JUDGMENT : 1. In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the quashing and setting aside of the final merit-list of the candidates for the posts of Supervisor Instructor Class-III (Computer) published by the respondent authorities on 16.11.2011, pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.08.2011. 2. Petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent authorities to include their names in the final merit-list of the candidates for the posts of Supervisor Instructor Class-III (Computer) published by the respondent authorities on 16.11.2011. Further directions are sought to direct the respondents to prepare afresh the final merit list of the candidates for the post of Supervisor Instructor Class III published by the respondents dated 16.11.2011 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 03.08.2011 on the basis of the prescribed norms of selection as referred in the first advertisement. 3. Though, a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.17313 of 2011 raising identical issue and prayers has been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2018, I deem it necessary to decide the present writ petition by a separate judgment as some of the facts and contention differ. 4. The brief factual matrix of the case that emanates from the record is as follows: 4.1. The petitioners were working as Supervisor Instructor Class-III on contractual basis for more than one year. An advertisement came to be issued on 03.08.2011 for the recruitment of the same posts on permanent basis for filling up about 2639 vacancies. 4.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid advertisement the selection process determined was on the basis of the merit of the candidates and it was further stated that the selection will be on the basis of the norms of selection to be placed on the website. Though, it was stated that norms for the selection shall be placed on the website, no such detail was reflected on the website. 4.4. Accordingly, the petitioners applied for the aforesaid posts in time. Subsequently, a new advertisement/clarification came to be published with reference to the earlier advertisement dated 03.08.2011 where in it was stated that Optical Mark Reading (O.M.R. In short) Test shall be conducted for selection, and the candidates are required to appear in the O.M.R. Test. The O.M.R. Test was scheduled on 25.09.2011. Subsequently, the OMR test was re-scheduled on 08.10.2011 with another advertisement. The O.M.R. Test was scheduled on 25.09.2011. Subsequently, the OMR test was re-scheduled on 08.10.2011 with another advertisement. The petitioners had taken part in this O.M.R. Test and they were assessed in this test. The result of OMR test came to be published on 16.11.2011 which did not include their names as they were unsuccessful. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar G Gadhvi for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the respondent authorities have not declared that in the recruitment process the OMR Test would be the sole criteria for the final selection. It was submitted that on the contrary, the advertisement specifically referred to some norms of selection, which would be displaced on the website of the respondents and, therefore, it was submitted that if the result of the OMR Test is considered as the sole basis for the final selection then it tantamount to changing the criteria in the middle of the Recruitment process, which itself is an illegality. Moreover, it was submitted that such an action clearly smacks of arbitrariness and lacking bona fides as the criteria was changed because of grading system adopted by some institutes. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Gadhvi has contended that the Recruitment Rules of Supervisor Instructors, Class-III issued vide Notification dt.29.09.2008 had set the criteria like work experience, marks in degree examination, post graduation, etc. and, therefore, it was submitted that the norms of selection are required to be laid down by the respondent authorities before initiating the Recruitment process and such norms of selection are required to be strictly adhered to in the selection process. Referring to their details annexed in the petition, it is submitted that the petitioners should have been appointed as they were having experience of working on the aforesaid post. 7. Mr.Gadhvi has also contended that the entire selection is required to be set aside as there were irregularities in allotting the marks in the OMR test. In this context he has referred to the marks of the candidates which were subsequently rectified by the authorities. 8. 7. Mr.Gadhvi has also contended that the entire selection is required to be set aside as there were irregularities in allotting the marks in the OMR test. In this context he has referred to the marks of the candidates which were subsequently rectified by the authorities. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the statutory reservation of 30% for women has also not been duly and fully implemented in the present case, in as much as out of total 547 vacancies of Group-4 Computer 179 vacancies are provided for SEBC category to which the present petitioners belong and, therefore, it was submitted that out of 179 vacancies at least 54 vacancies are required to be reserved for women candidates, which has not been done in the present case. It was also pointed out that 30% reservation for women is category-wise and hence, the same is required to be implemented accordingly. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the matter, it was urged to allow the present petition. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr.Chintan dave has adopted all the contentions raised by him in Special Civil Application No.17313 of 2011 and has submitted that prior to 14.07.2011 the Gujarat Service Selection Board (GSSB) was the recruitment agency, who had appointed the petitioners temporarily on contract basis of 11 months. It was submitted that vide Government Resolution dated 14.07.2011 issued by the General Administration Department (GAD), which deals with filling up vacancies in Class-III category in the Employment and Training Department has given sanction and kept it outside the purview of the GSSB. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further pointed out that vide Government Resolution dated 02.08.2011 the minimum qualifications for the posts of Supervisor Instructor through direct recruitments were set out, whereby as per the said Government Resolution dated 02.08.2011, one of the conditions was that in the qualifying examination only theory marks will be taken into consideration. It was pointed out that certain institutions since 1990, like Birla Vishwakarma Vidhyalaya, BVM Engineering College, Vallabh Vidhyanagar have started following and adopting Grading System instead of marking and percentage system, accordingly students graduating are given transcripts instead of regular mark sheets, wherein for Fourth year and Final year percentage are separated stated. It was therefore submitted that it was getting difficult for the authorities to separately ascertain the Theory marks after deducting the practical marks obtained by the students. It was therefore submitted that it was getting difficult for the authorities to separately ascertain the Theory marks after deducting the practical marks obtained by the students. It was submitted that in view of this practical difficulty faced by the authorities, a proposal was made to the State Government on 11.08.2011 that in order to have a commonality and to avoid such complexities, OMR examination system should be adopted for the Direct Recruitment for the post of Supervisor Instructor. It was submitted that it was in view of this practical difficulty faced by the respondent authorities qua the selection procedure, the same was not uploaded on the website of the Department, in order to avoid any further complexities and complications. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that even otherwise as per the advertisement dated 03.08.2011, under the head of Selection Procedure, it is clearly stated that, in case of necessity and requirement felt by the department necessary changes shall be made and it shall be informed through the website of the department. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further pointed out that pursuant to the proposal dated 11.08.2011, the State Government accepted the same and issued Government Resolution dated 09.09.2011, whereby it was decided that for the Direct Recruitment for the post of Supervisor Instructor, OMR examination will be taken by the Gujarat Technological University and based upon that the final select list will be prepared. It was further submitted that after Government Resolution dated 09.09.2011 was issued by the State Government, it was uploaded on the website of the Department and was also advertised and published in the newspaper. It was further submitted that with regard to the advertisement for the recruitment for the year 2011, for the post of Supervisor Instructor (Class-III) was in consonance with the Recruitment Rules and was in accordance with law. It was also submitted that even the answer key of the OMR question paper of the respective candidate was also uploaded on the website of the department, which shows the transparency of the recruitment procedure undertaken by the Department. It was stated that even otherwise as per the settled legal principles once the petitioners having appeared in the OMR examination, they cannot raise a grievance for the same and are estopped from doing so. 12. It was stated that even otherwise as per the settled legal principles once the petitioners having appeared in the OMR examination, they cannot raise a grievance for the same and are estopped from doing so. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that with regard to the advertisement dated 03.08.2011, the OMR Test was conducted on 08.10.2011, the result was declared on the website of the department on 13.10.2011 and subsequently, the final select list was also prepared on 16.11.2011 thereafter, the qualified candidates from the final select list were given appointment orders on 21.11.2011 and the posting orders were given on 23/24/25.11.2011 respectively and, therefore, all the selection procedure qua the recruitment of Supervisor Instructor (Class-III) for the year 2011 has been completed in consonance with the Recruitment Rules and in accordance with law and, therefore, even otherwise the present petition is rendered infructuous. It was also submitted that the present petition is filed by petitioners on 9.1.2012 wherein the petitioners were fully aware with the fact that their names were rightly not included in the final select list dated 16.11.2011 and, therefore, as a last resort, the present petition was moved by the petitioners to stall the regular recruitment procedure undertaken by the department, which was in accordance with law. In view the aforesaid facts, it was submitted to dismiss the present petition. 13. I have given thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the documents on which the reliance is placed. 14. The facts which are established from the writ petition are that : a. Prior to date 14.07.2011, the Gujarat Service Selection Board was the recruitment agency and vide Government Resolution dated 14.07.2011 issued by the General Administrative Department, which deals with filling up vacancies in Class–III category, has barred the Gujarat Service Selection Board from making appointments to Class– III category in the Employment and Training Department. b. By the resolution dated 02.08.2011 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, the qualifying standards for the post of Supervisor Instructor through direct recruitment was set out. It was also decided that in the qualifying examination, only theory marks will be taken into consideration. A Selection Committee was also constituted for carrying out the selection process. b. By the resolution dated 02.08.2011 issued by the Labour and Employment Department, the qualifying standards for the post of Supervisor Instructor through direct recruitment was set out. It was also decided that in the qualifying examination, only theory marks will be taken into consideration. A Selection Committee was also constituted for carrying out the selection process. c. By the Government Resolution dated 09.09.2011, it was decided by the State Government, Labour and Welfare Department to make direct recruitment of the Supervisor Instructor by adopting the OMR system. The same was uploaded on the website of the department and was also advertised and published in the newspaper. 15. Thus, it can be safely presumed that all the candidates including the petitioners who had applied to post of Supervisor Instructor pursuant to the advertisement were aware of the fact that they had to appear in the OMR examination. Such candidates had undertaken the OMR examination and accordingly, the respondents prepared the select list of those candidates as per their comparative merit on 16.11.2011. 16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, I shall now endeavor to deal with the legal submissions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners. The foremost contention raised is that the selection is in violation of the settled position of law that an additional requirement either during the selection process or after the selection process cannot be prescribed in selection criteria. In the present case, it was clarified in the Advertisement dated 03.08.2011, that “the selection will be made on merit as per the selection standards placed on the web site and in case the department feels it appropriate and essential to alter them then necessary changes will be done, and in such circumstances, the same will be placed on the website”. It also refers that the select list will be prepared as per merit. Thus, the advertisement itself stipulates the condition of bringing necessary changes in the selection standards if the department finds it necessary. The candidates who had applied for the concerned posts were aware of the same. Thereafter, vide Resolution dated 09.09.2011, the State government decided to introduce the OMR examination for preparing the merit list and due publicity was also given to it. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities were not empowered to stipulate the selection procedure. Thereafter, vide Resolution dated 09.09.2011, the State government decided to introduce the OMR examination for preparing the merit list and due publicity was also given to it. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities were not empowered to stipulate the selection procedure. The respondents have not changed the selection criteria neither during the selection nor after the selection as the OMR test is necessitated for the purpose of selection and preparing the merit list. The OMR test was conducted after issuing the advertisement/clarification in the news papers and on the website. The facts of the case suggest that the pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.08.2011, the candidates had only filed their applications for the post of Supervisor Instructor, and thereafter, the state government introduced the OMR examination for preparing the merit list. The list of the candidates who were found eligible for OMR test was published on the web site. No one had challenged the selection at that stage. Significantly, the petitioners have averred that no norms of selection were placed on the website. Thus, the petitioners are unable to point out any norms which are altered by the respondents in the recruitment process. The candidates had only legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment as per the advertisement. It observed by the Apex Court that if the Rules do not prescribe any procedure, the Selection Committee may also prescribe. The recruitment Rules issued vide Notification dt.29.9.2008 prescribe the appointment of the Supervisor Instructor, Class-III by way of direct selection which lay down the requisite qualifications and experience. The Respondents have conducted the OMR test for preparation of merit list for selection of the candidates to the aforesaid post. In my considered opinion no illegality is committed by the respondents in conducting an OMR test for judging the suitability of the candidates as per the merits obtained by them. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents have assigned more or extra marks during the selection, which would have scuttled their appointments. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the entire selection is require to be quashed and set aside since the selection criteria is changed in the midst of the recruitment does not merit acceptance. 17. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the entire selection is require to be quashed and set aside since the selection criteria is changed in the midst of the recruitment does not merit acceptance. 17. It is not the case of the petitioners that the State Government was not empowered or authorized to issue executive instructions for adopting the OMR test for the recruitment to the post of Supervisor Instructor. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Karnati Ravi and Anr. Vs. Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records and Ors., reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 3611 . The Supreme Court has observed as under. “5. It may be seen that even a written examination is not a procedure prescribed under the Rules. The Rules only provide the essential qualifications for the post. The method of selection, in the absence of Rules has to be supplied by the executive instructions. All the appellants have appeared in the written examination. They were also subjected to a physical endurance test which they could not qualify. It is, thereafter, the unsuccessful candidates in the physical endurance test put up a challenge regarding the validity of the executive instructions whereby physical endurance test has been prescribed. 6. As we have already noted above, in the absence of the Rules, it is well within the powers of the Executive under Article 162 of the Constitution to provide for the required instructions with regard to the procedure for selection, so long as they do not come in conflict with the Rules. 7.7. That apart, all the candidates have participated in the selection, both in the written examination, though not a prescribed one, for which there is no objection, as also the physical endurance test. Having participated in the selection without any objection, they cannot later challenge the procedure.” 18. In the case of Rameshkumar vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in 2010(3) SCC 104 , the Apex Court has also held as under: 8. “Thus, law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In the case of Rameshkumar vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in 2010(3) SCC 104 , the Apex Court has also held as under: 8. “Thus, law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly. In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce.” 19. The foregoing observations signify that the competent authority while laying down the norms of selection may prescribe for the test and prescribe minimum Bench Marks in case no procedure is prescribed in the Rules. The petitioners were unable to point out that the respondents were not competent to prescribe the OMR test. Merely because they had worked for 11 months on contractual period will not give them the right of being appointed to the post. The condition no.12 of their contractual appointment specifically mentions that the candidate will not have any right of being absorbed in the institute/department. Having accepted the appointment on such conditions, they cannot seek the benefit of absorption or appointment to the post which is being filled in by regular recruitment process. I may reiterate that the recruitment rules of Supervisor Instructors issued vide Notification dt.29.9.2008 only prescribe the essential qualifications and experience for the appointment to the post, hence, there was no predicament for the respondents to prescribe OMR test. The Supreme Court has held that if the Rules only provide the essential qualifications for the post, the method of selection, in the absence of Rules has to be provided by the executive instructions. By the resolution dt.9.9.2011, the state government has prescribed the OMR test as a method of selection which was duly publicized. All the candidates including the petitioners were aware of the same. As held by the Apex Court having participated in the selection without any demur, they cannot challenge the recruitment procedure. Thus, the contentions voiced by the petitioners that the respondent could not have prescribed the OMR test since the recruitment rules do not provide the same and they have the right of absorption/appointment as they had worked on the post deserves to be discarded. 20. Thus, the contentions voiced by the petitioners that the respondent could not have prescribed the OMR test since the recruitment rules do not provide the same and they have the right of absorption/appointment as they had worked on the post deserves to be discarded. 20. In the case of Suneet Agarwal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2000 (2) S.C.C. 615 has observed thus: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Narration of aforestated facts would show that the appellant had disentitled herself to seek relief in the writ petition filed by her before the High Court. The appellant did not challenge the order of the Vice Chancellor declining to accord approval to her selection and, on the contrary, she applied afresh to the said post in response to re- advertisement of the post without any kind of protest. Not only did she apply for the post, but also she appeared before the Selection Committee constituted consequent upon re-advertisement of the post and that too without any kind of protest, and on the same day she filed a writ petition against the order of the Vice Chancellor declining to accord his approval and obtained an ad-interim order. In the writ petition she also did not disclose that she has applied for the post consequent upon second advertisement. The appellant having appeared before the Selection Committee without any protest and having taken a chance, we are of the view that the appellant is estopped by her conduct from challenging the earlier order of the Vice Chancellor. The High Court was justified in refusing to accord any discretionary relief in favour of the appellant. The writ petition was rightly dismissed.” 7. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the afore-noted judgments, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the entire recruitment after having participated in the same. 21. As observed in preceding paragraphs, in the present case the OMR test was held for the purpose of preparing the select list as per merits obtained in the examination. The selection got over on declaration of the merit list on 16.11.2011 which did not include the name of the petitioners as they failed in the test. The qualified candidates were given appointment on 21.11.2011 and the posting orders were given on 23/24/25.11.2011. The petition was filed on 9.1.2012 challenging the recruitment process. The selection got over on declaration of the merit list on 16.11.2011 which did not include the name of the petitioners as they failed in the test. The qualified candidates were given appointment on 21.11.2011 and the posting orders were given on 23/24/25.11.2011. The petition was filed on 9.1.2012 challenging the recruitment process. Thus, the selection process was already completed when the petition was filed. The petitioners having realized that they will not be appointed have subsequently challenged it in the present writ petition by taking a chance in appearing in the OMR test. Hence, the bar of acquiescence will apply in the present case. 22. So far as the grievance made by the petitioners that since there was malpractice in the result of the OMR Test, the same is required to set aside does not merit acceptance, as it can be gathered from the facts that subsequently in such cases, marks were rectified by the respondent authorities on the complaint filed by the respective candidates. The petitioners could have adopted the same process or filed a complaint to the authority in case they had doubts about the allotment of marks. The respondent authorities have acted in fair manner by correcting marks of such candidates pursuant to their grievance made in that behalf. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire OMR Test was faulty and the same is required to be quashed and set aside merely because in some cases, marks of some of the candidates were rectified subsequently. 23. The petitioners have also contended that the statutory reservation of 30% for women has not been implemented while issuing the advertisement. The petitioners did not challenge the advertisement raising this issue before participating in the recruitment process. Any interference by this Court in the recruitment process after so many years on this issue will unsettle the things, which are already settled. Hence, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner challenging the advertisement and selection on the non-implementation of issue of women’s reservation is rejected. 24. On overall analysis of the entire material and on the bedrock of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, the submissions canvassed by the petitioner does not merit acceptance. Consequently; the petition, being sans merit, stands dismissed. RULE is discharged.