JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. All these Letters Patent Appeals are filed under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned single Judge on 12.1.2016 in Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No. 3651 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015 and other connected Special Civil Applications, as such, all these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we refer to the facts as arising in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 2016 and even the parties arrayed and referred in the said appeal. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 in this appeal were petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015. The aforesaid petition was filed with the following prayers. "[A] to direct the respondents to fill-up 260 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors [Unarmed] as stated in the letter dated 5.5.2014 before appointing the direct recruit candidates on the said post, pursuant to advertisement dated 18.11.2014; [B] to direct the respondents to hold departmental examination of the petitioners as per Rule 165 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975 within a period of six weeks; [C] direct the respondents to keep vacant 50 percent of the posts of Police Sub-Inspectors [Unarmed] for departmental candidates from the total posts of 500 as declared in advertisement dated 18.11.2014 as per Rule 61 of the Gujarat Police Manual; [D] to direct the respondents to sanction 500 posts of Police Sub-Inspector [Unarmed] for Unarmed Police Constables as per Rule 61 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975; [E] that pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, let the respondents be restrained from filling up 50 percent post of Unarmed Police Inspectors; [F] that during pendency and final disposal, let the respondents be directed to hold departmental examination of the petitioners forthwith. [G] to grant such and further relief; as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice." 4. The appellants herein, have issued an advertisement on November 18, 2014 for filling up 500 posts of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) by way of direct recruitment. [G] to grant such and further relief; as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice." 4. The appellants herein, have issued an advertisement on November 18, 2014 for filling up 500 posts of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) by way of direct recruitment. Some of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015 made representations to the appellant authorities to hold examination for accelerated mode of promotion before making appointments by way of direct recruitment and as the appellant authorities did not take any action pursuant to such representations, the above petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015. 5. Recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) is governed by Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, Recruitment Rules, 2008 (hereafter to be referred to as "the said Rules"), framed in exercise of power under clause (b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Rule 2 of the said Rules provide the manner of appointment. As per the aforesaid Rule, appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III is by way of appointment by promotion, by special competitive examination and by direct selection in the ratio of 1:4:5, respectively. For the purpose of claiming promotion from the rank of Constable and Head Constable, one must have passed departmental examination as prescribed in Rule 165 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975 (hereafter to be referred to as "the Police Manual") Rule 165(1)(a) and (h) of the Gujarat Police Manual read as under: "165. Head Constables:-- (1) Departmental Examination qualifying for promotion to Sub-Inspectors:-- (a) The departmental examination for promotion of Head Constables to the rank of Sub-Inspectors will be held in the month of May each year at District Head-quarters on the dates fixed by the Inspector General of Police. The written and oral tests will form parts of the same examination and only one result sheet will be issued. Instructions for holding examination are contained in the following sub-clause (b) to (k) and in sub-rule (2) below:-- (b) to (g) xxxx (h) Superintendents of Police should send to the Inspector General of Police a statement in form No. 12 in Appendix I, not later than 31st January each year, showing names etc of such Head Constables and Constables as may be desirous of appearing for the examination. The scrutiny of records for the purpose of deciding which of the candidates should be allowed to appear for the examination shall be made jointly by the Inspector General of Police and the Assistant Inspector General of Police. The names of candidates to whom the Inspector General of Police has given permission to sit for the examination will be allowed to appear for the examination without the previous permission of the Inspector General of Police. xxxx As per the aforesaid Rule in the Police Manual, departmental examination for promotion of Head Constable to the rank of Police Sub-Inspector is to be held in the month of May each year at the District Head-quarters on the dates fixed by the Inspector General of Police. As per clause (h) referred above, Superintendents of Police should send to the Inspector General of Police a statement in form No. 12 in Appendix-I, not later than 31st January each year, showing the names etc. of Head Constables and Constables as may be desirous of appearing in the examination." 6. By Notification dated 21st November, 2015, the Government of Gujarat has amended the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 by deleting clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the said Rules. 7. When the appellant authorities did not respond to the representation of respondent Nos. 1 to 76 herein to conduct the departmental examination, they approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015 and on instructions, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader before the learned single Judge that the authorities were taking steps to conduct the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) in the second or third week of December, 2015, and the learned single Judge disposed of the writ-petition with a direction to the authorities, respondents therein, to adhere to the schedule given to the Court. 8. Respondent Nos. 77 to 80 herein, who were failing to fulfill the eligibility criteria of completion of 15 years of service in the feeder cadre, in view of the decision of the government to hold the examination in the month of December, 2015, filed Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No. 3651 of 2015, seeking review of the earlier order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015. Civil Application (for Review) No. 3651 of 2015, seeking review of the earlier order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015. At that stage, various other Special Civil Applications were filed. Special Civil Application No. 20528 of 2015 was filed seeking direction to consider the case of the petitioners therein to condone the shortfall of service to enable them to appear in the departmental examination. Special Civil Application No. 20352 of 2015 was preferred by 88 petitioners therein praying to extend the cut-off date so far as the experience criteria of 15 years was concerned, till 13.6.2016. Special Civil Application No. 20359 of 2015 was preferred by 76 petitioners therein, praying to direct the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners to condone the shortfall of length of service so as to enable them to appear in the departmental examination for promotion. Special Civil Application No. 20959 of 2015 was preferred praying to direct the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners to condone the shortfall of minimum length of service so as to enable them to appear in the departmental examination for promotion. 9. The learned single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in those matters, allowed the Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No. 3651 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015 together with other Special Civil Applications and directed the appellants herein to conduct the departmental examination by way of accelerated mode in third or fourth week of May, 2016 by fixing the last date for receiving the applications as 30th April, 2016. 10. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 299 of 2016, 300 of 2016, 301 of 2016, 302 of 2016, 303 of 2016 and 304 of 2016 are filed by the State of Gujarat, whereas the Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 2016 is filed by 76 appellants who were petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015, contending that the applicants in the Misc. Civil Application were not parties to the original petition, as such, common order could have been passed in favour of them. Civil Application were not parties to the original petition, as such, common order could have been passed in favour of them. Letters Patent Appeal No. 298 of 2016 has been filed by 53 petitioners out of 88 petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 20352 of 2015, aggrieved by the direction of the learned single Judge fixing the cut-off date as 30th April, 2016, by further pleading that the cut-off date could have been fixed as 13.6.2016. 11. Heard Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent No. 157 of 2016; Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent No. 298 of 2016 and for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in LPA No. 300 of 2016 and for respondents in LPA No. 303 of 2016; Ms. Manisha Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 299 of 2016, 300 of 2016, 301 of 2016, 302 of 2016, 303 of 2016 and 304 of 2016 and for respondent-State authorities in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 157 of 2016 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 298 of 2016, and Mr. A.I. Syed, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Rahul Sharma for respondent in Letters Patent No. 302 of 2016. 12. In this batch of appeals, it is contended by Ms. M.L. Shah, the learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the appellants in the respective appeals that pursuant to the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015, the appellant-State has already issued notification for conducting departmental examination on 3.12.2015 and in absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, the learned single Judge erred in allowing the review petition. It is further submitted that the review petition was allowed only on the ground that some of the candidates were failing to fulfill the eligibility criteria of completion of 15 years of service by the cut-off date and the same could not be the ground to review or modify the order dated 26.10.2015 by extending the time schedule fixed in the original order. It is also pleaded that in view of the amendment made to Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 by notification dated 21st November, 2015, Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the original Rules stand deleted, as such, there is no reason for seeking modification of the order dated 26.10.2015 by amending the schedule for conducting the departmental examination. 13. Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of 2016 submitted that the learned single Judge has not assigned any valid reasons for allowing the review petition. He submitted that the review petition is allowed in absence of any error apparent on the face of it in the order dated 26.10.2015. It is submitted that non-eligibility of some of the applicants cannot be treated as hardship so as to modify the earlier order dated 26.10.2015. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that in view of the cut-off date of 31st January each year for sending a statement in form No. 12 in Appendix I by the Superintendents of Police to the Inspector General of Police, the applicants in the review petition cannot seek partial implementation of the provision of Rule 165 of the Police Manual. It is submitted that 31st January is the cut-off date for sending names which determines the eligibility for the purpose of conducting the departmental examination. 14. Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 298 of 2016 submitted that though the departmental examination was to be conducted every year, last such examination was conducted in the year 2009. It is contended that all the Head Constables are in the feeder cadre of the same batch, but appointments were made district-wise in view of the delay in issuing appointment orders in some of the districts and therefore, they were not completing 15 years of service on the cut-off date, as such, there is no reason for fixing 30th April, 2016 as the cut-off date as the last date for receiving the applications. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing with Mr. S.M. Chudasama and Mr. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing with Mr. S.M. Chudasama and Mr. Bhunesh Rupera, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Letters Patent Appeal No. 301 of 2016 submitted that when Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015 was filed, no affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent State by bringing to the notice of this Court various provisions of the Recruitment Rules as well as the Police Manual, as such, in view of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the said petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge by order dated 26.10.2015. It is further submitted that when the order dated 26.10.2015 was passed, Rule 165 of the Police Manual was in force as per which the departmental examination is to be held only in the month of May of each year. It is further submitted that the notification amending the Recruitment Rules, 2008 is not published in the Official Gazette as required under the law, as such, the same cannot be looked into. In support of his submission, reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited and Another v. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 673 . It is clarified by the learned Senior Advocate that 31st January as mentioned in Rule 165(1) (h) of the Police Manual is only a date for forwarding the list and the same cannot be considered as cut-off date for the purpose of sending the names of persons desirous of appearing in the departmental examination. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge clearly recorded a finding that appointments to most of the eligible candidates were made in the year 2000 and 2001 and such candidates are of the same batch, however, because of natural calamity that wrecked the State of Gujarat on 26th January, 2001, it was not possible for the administration to make immediate appointments of such persons who are otherwise selected and appointment of Police Constable is given district-wise. It is further submitted that as the earlier directions caused prejudice to the applicants of the review petition and in view of the error apparent on the face of the order, the learned single Judge has considered the matter elaborately and allowed the review petition, and as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. It is further submitted that in view of many candidates who are eligible by 30th April, 2016, there is better competition for selection, as such, there is no reason for the appellants to challenge the order passed in the Misc. Civil Application (for Review) No. 3651 of 2015. 16. Mr. I.H. Syed, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents in Letters Patent No. 302 of 2016 submits that all eligible candidates are appointed in the same batch but in view of the devastating earthquake that occurred on 26th January, 2001, some appointments were delayed in some districts. It is brought to the notice of this court that Rule 165 of the Police Manual was in force as on the date of passing of the order dated 26.10.2015, as such, the order passed in the review petition has confirmed the legal position and there was no ground to review the same. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge and other material placed on record. 18. Recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) is governed by the statutory rules famed under the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. As per the original rules for recruitment by way of promotion, one must have passed departmental examination as prescribed under Rule 165 of the Police Manual. The said Rules were amended by notification dated 21st June, 2012. As per the aforesaid amendment, recruitment by way of promotion of candidates who are eligible must have worked for not less than fifteen years combinedly or separately in the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector, (Unarmed), Class III, or Head Constable (Unarmed), Class III or Constable (Unarmed), Class III in the Gujarat State Police service. As per the aforesaid amendment, recruitment by way of promotion of candidates who are eligible must have worked for not less than fifteen years combinedly or separately in the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector, (Unarmed), Class III, or Head Constable (Unarmed), Class III or Constable (Unarmed), Class III in the Gujarat State Police service. Further amendment is made by the notification dated 21st November, 2015 which is published in the Official Gazette on 3.12.2015 whereby clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules, 2008 is deleted. From the perusal of Rule 165 of the Police Manual, it is clear that the departmental examination is to be held in the month of May each year at the District Head-quarters on the date fixed by the Inspector General of Police. Thus, it is clear that when the order dated 26.10.2015 was passed by the learned single Judge, the provision under rule 2(2)(b) of the Recruitment Rules, 2008 was very much in force which required the candidates for passing the departmental examination as per Rule 165 of the Police Manual. From the composite reading of the provision and various rules framed under the Recruitment Rules, 2008 read with Rule 165 of the Police Manual, it is clear that departmental examination for promotion from the post of Head Constable to the rank of Police Sub-Inspector is to be held in the month of May each year at the District Head-quarter. From the material placed before this Court in these cases, it is clear that the departmental examination was not being held in each year in the month of May. When the appellant authorities have notified to fill up the posts of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) by way of direct recruitment without conducting the departmental examination to fill up the quota meant for promotion category referred in the Special Civil Application No. 9807 of 2015, they approached this Court. When their grievance was projected before this Court that no steps were being taken in spite of the representations being made while conducting the departmental examination, in view of the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the authorities are taking steps for holding the examination in the month of December, 2015, the learned single Judge disposed of the said writ-petition by directing the appellants herein to adhere to the schedule offered for holding departmental examination. At that time, various legal provisions which have bearing on the issue were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. When Rule 165 of the Police Manual was in force, at that point of time, there was no valid reason for the learned single Judge for giving directions to hold the examination in the month of December, 2015. When Rule 165 clearly recites that the examination is to be held in the month of May each year, there was no reason for holding the examination in the month of December, 2015 itself. It appears that such order came to be passed by the learned single Judge only in view of the Schedule offered by the learned Government Pleader on instructions without any reference to various legal provisions which had bearing on the issue. It is true that the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 are amended by notification dated 21st November, 2015, but when the order dated 26.10.2015 was passed, Rule 165 of the Police Manual was very much in force. In view of the same, the learned single Judge has rightly considered and allowed the review petition and other petitions. From the perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it is clearly held therein that though Rules provide for competitive examination to be conducted every year, the State has not been able to conduct the same as contemplated in the said Rules. It is also clear from the material placed before this Court that most of the candidates were appointed during the years 2000 and 2001 and were of the same batch, but only because of the natural calamity that wrecked the State of Gujarat on January 26, 2001, it was not possible for the administration to appoint any of them immediately, who were otherwise selected. Apart from the fact that Rule itself makes it clear that ordinarily departmental examination is to be held in the month of May each year, the rationale for such conduct of examination in the month of May is also comprehensible for the reason that ordinarily, the appointment to the post of Constable is made in the month of May after conducting the physical test and other tests. Thus, it is clear that the examination was to be held ordinarily in the month of May itself. Thus, it is clear that the examination was to be held ordinarily in the month of May itself. But for the statement made on instructions by the learned Government Pleader before the learned single Judge that the order dated 26.10.2015 came to be passed. Having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that there were clear errors apparent on the face of the record of the order dated 26.10.2015 which also came to be occurred on account of not bringing the entire legal aspect before the learned single Judge and therefore, subsequent application for review is allowed by referring to various applicable legal provisions for holding the examination. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no error apparent on the face of the order and ineligibility of some of the candidates is no reason to treat the same as hardship for reviewing the earlier order dated 26.10.2015, cannot be accepted. 19. Further it is also to be noticed that Rule 165(1)(h) of the Police Manual requires the Superintendents of Police to send to the Inspector General of Police a statement in form No. 12 in Appendix I, not later than 31st January each year, showing the names etc. of such Head Constables and Constables as may be desirous of appearing for the examination. From the reading of the aforesaid provision under Rule 165(1)(h) of the Police Manual, it is also clear that 31st January is not a cut-off date for considering the eligibility but it is only the date for sending the list of names of eligible persons by the Superintendents of Police to the Inspector General of Police. As the examination was to be held in the month of May as per the Rules, that did not preclude the candidates from acquiring the eligibility subsequent to 31st January of each year also to include such persons for the purpose of complying with the provision under Rule 165(1)(h) of the Police Manual. 20. Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 are amended from time to time. It is true that by notification dated 21st November, 2015, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 stood deleted. But it is to be noted that such notification is published only on 3.12.2015. 20. Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2008 are amended from time to time. It is true that by notification dated 21st November, 2015, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 stood deleted. But it is to be noted that such notification is published only on 3.12.2015. In view of the same, it is clear that clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 was very much in force when the order dated 26.10.2015 came to be passed by the learned single Judge. Subsequent notification amending the Rules cannot be made applicable to consider the review application which is filed seeking to review the order which is passed on 26.10.2015. Equally, the contention that there are 130 further vacancies of Police Sub-Inspector which can be notified later for which the persons who are not fulfilling the eligibility criteria on 3.12.2015 can be considered also, cannot be accepted. When Rule 165 of the Police Manual prescribes holding of departmental examination in the month of May each year, the direction given by the learned single Judge fixing the date for receiving the applications on 30th April, 2016 also cannot be said to be without any basis. As the eligible candidates who acquired eligibility on 30th April, 2016 will be allowed to appear in the examination in the month subsequent to May, 2016, as such, the plea of some of the appellants for fixation of such date subsequent to May, 2016 also cannot be accepted. It is also clear from the material placed before this Court that most of the eligible candidates who are in the feeder cadre were of the same batch appointed in the year 2000 and 2001, but in view of the natural calamity that occurred on 26th January, 2001, some of such eligible candidates were appointed in different districts later on though they were of the same select list. In this view of the matter also, there is no reason to deny the persons who are acquiring the eligibility by the end of 30th April, 2016 so as to allow them to appear in such examination in the month of May. In any event, the last date fixed by the learned single Judge is also over by this time and therefore, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge at this stage. 21. In any event, the last date fixed by the learned single Judge is also over by this time and therefore, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge at this stage. 21. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge while passing the common order. Accordingly, all the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. No costs. 22. Since the main Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed, the connected Civil Applications for stay do not survive and the same stand disposed of.