, vide instructions dated 23-10-2013 it was clarified that reserved officers/men of respective FPUs (Male/ Female) might be selected for subsequent FPUs if they had completed all the screening tests and qualified, then they might be kept on top of panel/select list. This clarification was completely made otiose in the impugned order wherein it is stated that reserved officers/personnel of previous FPUs need not be automatically chosen for subsequent FPUs but weightage be given, i.e., once they qualified, they should be included while preparing the panel as per MHA policy guidelines dated 27-02-2013. As it was not clear as to what weightage be given to the reserved personnel of last selection, clarification was sought vide official signal dated 31-10-2015 and in reply thereto, a signal dated 16-11-2015 was issued clarifying that the competent authority had desired that reserved panellists of the previous year would be given weightage of appearing in the examination and rest would be decided on merit. It may be noted that before the said clarification was issued, the written examination had already been held and the weightage that the competent authority thought of giving to the reserved officers including the petitioner, was of no use to them. In other words, the weightage had no meaning at all. The competent authority ought to have either clarified it prior to the commencement of the selection process or made it applicable in the future selection. 8. The above writ petition was listed on 04-11-2015 for motion and it was directed to be listed on 06-11-2015 when this court was pleased to issue notice with an interim order that the selection process could be continued and the result thereof in respect of Ministerial Staff might be withheld till then. The IGP, RAF vide its letter dated 14-11-2015 forwarded the proceedings of the Board wherein the petitioner’s name was not recommended with the note that although he was a reserved personnel, his name could not be brought in the select list as he secured overall ranking 4. In the said proceedings, it is also stated that since orders as regards weightage seem to be contradictory to each other, the cases of reserved personnel may be decided and in anticipation of the approval, pre-induction training for 7 weeks is being started w.e.f. 16-11-2015 to 02-01-2016 at 103 RAF, Wazirabad. On receipt of the said proceedings, a signal dated 16-11-2015 was issued by Polcent RAF stating therein that the officers/NGOs mentioned therein, including Shri Anil Kumar Khatri recommended against the Ministerial Staff, have been proposed for 7 weeks pre-induction training w.e.f. 16-11-2015 to 02-01-2016 at 103 RAF, Wazirabad. On 18-11-2015, the said signal dated 16-11-2015 in respect of the Ministerial Staff was directed by this court to remain suspended. The respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 26-11-2015 informed the IGP RAF that the proceedings of the Board/Merit list had been approved and the names of the officers mentioned therein except the SI/Ministerial, had been placed on merit as detailed/reserved candidates for MFPU-7th Batch to be deployed at Liberia during February, 2016. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has filed a contempt petition on the allegation that the orders passed by this court have been violated by the respondents and the same is pending for consideration by this court. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has filed a contempt petition on the allegation that the orders passed by this court have been violated by the respondents and the same is pending for consideration by this court. In view thereof, it may not be appropriate for this court to give any observation as regards the events that took place after the notice had been issued in the writ petition. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the actions taken by the respondents as regards the changes of eligibility criteria being made in the impugned order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, are unfair and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for the reason that the respondents have not taken into account the fact that the process of selection has already commenced and have accordingly affected the legitimate expectation of the petitioner. As is evident from the averments made by the respondents in their affidavit itself, even the Board was not clear as to what weightage be given to the reserved candidates because, according to them, orders issued in that regard seemed contradictory to each other. By the time clarification was given on 16-11-2015, the selection process was completed in all respects except pending for approval by the competent authority. As has been stated in the preceding paras, the respondents being the Union of India and its officials, are expected to act fairly and reasonably. Frequent changes made in the guidelines/instructions and that too, while the selection process was going on, may have led to confusion, anger and discontent amongst the personnel/staff. CRPF being the disciplined force, the idea that the competent authorities can do whatever they feel like and the aggrieved personnel cannot question it, is required to be removed from the minds of the competent authorities. Such attitude being shown to by the competent authorities in matters like the present one namely selection of member of contingent from amongst eligible personnel, may be construed by many that it was meant to favour only few personnel. Such attitude being shown to by the competent authorities in matters like the present one namely selection of member of contingent from amongst eligible personnel, may be construed by many that it was meant to favour only few personnel. But in view of the fact that the proceedings of the Board have been approved; the selected candidates have already undergone pre-induction training and the petitioner has been found to have not qualified in the firing, may be, for the reason that he has not been allowed to undergo pre-induction training; only the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order; there is no specific and malafide allegation against any of the respondents etc., this court is of the view that there is no point of quashing the impugned order dated 05-08-2015 and moreover, none of the prayers can be granted, at this juncture, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall take appropriate steps to ensure that frequent changes are not made in the guidelines/instructions and that their actions are fair and reasonable.