JUDGMENT : RAJENDRA MENON, J. 1. Petitioners, a registered association of Lawyers, have filed this writ petition and have raised an issue with regard to recruitment being undertaken in the District/Civil Courts. It is alleged in the writ petition that the District & Sessions Judge, Darbhanga on 25th of July, 2017 issued an advertisement for filling up 26 posts of Peons and two posts of Daftaris (Class-IV posts) in accordance to The Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III & Class IV) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 2009 Rules). Even though when the said advertisement was issued, The Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staffs (Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer And Other Conditions Of Service), Rules of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 2017 Rules) had already come into force. 2. It is stated that when the new Rules of 2017 was notified on 23.5.2017, and the advertisement was issued on 25.7.2017 for filling up of the posts in accordance to a repealed Rule, therefore the same is unsustainable. Thereafter, it is pointed out that in 2009 Rules, the only method for recruitment was by conducting an interview whereas in the amended 2017 Rules, the method of selection is by a process of written test and interview. It is also the case of the petitioners that apart from the district of Darbhanga, in the districts of Khagaria, Purnea, Samastipur, Jehanabad, Gaya, Aurangabad etc. recruitments are being held in accordance to the 2009 Rules and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi And Another, the same is unsustainable. The advertisement issued on 25.7.2017 in the district of Darbhanga is filed as Annexure 2. Further averments have been made by means of a supplementary affidavit to say that even in the district of Sitamarhi, advertisements have been issued and the process of filling of vacancy is being undertaken as per the old Rules of 2009. The advertisement issued on 25.7.2017 in the district of Darbhanga is filed as Annexure 2. Further averments have been made by means of a supplementary affidavit to say that even in the district of Sitamarhi, advertisements have been issued and the process of filling of vacancy is being undertaken as per the old Rules of 2009. It is further submitted that for appointment to the posts in question, as per information received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, vide letter No.5509 dated 3.11.2017, Annexure 5 in reply to the counter affidavit dated 19.2.2018, in the district of Sitamarhi, more than 500 candidates are to participate per day in the interview process to be held from 21.8.2017 to 7.9.2017 and per day 1000 candidates have been called for interview between 11.9.2017 to 16.10.2017 and 500 on other days. Communications in this regard have been brought on record vide Annexure 6. It is also indicated that similarly in other districts also, i.e. the district of Patna, more than thousand candidates are being called for interview on a single day and the interview process is going on after notification of 2017 Rules. Further it is stated that in the district of Kishanganj, an advertisement has been issued for filling up of the posts much after the 2017 Rules have come into force, i.e. 23.5.2017. 3. The High Court has filed a counter affidavit and with regard to the district of Darbhanga it has been explained that after the judgment in the case of Renu (supra) was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Standing Committee considered the issue on 15.7.2014 and took a decision that the appointment to Class IV posts be expedited in various Civil Courts and, thereafter, in the meeting held on 26.8.2014 it was resolved that the Registrar General be directed to prepare a Draft Rules as per the law laid down in the case of Renu (supra). In the meanwhile, on account of hardship faced due to non-filling up of vacancy, it is stated that on 30th of June, 2015, the Standing Committee resolved to file an interlocutory application in the Supreme Court seeking permission to make appointment on the existing vacancies as per the procedure in vogue. It is stated that the Draft Rules were thereafter formulated and the Full Court on 15.7.2015 considered the Draft Rules and made certain modification. It is stated that the Draft Rules were thereafter formulated and the Full Court on 15.7.2015 considered the Draft Rules and made certain modification. In the meanwhile, the Draft Rules were approved and sent to the State Government for their approval on 22.12.2015 for its notification. However, as there were large number of vacancies and working in the District Courts were being adversely affected, the Standing Committee on 15.12.2015 resolved to make recruitment as per the existing Rule of 2009 till the new Rules were finalized. It is stated that based on the aforesaid resolution, for the district of Darbhanga proposals were received and on considering the requisition received from the District & Sessions Judge, Darbhanga on 12.1.2017, on 14.5.2017 the request for filling up of the posts was approved. It was sent to the District & Sessions Judge on 26.5.2017 for issuance of the advertisement and based on the same the advertisement was issued on 10.7.2017. However, it is an admitted position that in between the new 2017 Rules were notified on 23.5.2017 by the State Government. A perusal of the counter affidavit goes to show that new Rules were communicated to the District & Sessions Judge much after the advertisement was issued. In fact, an explanation is tried to be given with regard to the reason as to why in the district of Darbhanga the recruitment process was initiated as per the old Rules and the reason given is that it was approved prior to coming into force of the new Rules. 4. From the aforesaid narration it is apparent that this Petition in public interest is filed by the petitioner Association bringing to the notice of this Court various factors pertaining to recruitment to Class IV post being undertaken in various District Civil Courts in the State of Bihar. Primarily the petition, when it was initially filed, was to highlight the recruitment process being conducted in the District of Darbhanga and certain facts with regard to manner in which the selection process was being held in the District of Patna, as orally argued on 16.10.2017, when an interim order was passed. Primarily the petition, when it was initially filed, was to highlight the recruitment process being conducted in the District of Darbhanga and certain facts with regard to manner in which the selection process was being held in the District of Patna, as orally argued on 16.10.2017, when an interim order was passed. With regard to the District of Darbhanga, in the matter of filling up of 26 posts of peon and 2 posts of Daftaris, various illegalities were brought to the notice of the Competent Authority, and when no action was taken on the complaints, the petition was filed. That apart, during the course of hearing, certain other materials were brought to our notice to point out that in the District of Patna appointment is being made and interview is being held on various days and on each day above 1000 to 1200 candidates are called for interview. Our attention was drawn with regard to the aforesaid issue particularly with reference to the Districts of Patna, Darbhanga, Kishanganj and Sitamarhi. Keeping in view the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu and others versus District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (2014) 14 SCC 50 , we took cognizance of the matter and on 16th of October 2017 passed the following order : “This case has been taken up on a mention made by Shri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner whereby he has pointed out that while issuing notice on 04.10.2017, this Court had given liberty to the counsel for the petitioner to make a mention and seek interim relief in case the process of conducting the interview is undertaken. He informs us that for appointment to Class IV posts in the district of Patna, the process for interview is commencing from 18th October, 2017 and he further submits that more than thousands of candidates are being called for interview on a single day. He also brings to out notice various documents to show the manner in which the date of interview has been fixed and call letters are being issued and for filling up about 32 posts, about 35,000 incumbents are being interviewed in a manner which is not permissible in law. He is directed to file an affidavit and bring all these documents on record. He is directed to file an affidavit and bring all these documents on record. He invites to our attention to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu and others v. Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (2014) 14 SCC 50 , wherein after considering various issues pertaining to appointments in the High Court and Subordinate Courts to Class III and IV posts after hearing all the Registrar General of the High Court, in para 35 thereof, guidelines and rules have been directed to be prescribed for appointment. Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel, points out that in total disregard to the aforesaid judgment, without following any transparent procedure for selection to the post, not only in the District of Patna, but in all the districts of Bihar in sub-ordinate courts, appointment to Class IV are being held only by interview alone which in an arbitrary manner and without any transparent procedure being followed. He also points out that even the requirement of the Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staff (recruitment, promotion, transfer and other conditions) Rules 2017 are not being strictly followed. Be that as it may be, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the Standing Committee on the administrative side has already constituted a Committee to examine various issues related to the recruitment and to give a recommendation with regard to a transparent procedure to be followed for recruitment. Take note of the complaints made not only in this petition, but various complaints that have been received which are directed to be brought on record by the Registrar General of the High Court, we direct the High Court to file a counter affidavit indicating as to why a mandamus be not issued for prescribing Rules and laying down the guidelines for appointment in the Subordinate Courts and the High Court in Class IV posts in accordance to the observations made and the directions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Renu (supra) and why a transparent system and procedure be not laid down for appointment to such posts. Let an affidavit indicating all these facts with regard to the issues in question be filed within six weeks. Let an affidavit indicating all these facts with regard to the issues in question be filed within six weeks. In the meanwhile, taking note of the averments made in the writ petition and the importance of the issue in question, and the manner in which the process of appointment to Class IV posts in the subordinate Courts are being undertaken which process, in our considered view, prima facie, does not meet the requirement of law, particularly Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the requirements as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu (supra), he Registrar General of the Patna High Court is directed to inform all the District & Sessions Judge in all the Subordinate Courts within the State of Bihar to stop all recruitment process and appointments to Class IV posts in all Subordinate Courts until further orders. All selection process initiated shall remain stayed and selection process concluded shall also remain stayed, no result of the selection shall be declared or appointment made to Class IV posts nor shall any selection process shall initiated in any Subordinate Courts by any District & Sessions Judge without leave of this Court. List the matter after six weeks.” 5. Thereafter, we directed the Registrar General to submit say of the High Court in the matter, reports were also called from various districts and on a consideration of the facts that have come on record, we find that recruitment to the posts in question, namely class IV posts in various districts of Bihar was being conducted in accordance to The Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III & Class IV) Rules, 2009. 6. Sri Dinu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited our attention to Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rule, i.e. 2009 Rules, which reads as under : “11.Qualification for Recruitment of Class IV Staff. - The candidates must be literate and must have working knowledge of both Hindi and English languages, including reading and writing in the said language. Selection of candidates will be made on the basis of the interview only to be conducted by the Appointment Committee and thereafter the appointment shall be made by the Appointing Authority. In case of Staff Car Driver, a test may be prescribed by the Appointment Committee. Selection of candidates will be made on the basis of the interview only to be conducted by the Appointment Committee and thereafter the appointment shall be made by the Appointing Authority. In case of Staff Car Driver, a test may be prescribed by the Appointment Committee. The candidates must also be physically fit, so as to undertake strenuous work and must know to ride a bicycle. In case of staff car driver, apart from the above qualification, candidate must have valid driving license and possessing qualification as prescribed in the law.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In the meantime, having considered the matter relating to appointment of Class IV staff in the judgeship of Bihar in the meeting of Hon’ble Standing Committee held on 15.12.2015, it was resolved as under : “As new Rules are yet to be approved and notified by the State Govt., the district and Sessions Judge would, in the meantime, proceed to fill up the vacant posts of Class IV staff in their respective judgeships in accordance with old procedure, which was prevalent.” 8. Accordingly, it was emphasized that a process of recruitment to public service only by means of an oral interview wherein the entire 100% mark is kept for interview is an illegal process, which cannot be approved in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Versus State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 and followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various other judgments, in the cases of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and Others (2010) 12 SCC 576 , Bishnu Biswas and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 5 SCC 774 , Mahinder Kumar and Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 11 SCC 87 , Salam Samarjeet Singh Vs. High Court of Manipur at Imphal And Another (2016) 10 SCC 484 , Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2001 LAB. I.C. 47, Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi And Another (2010) 3 SCC 104 and Vikram Singh and another Vs. The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and others AIR 1991 SC 1011 . 9. High Court of Manipur at Imphal And Another (2016) 10 SCC 484 , Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Others 2001 LAB. I.C. 47, Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi And Another (2010) 3 SCC 104 and Vikram Singh and another Vs. The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and others AIR 1991 SC 1011 . 9. It is argued by Sri Dinu Kumar that a process of selection solely by the method of interview is unsustainable under law and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 11 should not be permitted to be used for conducting recruitment to the services in question, particularly now when the new Rules of 2017 have come into force w.e.f. 23/5/2017. 10. On the contrary Sri S.B. Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the High Court argued that adequate protections are provided in Rule 11 as reproduced hereinabove. Cases of nepotism and unreasonable selection or illegal selection can always be looked into case wise and now as the rules of 2017 have already been notified with effect from 23.05.2017 i.e. The Bihar Civil Court Officers and Staffs, Recruitment, Promotion, Transfer And Other Conditions Of Service Rules Of 2017. In pursuance to the aforesaid rule, in future all selections are to be conducted by a process of written and thereafter interview. It is indicated that as per the new rules, 85 marks have been kept for written test and 15 marks for interview and, therefore, now, no indulgence into the matter is called for as recruitments in future would be conducted under the new Recruitment Rules and the grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed with the coming into force of the new Rules. As far as the selection already conducted as per 2009 Rules is concerned, Sri Bharti invites our attention to the resolution passed by the Standing Committee vide Annexure A dated 12.09.2017 and the detailed chart filed vide Annexures-O and P to say that in 22 districts before coming into force of 2017 Rules, the recruitment processes were initiated and have been finalized, the select lists are approved by the Competent Authority and as the selection process has been initiated before coming into force of 2017 Rules, appointment to the posts in question in these 22 districts should be approved. He further points out that with regard to Jamui and Darbhanga, certain complaints having been received, the Competent Authority has already taken cognizance of the same. It is pointed out that with regard to the district of Jamui, after issuance of appointment order, complaints have been received with regard to filling up of 33 posts and, therefore, the same is under consideration before the Registrar (Vig.) of the High Court. As far as district of Darbhanga is concerned, it is stated that now the recruitment in this district shall be held in accordance with the New Rules, which have been notified on 23.05.2017. Accordingly, Sri Bharti argues that now the petitioners should not have any grievance as the recruitments have been finalized in accordance to the Rule as was existing on the date of issuance of the advertisement and any complaint received with regard to recruitment already done shall be considered by the High Court and appropriate action taken in accordance with law. 11. Sri Dinu Kumar refuted the aforesaid contention and argued that now, as the Rules of 2017 have come into force, all cases where appointment orders have not been issued, but only a select list is prepared the recruitment should be conducted in accordance to the 2017 Rules. Merely because the select list has been prepared, in such cases where the appointments orders have not been issued, no right accrues to the selected candidate and, therefore, a selection process conducted solely on the basis of interview should not be approved by this Court and as the new Rules have come into force, in all such districts where appointment letters have not been issued, the process of recruitment should be undertaken afresh in accordance to the new Rules. 12. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while dealing with the issue and while taking cognizance of the matter on 16.10.2017, we were concerned with the manner in which the appointment to the Class-IV posts were being held and we were also shocked by the manner in which the process of appointment was being undertaken not only in the district of Darbhanga but also in the district of Patna. 13. 13. It was because of our concern with regard to various aspects and after taking note of the law laid down in the case of Renu (Supra) that we proposed to deal with the issue in question and today the factual position, as has been narrated hereinabove, has come on record. 14. Before dealing with the issue based on these facts, it would be appropriate to consider the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu and others (Supra). The occasion for the judgment in Renu and others (supra) arose in the matter of appointment to the District and Sessions Courts in Tis Hazari and it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in dealing with appointment of staff to the District and Sessions Court and the High Court, the High Court as well as the Subordinate Courts are required to ensure that recruitments are held in accordance to the Rules which are in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has been observed that in filling up of vacant posts in the Courts, the High Courts should set an example, ensure that a transparent and reasonable process is followed which could not cause anybody to put fingers on the process of appointments. For the shake of convenience, we may reproduce hereinbelow the final observations and conclusion made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to appointment to such services. In para-16, the importance of public appointment, the process of transparency, the requirement of a reasonable selection or recruitment process has been highlighted in the following manner: “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. 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. Thereafter, various judgments on the issue have been considered in Para-35 and finally the following directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-35.1 to 35.5 in the following manner : “35.1. (i) All the High Courts are requested to re-examine the statutory rules dealing with the appointment of staff in the High Court as well as in the subordinate courts and in case any of the rule is not in conformity and consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the same may be modified. 35.2. (ii) To fill up any vacancy for any post either in the High Court or in courts subordinate to the High Court, in strict compliance with the statutory rules so made. In case any appointment is made in contravention of the statutory rules, the appointment would be void ab initio irrespective of any class of the post or the person occupying it. 35.3. (iii) The post shall be filled up by issuing the advertisement in at least two newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular language having wide circulation in the respective State. In addition thereto, the names may be requisitioned from the local employment exchange and the vacancies may be advertised by other modes also e.g. Employment News, etc. Any vacancy filled up without advertising as prescribed hereinabove, shall be void ab initio and would remain unenforceable and unexecutable except such appointments which are permissible to be filled up without advertisement e.g. appointment on compassionate grounds as per the rules applicable. Before any appointment is made, the eligibility as well as suitability of all the candidates should be screened/tested while adhering to the reservation policy adopted by the State, etc. if any. 35.4. (iv) Each High Court may examine and decide within six months from today as to whether it is desirable to have centralised selection of candidates for the courts subordinate to the respective High Court and if it finds it desirable, may formulate the rules to carry out that purpose either for the State or on zonal or indivisional basis. 35.5. (iv) Each High Court may examine and decide within six months from today as to whether it is desirable to have centralised selection of candidates for the courts subordinate to the respective High Court and if it finds it desirable, may formulate the rules to carry out that purpose either for the State or on zonal or indivisional basis. 35.5. (v) The High Court concerned or the subordinate court as the case may be, shall undertake the exercise of recruitment on a regular basis at least once a year for existing vacancies or vacancies that are likely to occur within the said period, so that the vacancies are filled up timely, and thereby avoiding any inconvenience or shortage of staff as it will also control the menace of ad hocism.” 16. If we analyze the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we find that the appointments are required to be made in a manner which fulfils the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Every High Court was directed to examine the matters and decide within 6 months from the date of issuance of the said judgment, formulate a Rule being in conformity with the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Judgment in question was delivered on 12th of February 2014 and a Rule in the High Court of Patna in conformity with this judgment has come into force only in May, 2017. Till then, the Rule followed was the Rule of 2009 and the process and system for selection was undertaken in accordance to Rule 11, reproduced hereinabove. In the case of Ashoka Kumar Yadav (supra) Supreme Court had occasion to consider the system of recruitment to a public post and the question of allotment of marks for oral interview or Viva Voce were taken note of and the system of grant of high marks for interview has been criticised by the Supreme Court, it is held that grant of the same is contrary to the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even though in the said case, there was serious allegations of mala fide against the members of the Selection Committee, but the system of recruitment to public service solely on the basis of interview was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even though in the said case, there was serious allegations of mala fide against the members of the Selection Committee, but the system of recruitment to public service solely on the basis of interview was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Thereafter, in various cases the principle of law has been again considered. 17. In the case of Bikram Singh (supra) the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Yadav (supra) has been considered and it has been held that prescribing more than 25% marks for interview is unsustainable and not permissible. Again in the case of Praveen Singh (supra), earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, including the judgment in the case of Ashok Yadav, are considered and in para 9, the principle laid down reads as under: “9. What does Kulshreshtha’s case (supra) depict? Does it say that interview should be only method of assessment of the merits of the candidates? The answer obviously cannot be in the affirmative. The vice of manipulation, we are afraid cannot be ruled out. Though interview undoubtedly a significant factor in the matter of appointments. It plays a strategic role but it also allows creeping in of a lacuna rendering the appointments illegitimate. Obviously it is an important factor but ought not to be the sole guiding factor since reliance thereon only may lead to a “sabotage of the purity of the proceedings”. A long catena of decisions of this Court have been noted by the High Court in the judgment but we need not dilate thereon neither we even wish to sound a contra note. In Ashok Kumar’s case, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 Serv LR 200 : ( AIR 1987 SC 454 : 1986 Lab IC 1417), this Court however in no uncertain terms observed: There can therefore be no doubt that the viva voce test performs a very useful function in assessing, the personal characteristics and traits and in fact test the man himself and is therefore, regarded as an important tool along with the written examination.” 18. In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the earlier judgments in the case of Liladhar Vs. In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the earlier judgments in the case of Liladhar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 4 SCC 159 and the judgment in the case of Ashok Yadav (supra) have been considered and it has been held that even though selection by viva voce or interview is permissible, but everything is dependent upon the nature of duties and the responsibilities attached with the post. The issue was again considered in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi (supra) and after taking note of the principles laid down in the case of Liladhar (supra), Ashok Yadav (supra) and various other cases, the law crystallized is that prescribing of exorbitant marks for the interview is unsustainable. Similar is the consideration made in various other cases that have been brought to our notice during the course of hearing and on a complete reading of all these cases, we find that the law laid down is that prescribing excessive marks to interview or viva voce test is unreasonable. It leads to exercise of arbitrariness in the selection process and the principle carved out from all these judgments goes to show that depending upon the post for which appointment is to be made, the nature of duties to be performed, if the interview is being held for a post where the personality of the candidate is to be tested and when his personality becomes a deciding factor for appointment to the post, there may be no impediment in granting higher marks for interview, but if the selection is to be made to a post where the personality of the person or his personal qualities and various other aspects can be judged by written examination, the law, is selection by written examination with some minimum marks, nor exorbitant, for interview is the normal law. The law is that prescribing higher marks for interview and selection process solely on the basis of interview is an unreasonable and an arbitrary one. The law is that prescribing higher marks for interview and selection process solely on the basis of interview is an unreasonable and an arbitrary one. When selection is to be made for a Class IV post of a Peon or a Daftari, we are of the considered view that selection to be made solely on the basis of interview may not be a justifiable or reasonable process and that is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu and Others (supra) directed the High Courts to formulate the Rule, as indicated hereinabove, and once the Rules of 2017 were formulated, it would have been appropriate to conduct all the process of recruitment in accordance with the new Rules of 2017 instead of conducting the same on the basis of old Rules of 2009, the process contained therein being inconsistent to the requirement of law, particularly Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid, now we are required to consider as to what further directions are issued and in what manner the “respondents” permitted to continue with the recruitment process. 20. In the counter affidavit, filed by the High Court, it is indicated that when the Standing Committee of the High Court met on 15.12.2015 and when the question of appointment to Class IV staff in various Judgeships in Bihar was taken note of, it was indicated that as new Rules are yet to be approved and notified by the State Government, The District and Sessions, in the meantime, should fill up the vacant post of Class IV in the respective Judgeship in accordance to the Rule which was prevalent i.e. the Rules of 2009 which only mandated conducting of an interview and it is because of this that the recruitment process was being conducted in accordance to the Rules of 2009. In the meanwhile, when the Standing Committee again considered the issue on 12.9.2017, it resolved that after coming into force of the New Rules of 2017, all selection and appointment should be made in accordance to the New Rules, but in such cases where advertisements have already been issued, they should be permitted to be conducted based on the old Rules. After this resolution on 12.9.2017 and when the process of selection was being undertaken as per the old Rules, the petitioner filed this petition after two weeks on 22.9.2017 and brought to the notice of this Court various irregularities being committed in the recruitment process, particularly in the Districts of Darbhanga, Patna, Sitamarhi etc. In view thereof, this Court passed the interim order on 16.10.2017 as reproduced hereinabove. Now the position that has come on record indicates that in 22 districts as per Annexure-O the advertisements were issued as per old Rules in the year 2016 and much before May 2017 in most of the cases the process of selection was undertaken and in most of the districts, the select lists have been approved in December, 2016 and thereafter, till July, 2017. It is seen that only select lists have been prepared, but no orders of appointment issued nor the candidate joined on the appointed post. 21. First and the foremost consideration to be made by us is as to whether the selection process undertaken in these 22 districts should be approved or not. On going through the Chart at Annexure-O, we find that in the district of Jamui after the selection process was concluded and appointments made, the Inspecting Judge has made various remarks and has pointed out illegalities in the process of selection and has caused for an inquiry into the matter and the matter is seized by the Registrar (Vig.). 22. We are informed that after the appointment orders were issued and the Registrar (Vig.) is enquiring into the matter. In the district of Darbhanga in which the selection was undertaken, various irregularities have occurred and, as is evident from the second list, Annexure-P, which is a list of selection process which are under process, the select list has not been finalized and the matter is to be reconsidered as per the new Rules. Even otherwise, in the District of Darbhanga as the process of selection was initiated and the advertisement itself was issued on 25/7/2017 after the rules of 2017 was notified on 23/5/2017, the entire process is illegal. We are also informed that in spite of interim order passed by this Court on 16.10.2017, in the district of Kishanganj the recruitment process was being held in accordance to the old Rules and we have stayed the recruitment process in Kishanganj District. 23. We are also informed that in spite of interim order passed by this Court on 16.10.2017, in the district of Kishanganj the recruitment process was being held in accordance to the old Rules and we have stayed the recruitment process in Kishanganj District. 23. Sri Satyabir Bharti has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Versus State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 to say that in this case, recruitment on the basis of interview alone has been approved by the Supreme Court. Much water has flown with regard to the issue in question after 1964 and after the judgment rendered in the case of Ashok Yadav (Supra), there are various other judgments on the question as reproduced by us hereinabove, particularly with regard to appointments on various posts and, therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of Sri Bharti and approve the appointment made solely on the basis of interview or viva voce, in view of the observations made by us hereinabove. 24. That being so, we find that even in the 22 districts, as indicated in Annexure-O, the recruitment process by issuance of advertisement started in the month of April, 2016, but in most of the districts, only the select list has been approved by the Competent Authority, appointment letters are yet to be issued. In such cases, where the select lists have already been finalized and the appointment have not been ordered or appointment orders issued to the candidate selected, no right accrues to the selected candidate to seek appointment to the post. In the following cases All India SC & ST Employees’ Association And Another Vs. A. Arthur Jeen And Others, (2001) 6 SCC 380 , East Coast Railway And Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao And Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678 , State of U.P. And Others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma And Others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 , Rakhi Ray And Others Vs. High Court of Delhi And Others, (2010) 2 SCC 637 and Vijoy Kumar Pandey Vs. Arvind Kumar Rai And Others, (2013) 11 SCC 611 , it has been held by the Supreme Court the mere inclusion in the select list does not give any right, legally enforceable to the candidate to seek appointment to a post. High Court of Delhi And Others, (2010) 2 SCC 637 and Vijoy Kumar Pandey Vs. Arvind Kumar Rai And Others, (2013) 11 SCC 611 , it has been held by the Supreme Court the mere inclusion in the select list does not give any right, legally enforceable to the candidate to seek appointment to a post. The select list can always be withdrawn and/or cancelled and fresh recruitment ordered in such cases in the interest of administration and on various considerations to be made. 25. If that be the legal position, and if the case is analyzed in the backdrop of the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view recruitment undertaken as per the Rules of 2009 is a process which vitiates the recruitment of Articles of 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Merely by conducting a viva voce test a selection to a class IV post, in our considered view, should not be and cannot be approved by us in the light of the legal principles discussed hereinabove and when in such cases the selection process has not culminated in issuance of appointment letter, we have no hesitation in holding that all such process of selection should be cancelled and selection made afresh to the posts in all such districts in accordance to the new Rule of 2017. However, in such cases where the appointment letters have already been issued, the selected candidates joined or are on the process of joining duties, and where complaints are received, the High Court may cause an inquiry and after following the due process may annul the selection, if found to be illegal else the appointments can be approved, if the same are found to have been done in accordance with law as was prevalent on the date of initiating the process of appointment. As far as the other districts detailed at Annexure-P are concerned, we direct for cancellation of the ongoing selection process and to initiate the process of appointment afresh in accordance to Rules of 2017. In case, any appointment process in accordance to Rule of 2017 has commenced in any of the districts in the state Bihar, the same may proceed in accordance to new Rules. We allow this petition and dispose it of in the manner as indicated. 26. In case, any appointment process in accordance to Rule of 2017 has commenced in any of the districts in the state Bihar, the same may proceed in accordance to new Rules. We allow this petition and dispose it of in the manner as indicated. 26. During the course of hearing, Sri Bharti has raised serious objection with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners in filing of the petition. We are not concerned now with the locus standi of the petitioners as we have taken suo motu cognizance of the complaint brought to our notice and proceed in the matter keeping in view of the interest of justice and the legal issues involve in the matter. 27. We may clarify that the appointment already made under the Rules of 2009 i.e. where appointment orders have been issued and the selected candidates have joined service, as a right has accrued to the candidate by acceptance of joining, the same need not be cancelled or annulled nor can they be challenged only because the same have been made under the 2009 Rules. 28. The petition is allowed and disposed of.