Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 274 (JHR)

Diwakar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
ORDER : Heard Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.A.G. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 (State), Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. Manoj Tandon as well as Mr. Indrajit Sinha learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. Since the issue in both the applications are common, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2014, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33 on the post of Drug Inspector in the State of Jharkhand pursuant to advertisement no. 20 of 2010 as the entire appointments have been made illegally and arbitrarily. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the entire advertisement no. 20 of 2011 issued for the appointment on the post of Drug Inspector in the State of Jharkhand and the corrigendum, if any issued in this regard. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondents-authorities to immediately and forthwith restrain the private respondent nos. 4 to 33 from joining on the post of Drug Inspector and it has also been prayed that the entire - appointment of the 30 private respondents be declared to be illegal and arbitrary and to conduct a fresh examination in terms of the original advertisement no. 20 of 2011. 4. A similar prayer has been made in W.P.(S) No. 7785 of 2013. 5. The factual aspects of the case reveals that in the year 2011 after requisition of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (respondent no. 3) had published an advertisement being advertisement no. 20 of 2011 for filling up the vacant post of 59 Drug Inspectors from the eligible candidates. The last date of submission of application form was 25.10.2011, as such the eligible candidates filled up the application form and applied within the stipulated time. The petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2014 was possessing the qualification of Masters in Pharmacy and so was the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 7785 of 2013. However, since none of them were possessing the requisite experience of 18 months on or before 25.10.2011 they did not fill up the forms for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. The petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2014 was possessing the qualification of Masters in Pharmacy and so was the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 7785 of 2013. However, since none of them were possessing the requisite experience of 18 months on or before 25.10.2011 they did not fill up the forms for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. A Press Communique was issued by the JPSC giving the schedule of the examination to be conducted. In the Press Communique, clause 2 was incorporated wherein the necessary experience as required in the original advertisement was deleted. Since the petitioners felt deprived of on account of the act of the State authorities; they filed the representation to the Secretary of JPSC on 13.12.2013. However, the examination was conducted and the results were also published. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners did not get any opportunity to submit their application for the post of Drug Inspector, although having the necessary qualification to do so and the respondent-authorities could not have changed the criteria when the advertisement had already been issued. 6. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the original advertisement prescribed 18 months experience which the petitioner did not have and therefore, they did not apply. It has been submitted that subsequently due to ulterior motive and to grant favouritism to some candidates, the experience criteria was deleted. Learned counsel submits that the last date of the receipt of the application form was 25.10.2011- and neither it was extended nor a fresh application called for by the respondents which would have enabled the petitioners to have participated in the selection process. Mr. Gadodia further submits that another advertisement issued could not be contrary to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. He submits that the transparency is the necessary part in the advertisement process and the rules of the game cannot be changed in the midst of the process of the appointment. While referring to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. He submits that the transparency is the necessary part in the advertisement process and the rules of the game cannot be changed in the midst of the process of the appointment. While referring to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, he submits that Principal Secretary had informed the Chairman, JPSC that requirement of experience as per advertisement was not the basic qualification in terms of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and therefore, in view of the clarification there should have been a reasonable time of extension for submission of application. It has been further submitted that the reasons given in the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 2 for withdrawal of the condition given in the advertisement was in an arbitrary, and colourable exercise of power. Mr. Gadodia further submits while referring to paragraphs 11 and 16 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 (JPSC) that it was admitted on the part of the respondent no. 3 regarding the error in the eligibility requirement and the right to participate in the process of selection of the petitioners was prevented by the authorities. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the cases of "Renu and Others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another" reported in (2014)14 SCC 50 [: 2014(2) JLJR (SC) 50], "State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty" reported in (2011)3 SCC 436 and "Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others" reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 . 7. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned AAG has denied the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rules of the games were changed midway. He has submitted that the number of vacancies were reduced from 59 to 30 including backlog vacancies and the cut off date for submitting the application was 25.10.2011 and in the corrigendum issued on 4.11.2011, the cut off date was revised to 16.11.2011 and therefore it was incorrect on the part of the petitioners to submit that they did not get sufficient opportunity to make necessary applications for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. Mr. Ajit Kumar submits that the schedule of examination was given on 28.9.2013 and the examination was ultimately held on 29.10.2013. Mr. Ajit Kumar submits that the schedule of examination was given on 28.9.2013 and the examination was ultimately held on 29.10.2013. He submits that in the original advertisement since the proviso was incomplete and it was meaningless therefore, the clarification had to be inserted through a corrigendum based on Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. It has been submitted that the basic qualification for being appointed for the post of Drug Inspector does not include experience and therefore, it cannot be said that the rules of the games were changed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has referred to the judgment in the case of "Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission" reported in (2006)9 SCC 507 . 8. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 (JPSC) submits that the proviso in the original advertisement was for the persons who have been appointed. It has been stated that the date of submission of the form was extended by virtue of issuance of a corrigendum through a press communique and therefore, sufficient opportunities were given to those candidates who fulfilled the required criteria to apply on the post of Drug Inspector. Learned counsel submits that the grievance has been raised by the petitioners after appointment has been made and in the totality of the circumstances, the present applications are liable to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, 21, 24, 27, 30 & 32 has stated that the private respondents have already been appointed on 11.12.2013. It has been stated that the respondents have the basic qualification for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. Mr. Tandon submits that the petitioners are disgruntled elements who having been unsuccessful by not submitting necessary forms to be selected to the post of Drug Inspector and are trying to take undue advantage of a corrigendum, although such qualification does not at all hinder the process of appointment. He further submits that the petitioners had the opportunity in view of the corrigendum to have applied, but they have chosen not to do so and on the contrary, challenged the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33. Mr. He further submits that the petitioners had the opportunity in view of the corrigendum to have applied, but they have chosen not to do so and on the contrary, challenged the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33. Mr. Tandon, in support of his contention has referred to a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in "Kuldeep Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another" in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46079 of 2010. 10. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the rest of the private respondents submits that nothing has been propounded by the petitioners to suggest that the arbitrariness has been caused in the advertisement as well as in the selection process. It has been stated that the petitioners have not challenged the advertisement as they were aware about Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules as well as the Jharkhand State Medical Control (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2011. While referring to the advertisement, Mr. Sinha submits that "only those Inspectors" means the Inspectors appointed and therefore, the same was not a pre-condition for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. He further submits that the experience criteria is not at all a criteria for qualification, rather the same appears to be after appointment is made which is in terms of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. 11. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that if at all there was a transparency in the entire selection process, there was no question of coming out with a qualification. He has further submitted that Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been blatantly violated. He also submits that the respondents have not come out with a specific reply with respect to the corrigendum so issued and therefore, learned counsel concludes his argument by praying for setting aside the entire selection process as well as the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 33 and the respondents-authorities be directed to take fresh steps for appointment of Drug Inspectors in the State of Jharkhand. 12. An advertisement was issued being advertisement no. 20 of 2011 for filling up the 59 vacant posts of Drug Inspectors. 4 to 33 and the respondents-authorities be directed to take fresh steps for appointment of Drug Inspectors in the State of Jharkhand. 12. An advertisement was issued being advertisement no. 20 of 2011 for filling up the 59 vacant posts of Drug Inspectors. The qualification of Inspectors which was mentioned in the advertisement was that a person who has a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Science or Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology by a University established in India by law will be eligible to be appointed to the post of Drug Inspectors. The proviso was inserted therein with respect to experience and it was mentioned that experience of only a government/public sector pharmacy/NABL accredited laboratory/GMP accredited manufacturing factory will be admissible. It was also submitted that experience certificate must be issued by the Director/Maintaining Director/HR Head bearing the organisation address and duly signed by competent authority shall be entertained. Petitioners claim that since they were not having the experience, they had not applied pursuant to advertisement no. 20 of 2011. A corrigendum was subsequently issued in which the experience mentioned in the advertisement no. 20 of 2011 was not to be considered as a basic qualification. The cut off date in the original advertisement for submission of form was 25.10.2011, but subsequently in the corrigendum, the cut off date was revised to 16.11.2011. It is to be seen that as to whether such corrigendum had changed the rules of the games or the same was merely a clarification which would not cast a shadow of doubt over the process of selection. In this context, it would be apt to refer to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prescribes the qualification of Inspectors and the same is quoted herein : "49. Qualifications of Inspectors. In this context, it would be apt to refer to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which prescribes the qualification of Inspectors and the same is quoted herein : "49. Qualifications of Inspectors. - A person who is appointed as Inspector under the Act shall be a person who has a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or microbiology from a University established in India by law : Provided that only those Inspectors – (i) Who have not less than 18 months experience in the manufacture of at least one of the substances specified in Schedule C, or (ii) Who have not less than 18 months experience in testing of at least one of the substances in Schedule C in a Laboratory approved for this purpose by the licensing authority, or (iii) Who have gained experience of not less than three years in the inspection of firms manufacturing any of the substances specified in Schedule C during the tenure of their services as Drugs Inspectors, shall be authorised to inspect the manufacture of the substances mentioned in Schedule C : [Provided further that the requirement as to the academic qualification shall not apply to persons appointed as Inspectors on or before the 18th day of October, 2993.]" 13. The advertisement no. 20 of 2011 seems to have reproduced verbatim Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules which necessitated a clarification as confusion arose with respect to the requirement of experience in making an application for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. If there is any confusion with respect to the advertisement, the same shall be governed by the rules and precisely in view of the said fact, the corrigendum was issued in which the experience did not form the basic qualification for being appointed to the post of Drug Inspector. It also appears that the petitioners in spite of the extension of time for submission of forms had never availed such extension and have never, submitted such forms for reasons best known to them. 14. Mr. It also appears that the petitioners in spite of the extension of time for submission of forms had never availed such extension and have never, submitted such forms for reasons best known to them. 14. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has while challenging the entire selection process itself including the advertisement has referred to the case of "Renu and Others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another" reported in (2014)14 SCC 50 [: 2014(2) JLJR (SC)50], by relying on the following:- "5. The rule of law is the basic feature of the Constitution. There was a time when REX was LEX, We now seek to say LEX is REX. It is axiomatic that no authority is above law and no man is above law. Article 13(2) of the Constitution provides that no law can be enacted which runs contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. The object of such a provision is to ensure that instruments emanating from any source of law, permanent or temporary, legislative or judicial or any other source, pay homage to the constitutional provisions• relating to fundamental rights. Thus, the main objective of Article 13 is to secure the paramountcy of the Constitution, especially with regard to the fundamental rights. The aforesaid provision is in consonance with the legal principle of "rule of law" and they remind us of the famous words of the English jurist, Henry de Bracton-"The King is under no man but under God and the Law". No one is above law. The dictum-"Be you ever so high, the law is above you" is applicable to all, irrespective of his status, religion, caste, creed, sex or culture. The Constitution is the supreme law. All the institutions, be it legislature, executive or judiciary, being created under the Constitution, cannot ignore it. The exercise of powers by an authority cannot be unguided or unbridled as the Constitution prescribes the limitations for each and every authority and therefore, no one, howsoever high he may be, has a right to exercise the power beyond the purpose for which the same has been conferred on him. The exercise of powers by an authority cannot be unguided or unbridled as the Constitution prescribes the limitations for each and every authority and therefore, no one, howsoever high he may be, has a right to exercise the power beyond the purpose for which the same has been conferred on him. Thus, the powers have to be exercised within the framework of the Constitution and legislative provisions, otherwise it would be an exercise of power in violation of the basic features of the Constitution i.e. Part III dealing with the fundamental rights which also prescribes the limitations. 8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every State action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. State of UP., J.A.S. Inter College vs. State of U.P., M.P. Housing Board vs. Manoj Shrivastava, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. S.C. Pandey and State of M.P. vs. Sandhya Tomar. 9. In Excise Supt. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, a larger Bench of this Court reconsidered its earlier judgment in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal, wherein it had been held that insistence on recruitment through employment exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, due to the possibility of non-sponsoring of names by the employment exchange, this Court held that any appointment even on temporary or ad hoc basis inviting basis without application is in violation of the said provisions of the Constitution and even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from open market as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said articles of the Constitution. The Court further observed : (K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao case, SCC p. 218 para 6) "6. ...In addition, the appropriate department ... should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice ... The Court further observed : (K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao case, SCC p. 218 para 6) "6. ...In addition, the appropriate department ... should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice ... and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be sub-served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." (emphasis supplied) (See also Arun Tewari Vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and Kishore K. Pati vs. District Inspector of Schools, Midnapore.) 10. In Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana this Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein 1600 appointments made in the Police Department without advertisement stood quashed though the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 did not provide for such a course. The High Court reached the conclusion that process of selection stood vitiated because there was no advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the eligible candidates at large. 16. Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others." 15. He submits that the entire process was opaque which denied the petitioners to submit the necessary forms. Learned counsel has also referred to the case of "State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty" reported in (2011)3 SCC 436 , and he has relied on the following paragraphs : 38. The concept of adverse possession of lien on post or holding over are not applicable in service jurisprudence. Therefore, continuation of a person wrongly appointed on post does not create any right in his favour. [Vide M.S. Patil (Dr.) vs. Gulbarga University.] Per incuriam - Doctrine 64; "Incuria" literally means "carelessness". The concept of adverse possession of lien on post or holding over are not applicable in service jurisprudence. Therefore, continuation of a person wrongly appointed on post does not create any right in his favour. [Vide M.S. Patil (Dr.) vs. Gulbarga University.] Per incuriam - Doctrine 64; "Incuria" literally means "carelessness". In practice per incuriam is taken to mean per ignoratium, The courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. Thus the "quotable in law", is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority." 16. In the case of "Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan and Others" reported in (2011)12 SCC 85 , it was held as follows : 29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 31. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of Respondent 1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list." 17. Learned counsel submits that the relaxation in the original conditions is impermissible and the selection process should have been conducted within the stipulated selection procedure. Learned counsel while referring to the aforesaid pronouncements have tried to highlight the fact that the selection process once having started, the qualifications could not have been relaxed and merely because the respondent nos. 4 to 33 have been appointed, the same would not create a lien over the posts by them. 18. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned AAG has placed reliance in the case of "Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission" reported in (2006)9 SCC 507 by referring to the following : 21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules. 24. Now, to the present case, the only dispute is in respect of the age requirement. The resolution of the dispute would depend upon implementation of Rule 10 of the Rules. According to the main part of Rule 10, the minimum and maximum age requirement has to be as on 1st July next following the year in which the notification for holding the examination by PSC inviting applications is published. That publication inviting applications is dated 22/28.11.2003. The next following year is "2004". Therefore, on the plain reading of the main part of Rule 10, the age requirement is to be seen as on 1.7.2004." 19. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for some of the private respondents has relied on the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in "Kuldeep Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another" (supra). Therefore, on the plain reading of the main part of Rule 10, the age requirement is to be seen as on 1.7.2004." 19. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for some of the private respondents has relied on the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in "Kuldeep Singh & Others vs. State of U.P. & Another" (supra). In the said case, the Division Bench had referred the matter to the Full Bench on the following question of law : "Whether the experience required in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only a bar of authorization to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5(4) of the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1995." The answer to the reference was given as follows : "27(i) The experience referred to in the first proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 has not been made an essential qualification for appointment as a Drug Inspector. The effect of the first proviso is that only an Inspector who holds the experience as specified in it is authorized to inspect the manufacture of a substance specified in Schedule C to the Rules." 20. Thus, the controversy with respect to whether the advertisement no. 20 of 2011 prescribed the experience of the impending candidates while applying for the post of Drug Inspector or not has been aptly answered by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court. It is not in doubt that any appointment made in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India is an illegal appointment and the same needs to be struck down. The judgments relied upon by Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioners does not extend any positivity in his contention in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. After a careful reading is made of the advertisement no. 20 of 2011, the same does not imbibe any confusion as the proviso speaks about the inspectors who have been appointed. The experience denoted therein is not a pre-condition for being appointed on the post of Drug Inspector and the respondent no. 3 had rightly come out with a Press Communique clarifying the aforesaid position to the effect that the experience shall not be counted in the basic qualification. The experience denoted therein is not a pre-condition for being appointed on the post of Drug Inspector and the respondent no. 3 had rightly come out with a Press Communique clarifying the aforesaid position to the effect that the experience shall not be counted in the basic qualification. It is therefore held that the rules of the games were never changed, rather a mere clarification was issued on the touch stone of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules which did not even remotely change the structure or the contents of the original advertisement. 22. As a consequence to' the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the writ applications and accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed. Since there appears to be an interim order passed on 4.2.2016, directing the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi not to pay salary to the respondent nos. 4 to 33 in W.P.(S) No. 1971 of 2014, the said interim order on account of the dismissal of the writ application is hereby vacated. The respondents-State is directed to make payment of current salary as well as the arrears of salary which mayor might have accrued to the respondent nos. 4 to 33 expeditiously. Pending I.As. stands automatically disposed of.