JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. By this common order, four writ petitions, SBCWP No. 17011/2016 Smt. Pinki Devi and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCWP No. 1229/2015 Smt. Prem Devi v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCWP No. 5800/2015 Govind and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. and SBCWP No. 1466/2016 Navratan and Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., shall be decided together, as the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that on law and facts, all the petitions are similar. 2. In the present petitions, the petitioners who claim themselves to be Manual Scavengers have made grievance that in pursuance of the Rajasthan Nagar Palika Safai Karmachari Service Rules, 2012, without following a transparent and fair criteria Safai Karmachari have been recruited in the various Nagar Parishads in the District Sikar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments has contended that the persons who wield political clout and influence, have been appointed as Safai Karmachari and the respondents have resorted to favouritism and thus, the entire selection of Safai Karmachari made in the Nagar Parishad, Sikar be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent No. 3 Nagar Parishad through its Commissioner, Sikar, issued an advertisement on 19.8.2009 for recruitment of 63 Sweepers for Nagar Parishad, Sikar under the provisions of Rajasthan Nagar Palika IV Class Service Rules, 1964. It is averred in the writ petition that no procedure for recruitment was prescribed in the rules. 5. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents has contended that to ward off any kind of allegation in pursuance of earlier rules, appointments were made by way of lottery and the same was challenged before this Court, as the same was contrary to the rules. Mr. Gupta, further contended that subsequently, rules were amended and the lottery system for appointment was introduced as one of the mode of selection. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the procedure adopted by the respondents to make the selection by way of lottery was challenged and a co-ordinate Bench in SBCWP No. 3152/2014, Raju and Ors. Gupta, further contended that subsequently, rules were amended and the lottery system for appointment was introduced as one of the mode of selection. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the procedure adopted by the respondents to make the selection by way of lottery was challenged and a co-ordinate Bench in SBCWP No. 3152/2014, Raju and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., on 19.1.2016 had passed the following order:- "The short controversy involved in the present writ petition is as to whether non-petitioners could have deviated from Rules for selection to the post of 'Safai Karamchari' (sweeper). It is submitted that after the advertisement bearing No. 1/2012 for the post of 'Safai Karamchari', the applications were submitted by the candidates. The selection committee took a decision to call the candidates for interview. A date for it was also fixed as per direction of the Government, but interviews were not held, rather the non-petitioners evolved a different method of selection i.e. by lottery and the select list was also issued. This Court passed an interim order against the appointments. A reference of various clauses of the advertisement and subsequent action by the non-petitioners has been given to show that based on interviews, the select list was to be prepared. The challenge is made to the subsequent decision to make the selections by drawing lottery. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad appearing for the State and the Counsel appearing for the other non-petitioners submitted that amendment in the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 was made vide Notification dated 23.01.2014, which was published in the Official Gazette on 27.01.2014. By virtue of the amendment, apart from many mode of selection given under the Rules, drawing of lottery was also provided as one of the mode. As a consequence of which, the impugned letter was issued. The Municipal Council, Dausa, thus, drawn lottery and issued the select list thereupon. It may thus not be interfered with. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the advertisement and subsequent order reveals that the candidates having experience of Safai would be given preference and accordingly details of experience was called from each candidate. In pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioners submitted their applications followed by its scrutiny. The non-petitioners thereafter drawn a timetable for selections vide their order dated 03.05.2013. A perusal of the advertisement and subsequent order reveals that the candidates having experience of Safai would be given preference and accordingly details of experience was called from each candidate. In pursuance to the advertisement, the petitioners submitted their applications followed by its scrutiny. The non-petitioners thereafter drawn a timetable for selections vide their order dated 03.05.2013. The date of interviews was fixed between 13.05.2013 to 24.05.2013, and result of which was to be declared between 27.05.2013 to 27.06.2013. The Municipal Council, Dausa deviated from the procedure, though issued a letter to call the candidates for interview. The select list was prepared based on the lottery, though it was not one of the mode provided for selection as on the date of issuance of advertisement or even the corrigendum. The amendment for it was made subsequently by issuing a Notification on 23.01.2014 and its publication in Official Gazette is on 27.01.2014. The amendment is not made retrospective so as to be applied for the selections in question. The issue of retrospective or prospective of the Rules has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ( AIR 1990 SC 405 ) wherein it was held that if the Rule is not effected retrospective expressly or by implication, it would operate prospectively. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjursree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. ( AIR 2008 SC 1470 ) further held that rule of game cannot be changed in its midst. Once the process of selection has been started, it should be carried out in terms of the advertisement. Looking to the fact aforesaid, adoption of method of lottery for selection cannot be held to be proper or legal. It is more so when the Municipal Council, Dausa had taken a decision to apply the method of interview to be a mode of selection for which discretion has been given under Rules of 2012 and once discretion has been exercised, it cannot be changed when candidates were even called for interview. Accordingly, their action to apply mode of lottery for selection is held to be illegal. It is more so when preference has to be given to those who are having experience and it cannot be given if selection is made by lottery. Accordingly, their action to apply mode of lottery for selection is held to be illegal. It is more so when preference has to be given to those who are having experience and it cannot be given if selection is made by lottery. Looking to all the reasons given above, selection by drawing lottery is held illegal so as the select list and accordingly, the non-petitioners are directed to conduct the selections in accordance with the Rules then existing and the decision taken by them for making the selections based on interview. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since during the midst of process of selection lottery system for selection of Safai Karamchari was introduced, same was held to be bad in the above reproduced order passed by the coordinate Bench in case of Raju and Ors. (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that after the adoption of Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter called as Rules of 2012), on 23.7.2013 a Circular was issued by the Government stating therein that Manual Scavengers will be given preference. 9. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned Addl. Advocate General has further submitted that on 3.5.2013, the Government had issued a Circular that as per rule 6 of Rules of 2012, Safai Karmchari having two years of experience also shall be given preference and furthermore preference shall be accorded to widow and divorcee woman. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the selection process was initiated, Circular giving preference to the Manual Scavengers could not be issued. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners too are Manual Scavengers. 11. The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that in Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 224 , Supreme Court had noted the plight of Manual Scavengers as under:- "(i) The inhuman practise of manually removing night soil which involves removal of human excrements from dry toilets with bare hands, brooms or metal scrappers; carrying excrements and baskets to dumping sites for disposal is a practise that is still prevalent in many parts of the country. While the surveys conducted by some of the petitioner-organisations estimate that there are over 12 lakh manual scavengers undertaking the degrading human practise in the country, the official statistics issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for the year 2002-2003 puts the figure of identified manual scavengers at 6,76,009. Of these, over 95% are Dalits (persons belonging to the scheduled castes), who are compelled to undertake this denigrating task under the garb of "traditional occupation". The manual scavengers are considered as untouchables by other mainstream castes and are thrown into a vortex of severe social and economic exploitation." 12. Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates, has relied upon the judgment in Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. (supra), rendered by the Supreme Court, to contend that the Supreme Court has given a direction that the State must take rehabilitation measures based on principal of justice for transformation of Manual Scavengers. Mr. Dhand further submitted that in pursuance of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court, Circular giving preference to Manual Scavengers was issued by the State Government. 13. Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned Addl. Advocate General has also fairly stated that in view of the concern shown by the Supreme Court, the State Government had issued Circular for rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has no quarrel so far grant of preference to Manual Scavengers is concerned, rather he has submitted that the petitioners themselves are Manual Scavengers and hence, they should also be considered along with the selected candidates so far recruitment of Safai Karmcharis under taken by the respondent No. 3 is concerned. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no fair and transparent criteria was followed by the respondent No. 3 for appointment/selection of Safai Karmchari in the various Nagar Parishad, Sikar. 16. Hence, the present petitions are disposed of by issuing following directions:- (i) That the respondents before making any appointment shall widely circulate and publish selection criteria for recruitment of Safai Karmcharis. (ii) Needless to say, the respondents can give preference to the experience gained by Safai Karmchari, Manual Scavengers, widow and divorcee woman as per instructions issued by State Government from time to time. (ii) Needless to say, the respondents can give preference to the experience gained by Safai Karmchari, Manual Scavengers, widow and divorcee woman as per instructions issued by State Government from time to time. (iii) That the respondents shall further follow policy of the State Government of giving reservation to deprived sections of society including women. (iv) That the respondents after receipt of applications shall prepare list of candidates for reflecting the category in which preference or reservation has been sought by the candidates/applicants. The said list prepared shall be put on notice boards at conspicuous places to invite objections from the candidates/applicants. (v) That the objections filed by the candidates/applicants regarding non-grant of preference or wrong grant of preference to another candidate shall be dealt by the respondent No. 3 and thereafter, revised list shall be prepared and put on the notice boards at the conspicuous places. (vi) That by following the fair and transparent criteria divulged, tentative list of selected candidates shall be prepared and put on the notice board at conspicuous places to invite objections from the unsuccessful candidates. (vii) That so far appointments made in pursuance of impugned advertisement are concerned, selected candidates already working shall be given preference on the basis of experience gained by them till today. (viii) That till the new selection is made, the selected candidates already working shall continue to serve Nagar Parishad, Sikar. (ix) Since selection has been subject matter of various rounds of litigation, petitioners herein shall not be debarred from the selection process on the ground that they have become overage.