JUDGMENT Goutam Bhaduri, J. - Since the issue pertains to cancellation of recruitment process/ selection to the vacant posts of Constables (GD) in the entire batch of petitions, they are heard and decided together by the common order. 2. The common challenge is to the order dated 27.09.2019 filed as Annexure P-1 whereby the recruitment process for selection to 2259 vacant posts of Constables (General Duty) in Police Force was cancelled. 3. The facts of the case are that on 29.12.2017, an advertisement was issued for selection and recruitment of Constables (General Duty). The said advertisement was made to fall in line with the proposed amendment which was to be incorporated in Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2007 (henceforth called as "the Rules of 2007). On 03.01.2018, the filling of on-line application forms started and the last date for submission of on-line application was 04.02.2018. The petitioners contend that on 23.2.2018, a gazette notification was issued by the State wherein the proposed amended rules were notified. Thereafter, as per the time-schedule, in the month of May-June, 2018 the candidates were called to undergo the Physical Proficiency Test and physical measurements for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD). Subsequently on 07.09.2018, the Additional Director General of Police issued letters to all the Superintendents of Police in the State for taking suitable steps to conduct the written examination of Constable (General Duty) Recruitment for 2017-2018. The written test was conducted on 30th September, 2018. Thereafter the model answers were published on 04.10.2018 by the Police Headquarters in the official website and objections were invited. Subsequent thereto on 26.12.2018, the model answers were again published by the Police Head Quarters and after sorting out objections, 4 questions were deleted in all the 4 sets of question/answer sheets. 4. Thereafter since the result thereof was not declared, a Writ Petition bearing WPS No. 1923 of 2019 was filed by few of the candidates wherein this Court by order dated 18.03.2019 directed respondent No.2 to take decision within a period of 60 days for publication of results. Thereafter on 27.09.2019, the orders have been passed by respondent no.2 for cancellation of recruitment process of the Constables (GD) on the ground that it may give rise to certain legal impediment as per the opinion of the Law Department. Thereafter on 27.09.2019, the orders have been passed by respondent no.2 for cancellation of recruitment process of the Constables (GD) on the ground that it may give rise to certain legal impediment as per the opinion of the Law Department. Thereafter on the same date i.e., 27.09.2019 the gazette notification was issued by respondent No.1 whereby the earlier amended rules of 23.02.2018 were replaced by old rules and the Officer-In-Charge was appointed for recruitment and selection afresh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire process of recruitment of Constables (GD) were completed and only the results were awaited. It is contended that the recruitment process was done on the basis of amended recruitment rules for the Constable and in the initial advertisement, the criteria for selection of Physical Proficiency Test was published which would require for a male candidate to complete 1500 meters run in 5.40 minutes and for a female candidates, the requirement of running was of 800 meters in 3.20 minutes. It is stated that the proposed rules before the amendment was notified before 23.02.2018 were in public domain and initially after qualifying in Physical Proficiency Test, the subsequent written examination was conducted. 6. It is further contended that in respect of recruitment to the post of Constable Telecom Department, on 14.05.2018 the on-line applications were invited from the candidates for filling up vacant posts of Constable Telecom pursuant to the amended rules. It is stated that the last date for filling up of application forms for the Constable Telecom was 14.06.2018 and on 14.6.2018 itself the gazette notification of amended Rule was made after Constable Telecom Recruitment Rules. It is stated that the persons who passed though the similar like nature of test i.e., Constable Telecom were selected and recruited whereas in respect of the petitioners on the ground of technicalities the recruitment process has been cancelled. It is further stated that the rules were amended invoking section 50 of the C.G. Police Regulation 2007 and it is further contended that the said Police Regulation do not contemplate about the publication of the rules. Therefore, it is stated that the hyper technical view was adopted that the gazette notification is not done when the recruitment process forms were filled up. Reference was made to a case law reported in G.N. Nayak Vs. Therefore, it is stated that the hyper technical view was adopted that the gazette notification is not done when the recruitment process forms were filled up. Reference was made to a case law reported in G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University, (2002) 6 SCC 127 and would submit that when every-thing was in the public domain and in the know of the candidates who participated in the examination, cancellation of the examination merely on the basis of apprehension is illegal arbitrary and without application of mind. 7. It is further contended that the recruitment process started in the year 2017 and by amended Rules the Radio Frequency Intervention Device (RFID) which eliminates the human intervention to judge the physical proficiency test, which was more scientific and transparent method was adopted. It is further stated that the process for test of physical proficiency is adopted from different Police Agencies of Mumbai, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Telengana, BSF and CRPF, Karnataka Police Act etc., and as was advised by Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of New Delhi. Therefore, the same is more scientific and no fault can be attributed. Further it is contended that the State is silent as to what was the reason to cancel the examination since no complaint of corrupt practice or like nature whatsoever was made in respect of examination. Referring to a case law reported in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional. Manager, UPFC, (1993) 2 SCC 279 Para 21 Page 297 it is stated that the respondents have failed to satisfy and the authority should justify the action assailed on the touch-stone of justness, fairness, reasonableness and as a reasonable prudent owner/employer. 8. It is further contended that unless certain bias is shown, only on whimsical apprehension, the said process cannot be stalled. The further reference was made in (2002) 2 SCC 712 Paras 33 and 34 to contend that the authority in a judicial or quasi judicial matters must act impartially. Lastly referring to (2005) 1 SCC 625 (Paras 8 & 9), it is contended that the policy decision of the like nature has to be tested qua Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Lastly referring to (2005) 1 SCC 625 (Paras 8 & 9), it is contended that the policy decision of the like nature has to be tested qua Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, only on arbitrary action, the hopes and aspirations of those people cannot be shattered as it was their legitimate expectation to be treated in certain way by the administrative authority and in absence of any particular incident, only on the opinion of Law Department, the examination of like nature could not have been cancelled. Therefore, the action cancelling the examination is arbitrary, bad and lack of fairness and not supported by any reason in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court (supra) and prays for quashing of the order dated 27.09.2019 (Annexure P-1). 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel would refer to the document and submits that the Rules of 2007 were made in exercise of delegated power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the rules cannot be amended by virtue of section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. Referring to gazette notification of 23.02.2018 whereby the Rule of 2007 was amended, it is contended that the Chhattisgarh Police Act 2007 is framed for different purpose wherein the recruitment of like nature laying down the qualification has not been included. Consequently even if the rules have been amended in exercise of power under section 50 of the Act, 2007, the same cannot be given effect to. It is stated that therefore the illegality of notification dated 23rd February, 2018 was undone by the subsequent amendment of the gazette in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the Rules of 2007 was occupying the field when the last date for submission of application was fixed as 04th February 2018. There are certain replacement and deletion of rules of the criteria was made under Rule 6. 10. Referring to the decision rendered in SLP (Civil) No.2631 of 2009 (State of Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar), it is stated that the recruitment rules which were existing on the date when the selection began, would be binding and not the subsequent amendment and in this case, the selection process started on 29.12.2017, at that time, the old rules were applicable in the statute book. Referring to a case law reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 it is further stated that in the cases on hand since the vacancies arose prior to amendment of Recruitment Rules, the Rules before amendment would govern the process of recruitment. Similar reliance was placed in N. T. Devin Katti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 . It is further contended that no prejudice would be caused when the candidates who appeared in pursuance of earlier advertisement would be given the opportunity to appear again and no further fee would be charged. 11. Further referring to a decision of Supreme Court in State of M.P. Versus Raghuveer Singh Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 151 , it is contended that the selection process can always be cancelled before the finality of selection process and the recruitment rules are amended changing the qualification for appointment and in this case, recruitment commenced on the basis of wrong advertisement and as such the candidates facing the selection process do not acquire any vested right to be appointed to the post advertised since no right accrues even on selection. Further reliance was placed in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614 and contended that even if a number of vacancies were notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates were found successful, they would not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against such vacant posts especially when the final merit list was never published and no appointment orders were issued to the candidates. It is stated that the selection process has not yet been concluded, therefore, no mandamus can be sought for by any candidate who is neither selected nor appointed. It is further submitted that the prescription of mode of recruitment and criteria for selection are in the exclusive domain of the employer and what procedure to be adopted in the selection, it is prerogative of the State and no criteria can be laid down by the Court for selection. Reliance was placed in (2008) 9 SCC 242 . Accordingly it is contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents. The undisputed facts are that a notice in Chhattisgarh Police Website was issued in the month of December, 2017. Reliance was placed in (2008) 9 SCC 242 . Accordingly it is contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents. The undisputed facts are that a notice in Chhattisgarh Police Website was issued in the month of December, 2017. Subsequently an advertisement was issued on 29.12.2017 which is filed as Annexure P-2. In the said advertisement, the Physical Proficiency Test was a condition precedent that for male candidates the qualifying measure would be completion of 1500 meters race in 05.40 minutes and likewise for female candidates the qualifying measure would be completion of 800 meters race in 03.20 minutes. The said clause in the advertisement under the head Physical Proficiency Test reads as under : 13. Admittedly on the date of advertisement, the Rules named and styled as Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2007") was existing which is filed as Annexure R-1. The said rules do not have the aforesaid clause which was shown in advertisement. Instead, the following Rule for Physical Proficiency Test was prescribed, which reads as under: 14. The last date for submission of on-line application was on 04.02.2018. The Rules of 2007 though did not contain the clause of qualifying Physical Proficiency Test but was advertised as aforesaid. The gazette notification to amend the rule was made on 23.02.2018 (Annexure P5) wherein the Physical Proficiency Test was included in the Rule for qualifying the male candidates in respect of run race of 1500 meters in 05.40 minutes and for the female candidates, the qualifying measure would be 800 meters run in 03.20 minutes. Subsequently the candidates were called for physical measurements as per the initial advertisement and subsequently the Rules were amended and after shortlisting the candidates, the written examination for recruitment of constables against 2259 vacant posts was conducted on 30.09.2018. Thereafter the model answers to the questions of written examination were issued by the police headquarters in the official website of the Police on 04th October 2018 and objections were invited. After the objections were received, 4 questions were deleted in all sets. However, the result remained still undeclared. 15. Thereafter the model answers to the questions of written examination were issued by the police headquarters in the official website of the Police on 04th October 2018 and objections were invited. After the objections were received, 4 questions were deleted in all sets. However, the result remained still undeclared. 15. Thereafter since the results were not declared, few of the candidates who appeared in the examination filed a writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No.1923 of 2019 wherein this Court by order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-9) observed that the decision be taken within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such order. Subsequently on 27.09.2019 a gazette notification came into being vide Annexure P-17 whereby the entire process was cancelled, which is subject of challenge by all the petitioners. 16. The submission of the petitioners is that the recruitment was done on the basis of amended recruitment rules of constables and was made known to everyone, therefore, the subsequent decision to cancel the examination would be a hyper technical in nature. In support of their submission, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127 (supra) wherein certain guidelines were issued in terms of Police Act and there no existing rules guiding the said subject was occupying the field. In such background, the Court has laid down that when the candidates were aware of certain Order, participated in the interview and knew the contents, subsequently it would not be a void but an irregularity which could be curable and can be cured and therefore, the technicalities must not to out-weight the course of justice. 17. In the instant case, the State has come out with a specific plea that the advertisement was not in accordance with Rule which was existing on the date. It is also an admitted position that when the advertisement was made on 29.12.2017 for recruitment of constables, the Rules of Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constable (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 was occupying the field. The intention of the State would further be fortified by their notification dt.27th Sept. 2019 filed as Annexure P-17 wherein the old rules were again restored. Till that date, the results were not declared. 18. The intention of the State would further be fortified by their notification dt.27th Sept. 2019 filed as Annexure P-17 wherein the old rules were again restored. Till that date, the results were not declared. 18. In the aforesaid factual context, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 55 would be relevant wherein the Supreme Court has held that when any part of advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules, the statutory rules has to be given a way to the statutory prescription. The Statutory rules when the advertisement was made on 29.12.2017 was of 2007 which prescribes a different physical test for men and women as the Rules of 2007 prescribe different proficiency test. Therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar Vs. State of U.P (Supra) would govern the field. The relevant para reads as under : "27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 , Para 21. Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect : ( SCC p. 512) : "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by the PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 01.07.2001 and 01.07.2002 shall be treated within the 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. 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 the PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on the basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules." 19. The other submission of the petitioners is that the Radio Frequency Intervention Device is more scientific and can be relied upon. The said question would not fall for consideration to decide these writ petitions as the petitions are decided on the limited arena as to what would happen when the advertisement is against the statutory rules. 20. In case of State of Bihar Vs. Mithilesh Kumar , SLP (Civil) No.2631 of 2009 decided on August 19, 2010 (SCC Online) the Supreme Court has laid down that Recruitment Rules existing on the date when the selection process began shall be binding. The Court further observed that the earlier decisions, which have explained the law with regard to the applicability of the Rules which are amended and/or altered during the selection process, unanimously say that the norms or Rules as existing on the date when the process of selection begins will control such selection and any alteration to such norms would not affect the continuing process unless the same is given a retrospective effect. 21. Likewise in Y.V. Rangaiah Versus. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284 the Supreme Court held that the vacancies which occurred prior to amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is also held that filling up of posts which fall vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules. 22. In N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 (Supra) the Supreme Court laid down that the candidates who appeared in written or vivo voce test though acquire right for consideration for selection, but such rights are not absolute in the matter. It was further observed that the legislative intent is to be ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication and If the amended rules are not in retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with rules which were in force on the date of advertisement. 23. It was further observed that the legislative intent is to be ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication and If the amended rules are not in retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with rules which were in force on the date of advertisement. 23. In State of M.P. Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 151 , the Supreme Court laid down the law that the State has got power to prescribe the qualifications for recruitment. It is further observed that the candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination would only get legitimate expectation to be considered of their claim according to the rule then in vogue. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the statute, therefore, the State would be within its power to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified the recruitment and to issue a fresh notification in this regard on the basis of amended rules. 24. Further in Union of India Vs. Tarun K. Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 768 , it is stated that an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets a letter of appointment. In the cases in hand, no selection list has been published. In view of the aforesaid, discussions, this Court is of the view that when the advertisement was made on 29.12.2017, the physical proficiency test which was otherwise than in the existing rule of 2007 was holding the field on that date. Therefore, the advertisement was contrary to the statutory rule which prescribe the qualification. Subsequently the rule having been amended on 23.02.2018, the selection process continued and eventually again on 27.09.2019, the amended rule of 2018 was nullified. Till then, the names of the selected candidates were not revealed or published. Under the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Mallik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507 , Para 21 which was further followed in Ashish Kumar Vs. State of UP, (2018) 3 SCC 55 (Supra). Consequently no mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioners. 25. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed.