JUDGMENT : Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—The lis involved in these clubbed matters, principally, concerns the discontent of a few of the Kashmir Administrative Service (KAS) aspirants, who have failed to make it to the Personality Test / Interview, asserting, among other things, faulty evaluation by Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking of answer scripts of the candidates in the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive (Main) Examination held by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission from 02.07.2018 to 08.08.2018, introduced and adopted by the Commission, and thereby alleging a prejudice resulting in their non-inclusion in the merit list. 2. We think it unnecessary to describe the specific events and the circumstances which led to the initiation of the suo moto action commencing the aforesaid PIL. But to highlight the grievance of these KAS aspirants, some relevant backdrop facts need a narration. Whether the grievance projected is real or imaginary is the fundamental issue involved, which would be discussed later in this judgment. 3. The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (hereinafter, the Commission) issued notification no.PSC/EXM/2016/52 dated 18.06.2016 inviting online applications from permanent residents of J&K State for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016 (hereinafter, Preliminary Examination) initiating the process for selection of candidates to fill up 277 posts of Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service, J&K Police (Gazetted) Service and J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service (hereinafter, KAS) referred to it by the Government in the General Administration Department (GAD) vide communication no.GAD(Ser)Genl/87/2014 dated 17.06.2016. In all 47,122 candidates responded to the advertisement notice. The Commission conducted the Preliminary Examination on 19.03.2017 in which, out of 47,122 applicants, 36,681 candidates participated. The result of the Preliminary Examination was notified on 23.04.2017 declaring 6,925 candidates – 25 times the total number of vacancies – as having qualified for the J&K Combined Competitive (Main) Examination (hereinafter, the Main Examination). Consequent thereto, the Commission issued notification no.PSC/EXAM/2017/26 dated 09.05.2017 inviting online applications from the candidates who had been declared to have qualified for admission to the Main Examination. Meanwhile, some representations had been received from candidates in various subjects complaining errors in the question papers. This resulted in issue of notice dated 14.06.2017 by the Commission withdrawing the aforesaid notification dated 09.05.2017. Meanwhile, some representations had been received from candidates in various subjects complaining errors in the question papers. This resulted in issue of notice dated 14.06.2017 by the Commission withdrawing the aforesaid notification dated 09.05.2017. Subsequently, the result of the Preliminary Examination so notified was subjected to a change and the revised result was notified by notification dated 09.08.2017, whereby 429 candidates, who had been declared to have made the grade to participate in the Main Examination, were dropped and an equal number of fresh candidates got included in their place in the list. Thereafter, the Commission issued notification no.PSC/EXAM/2017/49 dated 25.08.2017 inviting online applications from the candidates who had been declared to have qualified for admission to the Main Examination vide the notification dated 09.08.2017. The last date for receipt/submission of such application forms was notified to be 15.09.2017. Subsequently, in terms of notification dated 06.10.2017, the Main Examination was initially scheduled to be conducted with effect from 07.11.2017 but, by a subsequent notice dated 25.10.2017, it was postponed. However, by another notification dated 07.11.2017, it was notified to be conducted with effect from 15.02.2018 and it was, in fact, partly conducted. 4. Meanwhile, the candidates who figured in the original result of the Preliminary Examination, but were not included in the revised result declared by the Commission, filed writ petition, OWP no.1332/2017, challenging the aforesaid notification dated 09.08.2017, whereby the Commission issued the revised list of candidates declared to have made the grade to participate in the Main Examination. That writ petition was decided by the learned Writ Court by judgment dated 30.12.2017, holding the candidates figuring in both the lists / result notifications entitled to apply for, and to participate in, the Main Examination. That judgment was challenged in LPA no.03/2018 which was finally decided by judgment dated 13.03.2018 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench directed cancellation of the Main Examination which was partly conducted with effect from 15.02.2018, at whatever stage it was on that date, and made directions to allow the 429 dropped out candidates and those candidates who had obtained merit in the Preliminary Examination determined in the process of re-evaluation equal to or more than the marks secured by the last candidate amongst the said 429 dropped out candidates. Consequent thereto, the Commission on 15.03.2018 finally declared 9,273 candidates as having qualified for the Main Examination. 5. Consequent thereto, the Commission on 15.03.2018 finally declared 9,273 candidates as having qualified for the Main Examination. 5. It is relevant to mention here that during the period the above litigation was pending in the Court, an important development took place on 07.12.2017 and 28.02.2018 vis-a-vis the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations) Rules, 2005 as would be referred to hereunder after the next paragraph. 6. The Commission on 17.05.2018 notified the conduct of the Main Examination with effect from 02.07.2018 which concluded on 08.08.2018. The Commission notified the result of the Main Examination vide notification no.PSC/Exam/80/2018 dated 04.12.2018 consequent whereof, the Commission issued e-summons to the successful candidates for the Personality Test / Interview scheduled to commence from 26.12.2018. Before proceeding further, a reference to the relevant Rules may be made together with the development that took place in the meantime, mentioned hereinabove. 7. The Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examinations by the Commission are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 (hereinafter, 2008 Rules), framed by the Governor of the State in exercise of the powers conferred in terms of Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules provides that the Examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter, Examination Rules, 2005). The 2005 Rules are framed by the Commission in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 133(1) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Reference to other relevant provisions contained in the 2008 Rules would be made later in this judgment. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to some of the provisions of the Examination Rules, 2005. Rule 9 of the Examination Rules, 2005 provides for appointment of Examiners and framing of instructions by the Commission to be adhered to by the Examiners and Evaluators. Rule 30 thereof relates to dispatch of answer scripts along with copy of instructions so framed by the Commission to the Evaluators for evaluation of the answer scripts and Rule 31 thereof provides for checking of the evaluated answer scripts by the Secrecy Section of the Commission. 8. On 07.12.2017 the Commission issued notification no.PSC/EXAM/75/2017 whereby it notified for information of the general public the insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005. 8. On 07.12.2017 the Commission issued notification no.PSC/EXAM/75/2017 whereby it notified for information of the general public the insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005. Rule 31A so inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005 and notified by the Commission, provided that the Commission shall gradually switch over to Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking (DE/OSM) and to begin with the same (DE/OSM) to be adopted in such examinations as may be decided by the Commission on case to case basis. It was further notified that this shall come into force with immediate effect. Thereafter, the Commission approved the introduction of the DE/OSM system in its meeting held on 28.02.2018. 9. As mentioned in para 6 above, the Commission declared the result of the Main Examination held by it pursuant to notification dated 17.05.2018 with effect from 02.07.2018 to 08.08.2018 vide notification no.PSC/Exam/80/2018 dated 04.12.2018. This notification, inter alia, notified the date for commencement of Personality Test / Interview with effect from 20.12.2018 and required the candidates to download the e-summon letters for the same from the Commission’s Website with effect from 10.12.2018. 10. Before the Commission would commence the Personality Test / Interview of the candidates, the records reveal that the instant PIL was commenced by order dated 21.12.2018 on the complaint of a few unsuccessful candidates in the Main Examination with regard to the DE/OSM so introduced and adopted by the Commission, complaining data corruption and huge human error. Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, came to be appointed as the Court Counsel and Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin was directed to file detailed counter affidavit meeting the objections pointed out by the aggrieved candidates and to show cause why the petition be not admitted. Meanwhile, it was ordered that, till next date of hearing, there shall be stay of further selection process. 11. Against the aforesaid Division Bench order dated 21.12.2018, the Commission filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal no.1493/2019 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 21.01.2019, while issuing notice therein, in the interim, ordered that the selection process can be completed and no appointment will be made. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the High Court would be free to decide the suo moto public interest litigation on merits on the date fixed. 12. The Supreme Court by order dated 21.01.2019, while issuing notice therein, in the interim, ordered that the selection process can be completed and no appointment will be made. The Supreme Court also made it clear that the High Court would be free to decide the suo moto public interest litigation on merits on the date fixed. 12. Consequent to the above, the Commission filed a detailed reply in the PIL wherein, apart from furnishing a detailed information seeking to meet the points raised by the aggrieved persons at whose behest the PIL was commenced, it took a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the PIL, citing certain judgments of the Apex Court and this Court to the effect that in service matters PIL cannot be entertained. 13. At the hearing of the PIL on 28.01.2019, it was brought to the notice of the Court by one of the counsel that some of the aggrieved candidates had filed a regular writ petition, being SWP no.07/2019. This petition, as would be referred to later in this judgment, inter alia, sought a writ of Certiorari to quash Rule 31A of the Examination Rules, 2005. The petition, obviously, was pending before the Writ Court. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in the PIL, the Court by its order dated 30.01.2019, after noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girjesh Shrivastava v. State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 707 , and a Division Bench decision of this Court in another PIL no.14/2018, titled Peoples Welfare Society v. Chancellor University of Jammu, decided on 28.11.2018, observed as under: “13. Admittedly, the case at hand is a service matter, therefore, needs a decision first to be taken on preliminary objection, but the only impediment is pendency of the SLP as we are not clear as to whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has left this Court free to proceed ahead with the case notwithstanding Special Leave Petition pending before that Court and deal with the preliminary objection. In our view, the order cannot be read in essence that the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed this Court to decide the PIL on its merits whether or not it is maintainable, therefore, we thought it proper to await further orders with reference to clarification from the Hon’ble Supreme Court which may be sought by the parties in appearance.” Further consideration of the matter was, accordingly deferred till clarification was sought either by the Commission or by any aggrieved party from the Supreme Court as to whether, in view of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, this Court could proceed to deal with the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the PIL. The matter was ordered to be listed immediately on further orders from the Supreme Court. 14. Meanwhile, another writ petition, SWP no.457/2019, was filed before the Court by some more unsuccessful candidates, which came up before a learned Single Judge on 12.03.2019. While issuing notice both in the main petition and IA no.01/2019 therein, the learned Single Judge reproduced in the order of the Court the statement made at the Bar by Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, who represented the Commission, that the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter projected in the writ petition, and that the Supreme Court had directed that the selection process could be completed but no appointment be made. This order was directly challenged by the petitioners in that petition before the Supreme Court in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal no.9541/2019, titled Owais Ahsraf Shah & ors. v the State of J&K & ors., with Diary no.14855/2019. That petition came up for consideration before the Supreme Court on 03.05.2019, and was disposed of by the Supreme Court together with the earlier SLP (C) no.1493/2019 referred to above, which had been filed by the Commission against the order dated 21.12.2018 passed in the PIL, by the following order: “Application for deletion of Proforma Respondent Nos. 5 to 44 in S. L. P. (C) No.9541/2019 is allowed. Permission to file Special Leave Petition in Diary No. 14855/2019 is granted. Our order dated 21.01.2019 passed in S. L. P. (C) No.1493/2019 leaves no room for any ambiguity or doubt that though the selection process can be finalized no appointment will be made. 5 to 44 in S. L. P. (C) No.9541/2019 is allowed. Permission to file Special Leave Petition in Diary No. 14855/2019 is granted. Our order dated 21.01.2019 passed in S. L. P. (C) No.1493/2019 leaves no room for any ambiguity or doubt that though the selection process can be finalized no appointment will be made. What would require to be made clear is that if appointments are not permissible to be made, the declaration of the results would be a futile exercise and may give cause to unnecessary third party rights which we must avoid. Accordingly, we direct that the result of the selection process shall not be declared. We also make it clear that the High Court is free to decide the pending Public Interest Litigation and all connected cases both on maintainability and merits. We request the High Court to do so at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Both the Special Leave Petitions shall stand disposed of in terms of the above. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 15. Consequent to the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court, the two writ petitions, SWP no.07/2019 and SWP no.457/2019, were ordered to be listed alongwith the PIL before the Division Bench by orders dated 08.05.2019 passed therein. Similarly, a third writ petition, WP(C) no.2255/2019 (originally registered at Jammu Wing as SWP no.430/2019), which was pending before the Jammu Wing of the Court, was transferred in terms of order dated 07.06.2019 from Jammu Wing to Srinagar Wing to be clubbed with the PIL. 16. So, this is how the three writ petitions have come to be clubbed with the PIL. Before stating the case of the petitioners in the three writ petitions, it needs a mention that some of the candidates, who qualified the Main Examination, filed miscellaneous applications seeking their arraignment as respondents in the PIL and the writ petitions. These applications were allowed by order dated 23.05.2019. Furthermore, some 13 other unsuccessful candidates made a miscellaneous petition no.4247/2019 praying for their arraignment as petitioners in SWP no.07/2019, but the same has remained pending on record without any orders as the counsel representing them did not make any attempt to press the same. Nonetheless, they would be covered by whatever decision is made in these petitions. Furthermore, some 13 other unsuccessful candidates made a miscellaneous petition no.4247/2019 praying for their arraignment as petitioners in SWP no.07/2019, but the same has remained pending on record without any orders as the counsel representing them did not make any attempt to press the same. Nonetheless, they would be covered by whatever decision is made in these petitions. Yet another miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners in SWP no.07/2019 on 01.06.2019 for arraying all the qualified candidates in the Main Examination as respondents in the writ petition through the Chairman of the Commission. This CMP has neither been numbered by the Registry nor has it been mentioned during the course of proceedings and hearing of these petitions, though it remains on record of the petitions. 17. Now that this Court is ordained to decide the maintainability of the PIL as well as the merit of the case of the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to first deal with the merits of the case of the petitioners in the three writ petitions and then, later, to deal with the issue of maintainability of the PIL. In this connection, we need to state the case of the petitioners in each of these petitions. 18. There is a common thread of grievance of the petitioners running through all the three writ petitions which is that they are alleging defect in DE/OSM of the answer scripts introduced and adopted by the Commission. In other words, their case is that this system of evaluation is fraught with errors. Concomitantly, questions are raised about the validity / legality of the procedure so adopted, its fairness and transparency etc. etc. It is also alleged that by insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005, the Commission has changed the Rules of the game amidst the selection process which, according to them, it could not do, and that such change has been made in a surreptitious manner etc. These grievances are sought to be anchored on the following averments: SWP No. 07/2019: 19. It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that it is not possible to correctly scan each and every page of the answer scripts from top to bottom and then transmit them to the Examiners. These grievances are sought to be anchored on the following averments: SWP No. 07/2019: 19. It is the case of the petitioners in this petition that it is not possible to correctly scan each and every page of the answer scripts from top to bottom and then transmit them to the Examiners. It is averred that since the candidates have no access to the methodology adopted by the Commission, there is no transparency in the system and a candidate is not in a position either to know whether his answer scripts have been wholly transmitted to the Examiner and evaluated by him, and whether all the questions answered by him have been marked and evaluated, and whether the totalling of marks of the answer scripts of the candidates has rightly been done, and how many marks have been awarded for each answer by the Evaluator. It is averred that no information in this regard is either available or made known to the petitioners by the Commission. It is further averred that even physical inspection of the answer scripts would not show evaluation by the Examiners as in the system so adopted the marks are not awarded on the answer script itself. On this count, it is said that there is no transparency or fairness in the evaluation of the answer scripts written by the Examinees. Then it is averred that enquiries made by the petitioners have revealed that the DE/OSM is not a fool proof system. In this connection, it is stated that the system is still in experimental stage and requires credible evidence before it could inspire confidence in the candidates. It is averred that the petitioners in law, under the principles of equality, fair play, good conscience and transparency have a right to inspect their answer scripts with a view to be sure that each and every answer is evaluated and marked by the Examiner as well as to know that totalling of marks has been done correctly. According to the petitioners, this right of theirs has been denied to them. Relying on some write up appearing in some website, Portal Straight Lines, it is averred that the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission has said that DE/OSM has not been adopted by the UPSC because it involves errors. According to the petitioners, this right of theirs has been denied to them. Relying on some write up appearing in some website, Portal Straight Lines, it is averred that the Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission has said that DE/OSM has not been adopted by the UPSC because it involves errors. It is averred that the system is also not reliable because techno savvy hackers can always interfere with the system of evaluation. It is further stated that in DE/OSM an Examiner is likely to commit mistakes in evaluation for variety of reasons and the standard of evaluation by constantly looking at the Screen of a Monitor is likely to undergo change when scorers of answer scripts have to be evaluated by an Examiner. 20. As to the insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005, it is stated that since the process of selection had commenced with the issue of advertisement notice on 18.06.2016, the Preliminary Examination was conducted in March, 2017 and results thereof had been declared, this Rule could, at best, be applicable prospectively and could not have been applied retrospectively. According to the petitioners, by application of such Rule / system, the candidates have been seriously prejudiced inasmuch as, at no stage, they were informed about the insertion and adoption of such Rule / system till the results of the Main Examination were declared. It is further stated that the advertisement notice clearly stipulated that the selection process would be conducted in accordance with the Examination Rules, 2005, 2008 Rules and SRO 196 of 2016, therefore, the application of Rule 31A, while the selection process was on, tantamount to changing the selection criteria amidst the selection process which is not permissible, and violates not only the terms of the advertisement notice, but also the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners have thus prayed for issue of writ of certiorari to quash Rule 31A of the Examination Rules, 2005 and to declare the DE/OSM methodology as bad in law, with further direction to the respondents to get the answer scripts evaluated through subject expert Examiners. 21. It is also averred in this petition that the Commission allowed a group of students who had opted for Zoology as one of their optional subject to take re-examination in the paper after cancelling their earlier examination. 21. It is also averred in this petition that the Commission allowed a group of students who had opted for Zoology as one of their optional subject to take re-examination in the paper after cancelling their earlier examination. It is stated that the cause of holding second examination was totally unjustified and that the Commission has thus shown favour to the candidates who opted Zoology as one of their subjects. It is further averred that the Commission resorted to scaling and moderation, but did not give out any details about the same to the candidates. Thus, according to the petitioners, they have been clearly prejudiced by the methodology so adopted by the Commission, SWP No.457/2019: 22. The petitioners in this writ petition also are aggrieved of the impugned DE/OSM, outsourcing of the process of scanning and online transmission of the answer scripts to the evaluators, and the consequent result of the Main Examination declared by the Commission. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the Rules there is no warrant or authority either for scanning of an answer script and/or evaluation of a scanned answer script through the mechanism of DE/OSM. It is pleaded that in order to switch over from manual evaluation to DE/OSM, the Commission was required to comply with certain imperatives, such as, firstly, there ought to have been a formal decision taken in that regard; secondly, the infrastructure ought to have been acquired to leverage the Information Technology Tools to build a robust DE/OSM system; and thirdly, the Evaluators appointed under Rule 9 of the Examination Rules, 2005 Rules ought to have been not only computer savvy, but also fully equipped in terms of the requisite capacity, capability and technical compatibility for DE/OSM. The petitioners in this regard have placed on record as annexure XV the tender notices issued by some of the Public Service Commissions and Examination Boards in the country to indicate that before switching over to the DE/OSM system the infrastructural measures are needed to be initiated. The petitioners in this regard have placed on record as annexure XV the tender notices issued by some of the Public Service Commissions and Examination Boards in the country to indicate that before switching over to the DE/OSM system the infrastructural measures are needed to be initiated. It is averred that so far as the Commission is concerned, there being no infrastructure in place imperative for a robust DE/OSM sine quo non for switching over from manual evaluation to DE/OSM, coupled with the mandate of the statutory rules in force, the act and conduct of the Commission in outsourcing the DE/OSM of answer scripts of the competing candidates, including the petitioners, is clearly and manifestly bereft of any sanction, warrant or authority of law, apart from being frowned upon by law as abdication of the power and authority as by law vested in the Commission, rendering the entire exercise void ab-initio. 23. The further case of the petitioners is that, as per the experts in the field, marks awarded through DE/OSM may not be reflective of the physical content of the answer scripts, therefore, the system is riddled with shortcomings / drawbacks and demerits, fraught with deleterious consequences of jeopardising the merit position of the competing candidates. To support the above assertion, the petitioners are relying on and have placed on record of the writ petition as annexure XVI photocopy of the views expressed by one Mr. Akhilesh Mittal, Joint Director IT, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, to Elets News Network (ENN). According to the petitioners since the entire exercise undertaken by the Commission in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts of the competing candidates is void ab-initio, therefore, it is non-est in law, and that under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer the consequences of such an action which is non-est in law. 24. The petitioners have, accordingly, inter alia, prayed for declaring the entire exercise undertaken by the Commission as non-est in law, and to direct the Commission to assess and evaluate manually the answer scripts of the competing candidates. WP(C) No.2255/2019: 25. The foundational facts stated and the grievances raised in this petition as well as the prayers made are almost identical or similar to the ones in the aforesaid two writ petitions. WP(C) No.2255/2019: 25. The foundational facts stated and the grievances raised in this petition as well as the prayers made are almost identical or similar to the ones in the aforesaid two writ petitions. In addition thereto, it is averred in this petition that the Commission did not make a mention of the insertion of Rule 31A before the Court during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, OWP no.1332/2017 or the LPA arising therefrom. From this it is sought to be inferred that the process of DE/OSM was to be adopted in future examinations, not in the current process. It is the further case of the petitioners in this petition that the digitalization was programmed in a manner that only 64 pages in a paper could be digitalized. Contrary to it, it is stated that in General Studies / Statistics, which was a compulsory paper, candidates had utilized more than 64 pages and attached maps and diagrams with their answer scripts. Thus all the pages of their answer scripts having not been digitalized, and evaluated, thereby jeopardising their rights. The other statements/averments made in the petition are almost identical to the ones taken in the aforesaid two petitions. 26. The petitioners in all these petitions have thus broadly raised the following points: (i) that introduction of DE/OSM could not have been made effective retrospectively and it was not intended to be made applicable to the current selection process; (ii) that the Commission has not visualized that DE/OSM is prone to data corruption and errors; (iii) that the Commission acted arbitrarily in adopting DE/OSM without acquiring the requisite infrastructure for the same; (iv) that the Commission outsourced the DE/OSM without ensuring transparency; (v) that given the quantum of answer scripts, DE/OSM could have been impossible for evaluators; (vi) that various Courts in the country have deprecated the practice of adopting DE/OSM of answer scripts; (vii) that the Commission has allowed bar coding of the answer scripts only on the first page, not on each page; (viii) that use of black ball point pen is a pre-requisite for proper scanning for DE/OSM. Since the petitioners were not informed about it before conduct of the Examination and they used blue pens/pencil impressions, which may not have been captured correctly in the scanning and digitalization process of answer scripts, jeopardising their rights; (ix) that maps/diagrams in the answer scripts have not been captured during their digitalization resulting in deleterious consequence for the petitioners; (x) that the petitioners have been deprived of physical verification and information about evaluation of their answer scripts; (xi) that UPSC despite having best resources goes for manual evaluation of answer scripts as according to them the DE/OSM is not error free; whereas the Commission has adopted this system to the great prejudice of the petitioners when, having limited number of candidates, it ought to have continued with manual evaluation; (xii) that the Commission has adopted arbitrary scaling and moderation without notifying the same; (xiii) that conduct of re-examination in Zoology Paper-I was contrary to Rules; (xiv) that adoption of Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking amidst the selection process tantamount to changing the rules of the game, which, in law, is not permissible; (xv) that Rule 31A inserted in the Examination Rules 2005, being violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution, is liable to be quashed. 27. The respondents have filed their respective replies. The Commission filed a detailed reply in response to the PIL. An identical reply has been filed by the Commission in the writ petition, SWP no.457/2019. It has also filed a separate reply in response to WP(C) no.2255/2019 at Jammu where it was originally filed and numbered as SWP no.430/2019. That apart, the Commission also filed a supplementary/additional affidavit stating in brief the steps taken by it from the date of initiation of the selection process till conduct and declaration of result of the Main Examination. Some of the candidates who had qualified for Personality Test / Interview and sought arraignment in these petitions as respondents also filed their respective replies. We shall first refer to the responses filed on behalf of the Commission whether by way of reply in the PIL or the writ petitions or in the supplementary affidavit on merits of the matter. 28. Some of the general facts stated by the Commission in its reply have already been narrated in the initial paras of this judgment; we think it unnecessary to reiterate the same. 28. Some of the general facts stated by the Commission in its reply have already been narrated in the initial paras of this judgment; we think it unnecessary to reiterate the same. The stand of the Commission is that, being a constitutional body, mandated with the duty of making recruitment for the services of the State in terms of Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, it is competent to make its own procedure for making selection of candidates. In order to discharge the duties so assigned to it by the Constitution, the Commission has framed a set of rules called the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business & Procedure) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter, the Business Rules) and the Examination Rules, 2005. It is averred that, in order to save time and to declare an error free result, and also to ensure transparency in the process of selections, the Commission decided to switch over to DE/OSM of answer scripts of the Examinations conducted by it on case to case basis to be decided by it. In this regard, an amendment to the Examination Rules, 2005 was carried out and made available in public domain by way of notification dated 07.12.2017 whereby Rule 31A was inserted in the said Rules. It is further stated that keeping in view the scheme of examination process as envisaged under the 2008 Rules read with the Examination Rules, 2005; and on analysing the data relating to previous examinations, its staff strength; and on threadbare discussions with different consultancies; and after obtaining inputs from other State Public Service Commissions, which have either switched over to the DE/OSM system or are in the process of switching over to this system, the Commission approved the adoption of the said evaluation system in the instant examination in its decision dated 28.02.2018. 29. The Commission in its reply has enumerated the various stages/steps which were involved, required to be, and were, in fact, taken by it in this behalf at the pre-evaluation stage, the first and the most important task in this regard being the selection of the Agency / Service Provider. 29. The Commission in its reply has enumerated the various stages/steps which were involved, required to be, and were, in fact, taken by it in this behalf at the pre-evaluation stage, the first and the most important task in this regard being the selection of the Agency / Service Provider. In this behalf it is stated in the supplementary affidavit that the Commission, with due consultations held with different State Public Service Commissions and on being satisfied about the credibility of the Consultancy, it opted for assignment of the given task to a Consultancy of international standard. Thereafter, as per the advisory of the Consultancy in question, certain facilities were arranged and ensured to be available, which are enumerated in paragraph 2(iii)(b) of the supplementary affidavit and reproduced hereunder: (i) Scanning location; (ii) Adequate storage space; (iii) Air conditioners; (iv) Furniture; (v) 10-mbps internet Bandwidth; (vi) On time availability of physical answer scripts; (vii) Dedicated resources at scanning centre; (viii) Accurate subject-wise mapping; (ix) Scanning locations with required infrastructure; (x) Accurate and timely delivery of physical answer scripts at the scanning centre; (xi) Power supply at the scanning locations (raw power alongwith backup); (xii) Real time issue resolution during receiving of answer scripts; (xiii) Detailed planning of location-wise, subject-wise, day-wise marker availability; (xiv) 24 x 7 security at the scanning centre locations; (xv) Accessibility of the Agency to the scanning centre location; and (xvi) Systematic storage of answer books. 30. According to the Commission, before the actual scanning of the Answer Books was done, certain further measures were required to be taken, which are enumerated in para II(b) at page 17 of the Commission’s reply to the PIL. These steps / measures are: (i) Collection of the answer books from the students in the Examination hall; (ii) Packing of the answer books along with the attendance rolls and the unused material; (iii) Collection of the sensitive material from all the Examination centres and its receipt in the Secrecy Section of the Commission. These steps / measures are: (i) Collection of the answer books from the students in the Examination hall; (ii) Packing of the answer books along with the attendance rolls and the unused material; (iii) Collection of the sensitive material from all the Examination centres and its receipt in the Secrecy Section of the Commission. This included getting the material from the centres located outside the headquarters of the Commission either by air or in the vehicles hired for the purpose escorted by the Security / Police Authorities; (iv) Mixing of the answer books received from different centres and undertaking the exercise in-house to ascertain the data provided by the Supervisors vis-à-vis attendance of the candidates, done through association of the staff of the Commission only after detaching the Part IV of the answer books, containing the identity of the candidate, and depositing these corners, duly sealed, with the Chairman so as to ensure that while cross checking the attendance list, the identity of the candidates is not revealed; (v) Marking blank pages of the answer books, if any, with red pen with a view to avoiding any insertion at the later stage; (vi) Stacking in a bundle of 300 answer books in the specially fabricated trunks and their dispatch to Jammu for purposes of scanning; (vii) Handing over of the answer scripts, in tranches, to the Consultancy undertaking the scanning activity, in house, by a Senior Officer of the Commission designated as Nodal Officer for the purpose; (viii) Receiving, counting and storing of the answer books; (ix) Machine cutting of the corner/spine in a straight line, with minimal margin, to avoid loss of written text; (x) Scanning of the answer sheets by the Consultancy ensuring capturing of the quality images ( in pdf, jpg), with the following automated quality checks to ensure error free scanning: (a) Checks for count of scanned pages during scanning process; (b) Checking of the Bar codes of the answer books and creation of the file name for the scanned images automatically; (c) Comparison between the inward list and scanned answer scripts as an additional check for avoiding discrepancy; (d) Auto management of the portion of the answer scripts to be scanned, obviating the need of cropping of the images; (e) Auto scanning of both sides of the pages without manual intervention; (f) Auto generation of the page name; (g) Auto error display in the event of any issue relating to paper movement during scanning and resumption of the scanning only after the same is cleared. (xi) Storing the scanned material of answer scripts in the media device; (xii) Uploading the scanned material of answer scripts in the data centre of the Consultancy; (xiii) Training of the Examiners through mock evaluation, notwithstanding they being computer literate or otherwise; (xiv) Subject-wise allocation of answer scripts to the Examiners who were engaged in such numbers as was the requirement depending upon the number of answer scripts of each subject, compulsory and optional. 31. Further, it is averred in the reply that with a view to ensuring transparent and error free evaluation of the answer scripts and result of the Examination, the Commission took numerous decisions/steps in consultation with the Consultancy. These steps are enumerated in para II(a) of the reply which are reproduced hereunder: (i) completion of the task of scanning of answer scripts in a time bound manner so as to enable start of the process of evaluation latest by 1st October, 2018; (ii) giving instructions to the Consultancy regarding careful corner cutting of the answer books for purposes of scanning as decided, in such a manner as would ensure that the answer books were handed over back to the Secrecy Section in the same condition as were handed over to them in the premises of the Commission; (iii) applying/pasting of independent barcodes in addition to the barcodes already subscribed on the answer books by the confidential printer engaged by the Commission, so as to avoid duplicity/missing of the answer scripts, which could be verified at different stages with reference to the two barcodes, one of the Commission already subscribed on the answer books and the other pasted by the Consultancy; (iv) decided not to upload the scanned data till the time the answer scripts handed over to the Consultancy for the purpose were returned by it to the Secrecy Section and counted under the supervision of the Deputy Controller of Examinations of the Commission; 32. It is averred that the following further steps were taken for the post evaluation process: (i) After completion of the process of evaluation at the designated two Hubs, where On Screen Marking was conducted through a pool of almost 150 faculty members and through four more evaluators for evaluation of the answer scripts of Kashmiri, Dogri and Punjabi in respect of which web based digital evaluation was resorted to at three different places, a thorough scrutiny, both computer based and manual, was got conducted through the result team of the Consultancy at the backend and discrepancies wherever noticed vis-à-vis evaluation of more than required number of answers as per the question paper rule were got corrected, which ensured an error free result formulation; (ii) After conduct of the quality checks by the Consultancy, the assessed score (data pertaining to the award of the marks to each bar-coded answer script by the Examiners) was shared by the Consultancy with the Controller of Examinations and alongside the unique login ID and password were shared for maintaining the confidentiality of the data; (iii) After receipt of the above data, the part-IV of the answer books detached at the pre-evaluation stage and kept under the custody of the Chairman in terms of the Business Rules of the Commission were obtained for being scanned and for mapping the particulars of the candidates on that with the part-III (answer book data received from the Consultancy in this case on which the barcodes of the Commission and of the Consultancy were subscribed); (iv) The mapped data so obtained was cross checked with the master data through specific computer programs. Besides, cross checking was also done manually on sample basis. It was ensured that the individual score (Barcode-wise) was not shared with the result formation team till complete verification of the present/absentee list was done vis-à-vis the candidates having appeared in the Examination; (v) The whole exercise was ensured to be conducted under the supervision of the Controller of Examinations in Secrecy Section of the Commission. 33. In para 2(iii)(c) of the supplementary affidavit, the Commission has further enumerated the other measures taken by it for ensuring fool proof on screen evaluation. It is stated therein that for the purpose of undertaking on screen evaluation, scanning of answer scripts was the additional process which had to be accomplished meticulously ensuring evaluation in a fair and fool-proof manner. In para 2(iii)(c) of the supplementary affidavit, the Commission has further enumerated the other measures taken by it for ensuring fool proof on screen evaluation. It is stated therein that for the purpose of undertaking on screen evaluation, scanning of answer scripts was the additional process which had to be accomplished meticulously ensuring evaluation in a fair and fool-proof manner. It is, however, stated that all the processes prior to this stage were the same as in respect of the earlier process of evaluation through manual mode. We have already mentioned some of these steps in para 29 hereinabove. Notwithstanding that, we notice that the Commission has enumerated these in the supplementary affidavit more elaborately and meaningfully, meeting certain vital points taken by the petitioners in their writ petitions. We, therefore, deem it profitable to reproduce hereunder these measures taken by the Commission and mentioned by it in para 2(iii)(c) of the supplementary affidavit. These are: (i) Receipt of sensitive material from the examination halls in respect of all the papers on day to day basis; (ii) Intermixing of these papers, subject-wise, in the strong room of the Commission under the close supervision of the Controller of Examinations; (iii) Supplying of the answer scripts to the teams of officials of the Commission constituted for purposes of corner cutting on day to day basis, keeping in view the capacity of these teams to perform this job of corner cutting meticulously; (iv) It is stated that the above job was done under CCTV surveillance, which facility was introduced specifically for this purpose. The access control system allowing entry of only authorised officials, who were issued identity cards, was also introduced for the first time; (v) It is stated that in order to transport the sensitive material, it was earlier done through stacking in gunny bags, but, this time, on the intervention of the Chairman of the Commission, it was decided to transport the material in trunks. Accordingly, trunks were got fabricated with desired specifications with a carrying capacity of 300 answer scripts per trunk, with slight variations depending upon the subject-wise answer scripts that had to be stored. Accordingly, trunks were got fabricated with desired specifications with a carrying capacity of 300 answer scripts per trunk, with slight variations depending upon the subject-wise answer scripts that had to be stored. A trunk-wise inventory is stated to have been prepared to obviate the possibility of inter-mixing of the answer scripts; (vi) Before start of the process of scanning, the access control and CCTV surveillance facility was put in place and only the employees of the consultancy authorised to perform this job were allowed. This was ensured by way of deputing a senior level officer next only to the Controller, of the Deputy Secretary level to Jammu who was made responsible for dispatch to, and receipt from the scanning centre, established within the premises of the Commission. Notwithstanding the capacity of the Consultancy to undertake scanning of answer scripts of a larger number given the experience gained by it through conduct of similar processes in respect of other examination conducting bodies, the number would never go above 4000 which works out to 400 scripts per scanner per day with working hours of 10 to 12 hours, meaning thereby 40 scripts, which by any standards is much less than the actual scanning capacity of the heavy duty machines put for the purposes; (vii) Before undertaking scanning and un-stitching of the answer scripts by way of spine cutting, a separate team of officials of the Consultancy undertook the process of bar-coding of the answer scripts, which was done to ensure the additional identification of the answer scripts as these answer scripts supplied to the candidates in the examination halls had pre-printed Barcodes on the entire answer books, on each sheet. This was done to avoid the possibility of any mismatch and as a measure of double check. For this purpose a team comprising four employees deputed by the Consultancy was engaged; (viii) After completion of the process of subscription of additional barcodes by the Consultancy and the spine cutting, the process of scanning was undertaken and it was ensured that till scanning of an answer script was not done by the person handling one scanning machine, the second answer book would not be supplied to him. This was followed in respect of each employee of the Consultancy handling scanning of different sets of answer scripts. This was followed in respect of each employee of the Consultancy handling scanning of different sets of answer scripts. This is the standard process followed by the Consultancy as a part of their Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to avoid mixing; (ix) For spine cutting a team of four employees was put on the job. Almost spine cutting @ 1000 scripts per day per person working out as 90 to 100 answer scripts per hour by one person, was done; (x) The scanners were job specific designed to capture blue, black, pencil, images / impressions; (xi) As regards ensuring the scanning of all the pages of the answer scripts, the scanning system would after completing scanning of a particular answer script indicate the number of pages scanned which was being tallied with exact number of pages of the answer scripts. Each and every page of all answer scripts was scanned; (xii) A particular team in addition to the Barcode generation team, spine cutting team, a scanning team, was also made available which would check the quality of scanning and only after its being sure, the un-stitched answer scripts would be sent back to another team for stapling, packing of the bundle of answer scripts in the bags and storing them back in the specially fabricated trunks before being handed over back to the officer from the Commission. While handing over the trunks, the bag-wise detail of the answer scripts was also provided; (xiii) Besides the special electricity transmission line for uninterrupted power supply, the Genset facility was also kept available. UPSs were also available for avoiding loss of data for the period between the power cut and re-supply of electricity through operation of Genset; (xiv) The process of identification of the Evaluators was done simultaneously while the Examination process was underway; (xv) Conferences were held, first with the Coordinators who were engaged to oversee the administrative aspect of the evaluation process and the Reviewers under whose direct supervision the evaluators appointed by the Commission had to work. The Reviewers (Senior most faculty members) as a matter of norm and as far as possible were engaged in respect of the subjects having lage number of answer scripts on account of more number of candidates, which system was, however, dispensed with in respect of the subjects which required only a single or, at the most, two to three evaluators; (xvi) After identification of the pool of faculty members, another conference was held in presence of the Chairman of the Commission where the Hubs were located in which presentations were made both by Chairman and the Controller of Examination to sensitize the faculty members about the nuances of the on screening method of evaluation. This was followed by power point presentation by the expert team of the Consultancy and all the doubts whichever arose were cleared on spot. In this connection detailed instruction sheets were also supplied to the evaluators; (xvii) The day following the conference was aimed at ensuring presence of these faculty members at the Hubs, capturing their details by the Consultancy, generation of the user IDs, passwords and briefing by the Controller, the expert team of the Consultancy and the Reviewers; (xviii) Next stage was providing hands on training by the experts of the Consultancy to the evaluators; (xix) Further, the Consultancy / Service Provider having its own private network with latest antivirus installed in all the systems in the utilized Hubs with disablement of USB ports. Thus it has been ensured that there was no data corruption or data hacking in the whole process. It is stated by the Commission that the aforesaid steps taken would demonstrate the putting in place of a fool-proof mechanism which was discussed much before undertaking the scanning activity and every requisite infrastructure was put in place by the Commission as per the requirement of the Consultancy. The Commission in its reply has further enumerated the advantages achieved by it in ensuring effectiveness, fairness and transparency in adopting the system of evaluation in question. The Commission in its reply has further enumerated the advantages achieved by it in ensuring effectiveness, fairness and transparency in adopting the system of evaluation in question. The advantages so enumerated in para (c) at page 19 of the reply are reproduced hereunder: (i) zero physical space required to store the answer books post marking; (ii) elimination of logistic effort and resource deployment; (iii) courier service eliminated and regret cases of re-routing of the answer booklets avoided; (iv) elimination of the possibility of loss of the sensitive material; (v) elimination of the possibility of leakage before declaration of results, because of virtually no manual intervention; (vi) elimination of the possibility of tampering with the final scores as is the case with the manually evaluated papers; (vii) elimination of the possibility of any answer remaining unchecked which usually happens in the manual mode of evaluation in which the answer scripts have to be sent back to the evaluators for rechecking which consumes time; (viii) elimination of the chances of totalling errors; (ix) reduction in the overall evaluation cycle time; (x) timely declaration of the result due to continuous monitoring of the progress with reference to daily progress report generated and shared by the Consultancy; (xi) ensured marking of every page of answer scripts since the answer scripts after being awarded marks could not get submitted unless each page of the answer script was gone through by the Examiner; (xii) elimination of the manual effort put in by the Commission for verification post evaluation vis-à-vis any question having remained unmarked, totalling error etc.; (xiii) the Examiners found the system convenient as it: (a) eliminated effort in handling physical answer books; (b) automated totalling of marks by the System ensuring zero totalling error; (c) eliminated possibility of lesser / over marking of any question; (d) eliminated efforts, time and human mistakes for filling final marks; (e) saved at least five additional minutes per paper due to elimination of efforts towards manually checking totalling / unanswered portion of the answer scripts, which resulted in devoting more time by the Examiner for marking; (f) defining questions as optional / extra ensured error free marking. 34. 34. As regards the assertions made by the petitioners that UPSC has not adopted the DE/OSM, it is averred by the Commission in its reply that all the State Governments in India have accorded general sanction to the acceptance of honoraria by the officers/experts of their respective States for the work done in connection with the examinations conducted by the UPSC. In view of this, it is not necessary for any Government Servant of any State to obtain formal sanction to do the work assigned to him by the UPSC. Similarly, it is stated that, the Central Government Servants have a general sanction to accept the work assigned by UPSC. It is submitted that in this manner the UPSC has the availability of the services of experts of its choice which is helpful in ensuring in-house evaluation of answer scripts of different examinations, more specifically Civil Services Examinations for which evaluators from the length and breadth of the country of choice are available and associated with the in-house evaluation of answer scripts by the UPSC. To the contrary, it is stated that the Commission, in view of the peculiar situation, whereunder neither the experts in such a large number, as are required for conduct of the in-house evaluation, become available, nor can it totally rely upon the scanty human resource pool available in the State. As such, it is stated that the Commission has to resort to the mechanism of sending answer scripts to different subject experts outside the State as has been the practice in the past. It is averred that the Commission is bereft of such advantages of in-house evaluation of answer scripts; therefore, it had to explore the other available option which is akin to the in-house system of evaluation which, according to the Commission, to a larger extent has been achieved by way of designating evaluation Hubs wherein all the Examiners were invited for conduct of the evaluation. It is averred that this has also ensured evaluation of answer scripts by the same faculty member as is offered the appointment as an expert, further obviating the possibility of evaluation of the answer scripts by any second hand which is very much possible in the manual system wherein the presence during the process of evaluation of the faculty member chosen for the job cannot be monitored. It is stated that in the circumstances alternate feasible / viable options were explored and it was noticed that all the impediments which the Commission faced in terms of the availability of the faculty members at the Commission’s headquarters and shortcomings observed in the manual evaluation had been overcome by different State Public Service Commissions, more specifically by Gujarat Public Service Commission, Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Karnataka PSC by switching over to the DE/OSM which had helped in achieving the objectives in the backdrop of which this was introduced. It is averred that in this context the Commission is not the only Public Service Commission which has introduced the system. 35. The Commission has further stated that the introduction of the DE/OSM is not connected, in any way, with the eligibility or criteria for selection envisaged by the 2008 Rules and prescribed in the advertisement notice. Therefore, it does not amount to changing the rules of the game midway during the selection process. It is submitted that the Commission on due deliberation of the issues with reference to the number of candidates who appeared in compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA no.03/2018, and also keeping in view the logistics required in case of manual evaluation, more so to ensure evaluation in a fair and transparent manner, decided to adopt DE/OSM which, in any case, does not amount to change of the criteria, as is sought to be alleged by the petitioners. 36. It is further stated that there is no thumb rule providing for use of black ball point pen only. At the same time, it is averred that the task of digitalization of evaluation, which included scanning, was assigned to most reputed Consultancy of India, having the requisite infrastructure/equipment to ensure quality scanning. As to the apprehension of data corruption on account of transfer of data, it is stated that no such instance came forth in the process upon verification of the sample data of the candidates. It is also stated that in view of the huge experience of the Consultancy in the field due to its association with different examining bodies and having undertaken similar assignments, no such instance has been reported in the past as well. As such all these assertions of the petitioners are nothing but their own assumptions and presumptions which otherwise have no legal or factual foundation. 37. As such all these assertions of the petitioners are nothing but their own assumptions and presumptions which otherwise have no legal or factual foundation. 37. As to the assertion relating to hiring of a Consultancy and outsourcing of the scanning activity to it, alleged to be outside the ambit of the Commission and the same having been done without tendering process, it is stated by the Commission that the Consultancy was chosen after due consultations held with different State Public Service Commissions in the country and after ensuring the credibility of the Consultancy. It is submitted that to the wisdom of the Commission, resorting to the process of open tender in such a sensitive issue would have compromised the secrecy, which is of paramount importance, and the Commission would also not have been able to hire the best available Consultancy having expertise in the field. 38. As regards the allegation of arbitrary scaling and further that the same was not mentioned in the notification, it is stated that the result was formulated on the basis of the actual marks obtained by the candidates and that scaling was not adopted by the Commission. 39. It is further pleaded in the reply by the Commission that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the petitioners after having participated in the selection process alongwith other candidates and having failed to make the grade to be called for the Personality Test / Interview cannot turn around and question insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules of 2005 or raise any suspicion about the process of evaluation adopted by the Commission. It is also stated by the Commission that the selection made by the Commission cannot be challenged or interfered with unless allegations of mala fides are made and established. It is admitted by the Commission that in respect of Zoology-I paper, the Commission, in view of the facts enumerated in notification dated 28.07.2018, had to re-conduct the examination. It is stated that such act of the Commission is permitted by Rules. 40. The Commission in its reply filed in response to SWP no.457/2019, apart from what has been narrated above, has further stated that all pages of the answer books were bar-coded eliminating the chances of insertion / replacement of any page. Besides, necessary trainings to the evaluators / examiners were carried through mock evaluation. 40. The Commission in its reply filed in response to SWP no.457/2019, apart from what has been narrated above, has further stated that all pages of the answer books were bar-coded eliminating the chances of insertion / replacement of any page. Besides, necessary trainings to the evaluators / examiners were carried through mock evaluation. In para (iv) at page 3 of the preliminary submissions contained in their reply to WP(C) no.2255/2019, the Commission in this behalf has further stated as under: “iv/ Training to experts & Mock drill: Subject experts chosen from the prestigious institutions of the country were either well aware about the digital evaluation because of being associated in the evaluation process of the other examination bodies including Public Service Commissions where On Screen marking of Answer Scripts is in vogue or were computer literate to understand the nuances of the process notwithstanding that, pre-evaluation conference both by the Chairman and Controller of J&K PSC besides concerned experts of the Consultancy to power point presentations. This was followed by mock drill involving evaluation of dummy answer scripts. After adequate training to the satisfaction of the Consultancy, the actual process of evaluation was started.” 41. It is further averred in the aforesaid reply that rechecking facility is available in OSM as RTI link by which the candidates can see their evaluated answer book alongwith marks awarded to each question. This is repeated by the Commission in para II(a)(vi) at page 17 of their reply to WP(C) no.2255/2019 in the following words: “The candidates can inspect both original answer manuscript and evaluated manuscript through a facility known as ‘RTI Link’ after the final selection list is recommended, so the right of inspection has not been taken away by the Commission as has been alleged. Candidates can see the question-wise marks and total marks awarded to their answer script through ‘RTI Link’.” 42. In para II(a)(vii) at page 17 of their aforesaid reply, the Commission has also denied that almost all candidates among the 2348 candidates who were allowed to appear in the Main Examination on the direction of the Court in the LPA no.03/2018 have qualified the said Examination. It is stated that out of 2348 candidates only 78 candidates qualified the Mains, which comes to just 3.32 %. It is further averred that out of 6925 candidates, 885 candidates qualified the Mains Examination which comes to 12.77%. 43. It is stated that out of 2348 candidates only 78 candidates qualified the Mains, which comes to just 3.32 %. It is further averred that out of 6925 candidates, 885 candidates qualified the Mains Examination which comes to 12.77%. 43. As to the statement made in ground (d) of WP(C) no.2255/2019 that various courts have deprecated the practice of adopting On Screen Evaluation, it is stated that perusal of these judgments relating to On Screen Evaluation process conducted by various examination conducting bodies clearly suggest that none of such judgments fit in the facts of the present case and all such judgments are based on specific facts of the given cases. 44. 44. Now, coming to the replies filed by the private respondents, namely, those of the few candidates who have been declared successful in the Main Examination and have sought arraignment in these petitions, The private respondents 4 to 10 in SWP no.07/2019, in their reply, among other things, have stated that the petitioners have no case or cause and none of their rights have been violated; that the relief prayed for by the petitioners is not countenanced by law; that the contentions raised by the petitioners are an afterthought; that the Commission had vide notification dated 07.12.2017 notified for the information of general public that Rule 31A was inserted which provided for gradual switching over to DE/OSM; that the mode and method of evaluation adopted by the Commission was to the knowledge and notice of the petitioners; that it is only after the petitioners failed to qualify the Main Examination that they have turned around and filed the writ petitions; that the petitioners have levelled vague and bald allegations against the mechanism, methodology and procedure adopted by the Commission; that the Commission is within its powers to amend the Examination Rules, 2005; that the decision to insert Rule 31A after Rule 31 in the Examination Rules, 2005, has been taken by the competent authority for ensuring transparent and error free result; that in view of insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005, the Commission is not required to get the answer scripts manually evaluated; that the Commission has not adopted any unfair procedure, nor has it acted in contravention of any law; that none of the rights of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution have been violated; that automation of the evaluation workflow enables the creation of a transparent process that comes with a high degree of security; that the petitioners had, admittedly, responded to notification dated 09.05.2017 in terms whereof applications were invited from the candidates who were shortlisted in the Preliminary Examination for admission to the Main Examination; that the notification dated 09.05.2017 provided that the Examination would be conducted in terms of the Examination Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time; that the notification in terms whereof Rule 31A was inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005, was duly published and the petitioners had notice of the fact that the Commission was switching over to the DE/OSM in such Examinations as may be decided by the Commission; that the allegations of arbitrariness, irregularities and omissions in the process of DE/OSM adopted by the Commission have not been made out; that such allegations are misconceived, motivated and based on assumptions and presumptions; that the petitioners appeared in the Examination which was conducted after insertion of Rule 31A. It is stated by the respondents that once a candidate takes a chance and participates in the selection process, only because the result is not palatable to him, the candidate cannot turn around subsequently and contend that the process has been unfair; that the conduct of the petitioners disentitles them from questioning the selection process as, having participated in the selection process, they have waived their right to question the methodology adopted by the Commission. 45. The private respondents 11 to 15 in SWP no.07/2019 in their reply-affidavit have stated that incorporation of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005, does not, in any way, impair or take away any existing right of the petitioners as on the date of incorporation, i.e., 07.12.2017 or even thereafter, which is sine qua non for invoking the principle that rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started. It is stated that the petitioners in their pleadings have also not stated as to what prejudice has been caused to them by incorporation of Rule 31A in the Rules, and that merely because that Rule or condition has been inserted governing the examination process after advertisement notification has been issued does not ipso facto amount to invocation of the aforesaid salutary principle of law. 46. It is next averred by these respondents that Digital Evaluation and On Screen Marking are two distinct things, in that the Digital Evaluation is an innovative software solution which automates manual evaluation where the computer software itself evaluates the answer scripts without any human intervention; whereas On Screen Marking is marking of answer scripts on screen or e-marking which allows the examiner to view and evaluate answer scripts on the computer and return the marks over the internet; thereby On Screen Marking also involves manual evaluation. The respondents, in light of the above, state that it is, therefore, wrong on the part of the petitioners to plead that digital evaluation has been resorted to which is factually wrong. It is further stated by them that, in fact, On Screen Marking is permissible under Rule 30 of the Examination Rules, 2005 itself. 47. These respondents have also stated in their reply that the contention of the petitioners as to the applicability of Rule 31A in the present selection process is an afterthought. It is further stated by them that, in fact, On Screen Marking is permissible under Rule 30 of the Examination Rules, 2005 itself. 47. These respondents have also stated in their reply that the contention of the petitioners as to the applicability of Rule 31A in the present selection process is an afterthought. In this regard it is submitted that the Commission notified the insertion of Rule 31A vide notification dated 07.12.2017 for information of general public. The petitioners accepted it and, having the knowledge of the existence of the said Rule, they participated in the Main Examination. The petitioners did not challenge the applicability of the Rule when it was notified on 07.12.2017; instead accepted it. It is only when they could not qualify the Main Examination that they have decided to take shelter under the premise of inapplicability of the Rule in the Main Examination, 2016. The petitioners’ conduct having been acquiescent, they cannot be allowed to question the applicability of the Rule at this stage. 48. Respondents 16 to 21 in their objections/reply have said that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because it is settled proposition of law that when a candidate has taken a calculated risk and has participated in the process of selection, but has not made the grade, he is estopped under law to challenge the same after he was declared unsuccessful in getting selected. In addition to stating the relevant factual events narrated above, the respondents have stated that the petitioners have no right to challenge the procedure of On Screen Marking introduced and adopted by the Commission. It is averred that Rule 31A inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005, in terms of notification dated 07.12.2017 clearly provides that such marking can be adopted in such examination as may be decided by the Commission on case to case basis, and once the Commission decided to adopt the system in the Main Examination, 2016, the petitioners having not raised any objection against the same, they cannot question the same after having failed in the examination; they are estopped from doing so. It is also stated that in furtherance to Rule 31A, the Commission on due deliberation of the issue, in its meeting held on 28.02.2018 approved the proposal of its Examination Section relating to introduction of the On Screen Evaluation received from the service provider. It is also stated that in furtherance to Rule 31A, the Commission on due deliberation of the issue, in its meeting held on 28.02.2018 approved the proposal of its Examination Section relating to introduction of the On Screen Evaluation received from the service provider. It is further their case that the introduction of On Screen Marking by the Commission is meant to ensure more transparency and fairness in the process of evaluation. The petitioners have challenged Rule 31A of the Examination Rules, 2005 on unfounded and baseless grounds; therefore, the writ petition is grossly misconceived and liable to be dismissed. These respondents have also adopted the detailed reply filed by the Commission. 49. We heard the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the parties; perused the respective pleadings of the parties, the material placed by them on record of the writ petitions and the original record produced by the Commission; and considered the matter. 50. The whole controversy involved herein, as already mentioned, revolves round the method of evaluation adopted by the Commission in assessing the comparative merit of the competing candidates in the Main Examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2016. Rule 31A inserted by the Commission in the Examination Rules, 2005 mentions switching over to Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking. We may at the very outset say that there is some amount of confusion in the minds of the petitioners and, of course, even some of their counsel about the nature and functionality of this system which has given rise to certain misconceptions leading to unfounded apprehensions and assumptions. Respondents 11 to 15, represented by Mr. Arif Sikander, Advocate, in their reply have stated that Digital Evaluation and On Screen Marking are distinct. Given the fact that the Commission has actually resorted to On Screen Marking methodology, we are not concerned with real technological connotation of the term Digital Evaluation. It would suffice to say that in context of the matter pending before us and the reply submitted by the Commission, it becomes axiomatic that the term Digital Evaluation has been interchangeably used for On Screen Marking. So what is On Screen Marking? On Screen Marking is a method where an answer script is electronically transmitted to an Examiner/Evaluator who evaluates it on screen and marks it on the screen itself and returns the marks to the source. So what is On Screen Marking? On Screen Marking is a method where an answer script is electronically transmitted to an Examiner/Evaluator who evaluates it on screen and marks it on the screen itself and returns the marks to the source. It is not that any software is used to evaluate the answer scripts without any human intervention; evaluation is rather done by an expert in the subject in the same manner as was done conventionally. As rightly put by respondents 11 to 15, represented by Mr. Arif Sikander, Advocate, in their reply, in the conventional system original answer scripts were sent to the Examiners/Evaluators for evaluation and marking; whereas in the On Screen Marking system soft copies of the same are sent to them for evaluation. So evaluation of an answer script, as in the conventional method, is actually done by an expert – a human – in the On Screen Marking as well, and the marking, i.e., award of marks by the Examiner/Evaluator, instead of writing on the answer script, is made electronically. So the clamour of the petitioners in this regard is unfounded, misconceived and unnecessary. 51. Mr. Arif Sikander, learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents has also taken a legal point as to the connotation of the words ‘answer scripts’ used in Rule 30 of the Examination Rules, 2005 in context of the use of technology now, namely, electronic transmission of the answer scripts followed by On Screen Marking of such answer scripts. However, in light of insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005, which now forms as good and enforceable provision of the Rules in question as Rule 30, we need not go into the question whether or not the words ‘answer scripts’ used therein would mean either hard copies or soft copies thereof. Presently we shall proceed to examine the allegations of the petitioners that such marking system is prone to errors, there can be data corruption etc., and that irregularities have been committed in the process. 52. The most part of the grievance of the petitioners in writ petition, SWP no.07/2019, is founded on their contemplations/assumptions of unreliability and ineffectiveness of the On Screen Marking System, inasmuch as they have expressed series of apprehensions in the writ petition, though unsupported by any material, muchless a plausible material. 52. The most part of the grievance of the petitioners in writ petition, SWP no.07/2019, is founded on their contemplations/assumptions of unreliability and ineffectiveness of the On Screen Marking System, inasmuch as they have expressed series of apprehensions in the writ petition, though unsupported by any material, muchless a plausible material. More or less, so is also the case of the petitioners in the other two writ petitions. The apprehensions and assumptions expressed by the petitioners have been already detailed out while narrating their pleadings hereinabove. We feel it unnecessary to reiterate the same here. And we are of the opinion that the Commission has effectively and sufficiently met and dispelled those apprehensions etc. by detailing the steps and measures taken by it for an error free, fair, transparent and speedy evaluation of the answer scripts narrated by us from paras 28 to 42 hereinabove. However, that may not be sufficient for the petitioners. So let us examine the materials the petitioners themselves have sought to produce to buttress their assumptive assertions and apprehensions. 53. The petitioners in SWP no.07/2019 have appended with their petition the press cutting of e-Paper of Greater Kashmir dated Wednesday, March 13, 2019 containing the press statement of the Chairman of the Commission divulging the standard of the infrastructure utilized by it and steps taken by the Commission to get the answer scripts evaluated on screen. Having reproduced the salient points of the press statement so made by the Chairman of the Commission in para 18 of the writ petition, the petitioners in para 19 have stated that since they have no access to the methodology adopted by the Commission, there is no transparency in the system and no candidate is in a position to have any information either with regard to his answer scripts, as to how the evaluation has been done and whether all the questions answered by the candidates have been marked and evaluated and whether the totalling of marks has rightly been done. The petitioners seem to be oblivious to the fact that in the very same press statement relied upon by the petitioners, the Chairman had clearly stated that “even after technological advancements, in terms of our own regulation, we also adopted manual checks and in this system also, we found no mistakes”. The petitioners seem to be oblivious to the fact that in the very same press statement relied upon by the petitioners, the Chairman had clearly stated that “even after technological advancements, in terms of our own regulation, we also adopted manual checks and in this system also, we found no mistakes”. Not only that, he had also stated that “some candidates had later approached the Commission through representations and we again conducted checking and found no variation in the results. So, I want to tell the youngsters that our system was completely error-free”. The petitioners have not refuted this statement and the factum stated by the Commissioner therein. The press cutting further, quoting the Chairman as having said so, had reported as under: “Making it clear that although the allegations regarding discrepancies in Combined Competitive (Mains) Examination-2016 are completely unwarranted, Deva said it will, still, provide an opportunity to the aggrieved candidates to project their concerns by making a (representation). He asked the candidates to mail a formal representation to the Commission within 3 days mentioning their Roll Number and Name so that re-verification vis-à-vis the evaluated scripts is done, as a matter of abundant caution.” Given the above statements made by the Chairman of the Commission, reported in the press cutting, relied upon by none other than the petitioners themselves, it cannot, and should not, lie in their mouth that there is no transparency in the system or that no candidate is in a position to have any information either with regard to his answer scripts, as to how the evaluation has been done and whether all the questions answered by the candidates have been marked and evaluated and whether the totalling of marks has rightly been done. It is not their case that in response to this statement of the Chairman of the Commission they had mailed their representations, but there was no response. Obviously, therefore, the apprehensions and assumptions, casting aspersions on a constitutional body like the Commission, are nothing but a ploy to, somehow, bring it, unnecessarily and without any justifiable cause or reason, to public disrepute. In any case, the grievance of the petitioners on this count is unfounded and baseless. 54. Obviously, therefore, the apprehensions and assumptions, casting aspersions on a constitutional body like the Commission, are nothing but a ploy to, somehow, bring it, unnecessarily and without any justifiable cause or reason, to public disrepute. In any case, the grievance of the petitioners on this count is unfounded and baseless. 54. It may also be mentioned here that it is not that introduction and adoption of On Screen Marking system has brought about any change in the right of a candidate conferred on him in terms of the relevant provision of the Examination Rules, 2005. He continues to have that right even after adoption of On Screen Marking, which is scrutiny of marks, in terms of Rule 33 of the Examination Rules, 2005. The said Rule, however, did not confer a right on the competing candidates to have access to the answer script and to know how the evaluation has been done; the right so conferred is limited to getting the marks scrutinized by the Commission itself and rechecking of his results, including the totalling of marks, and there is a mechanism laid down in Rule 33 for it. We deem it appropriate to quote Rule 33 hereunder: “33. Scrutiny of marks (a) Any candidate, who had taken the Examination, may apply to the Controller of Examinations for scrutiny of his marks and rechecking of his results. Such applications shall be made within one month of the date of publication of the result in the J&K Government Gazette. (b) All such applications shall be accompanied by a demand draft drawn from any branch of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. on account of rechecking fee as may be prescribed by the Commission from time to time. (c) On receipt of such applications the Controller of Examinations will examine the Answer Books of the candidate concerned and see whether the Evaluator has made any error in totalling the marks awarded by him or has left any question unmarked. (d) If the Controller of Examinations finds that the Evaluator has not while examining the scripts committed any such error or omission as mentioned in sub-rule (c) he shall reject the application and communicate the results of the scrutiny to the candidate. (d) If the Controller of Examinations finds that the Evaluator has not while examining the scripts committed any such error or omission as mentioned in sub-rule (c) he shall reject the application and communicate the results of the scrutiny to the candidate. A report in this regard shall be placed before the Commission at the end of each examination: Provided that in case a candidate still feels aggrieved he/she may make a representation to the Chairman who may, if necessary, give an opportunity of being heard to such a candidate and take such action as may be appropriate. (e) If, it is found that the Evaluator has left any question unmarked, the Controller of Examinations shall send back the answer book of the candidate to the Evaluator for marking, and after the receipt of the report of the Evaluator, if the result involves any change, modification of the same shall be published in the Jammu and Kashmir Government Gazette. (f) A candidate shall be entitled to refund of rechecking fee in case the recheck has materially changed the outcome of the result in favour of the candidate, of the paper(s), declared. (g) On receipt of the answer book under rule (e) the Evaluator shall not alter the marks already awarded by him to the answer nor shall he be competent to add any mark(s). (h) Examinee of a competitive examination can avail the opportunity under the rule within one month of the date of publication of the notification relating to the candidates who have qualified for viva voce test.” It is thus seen that the above quoted provision in the Examination Rules, 2005 provides a robust mechanism and safeguard for a candidate to have his marks scrutinized within one month from the date of declaration of the result of the Main Examination. It is, again, not the case of the petitioners that they had made any such representation under the said Rule, but were denied this right by the Commission. It appears that instead of availing this remedy, the petitioners have directly approached the Court levelling allegations against the methodology of marking unsupported by any material/evidence. 55. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Commission in its reply has stated that the candidates can inspect both original answer manuscript and evaluated manuscript through a facility known as ‘RTI Link’ after the final selection list is recommended. 55. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Commission in its reply has stated that the candidates can inspect both original answer manuscript and evaluated manuscript through a facility known as ‘RTI Link’ after the final selection list is recommended. So the petitioners cannot claim that they have no chance to know the marks awarded to them. 56. Similarly, the writ petitioners in writ petition, SWP no.457/2019, have appended as annexure XV to the writ petition certain documents, professedly, evidencing the measures initiated and undertaken by certain examining bodies, including some Public Service Commissions, in the country, to contend that the Commission has not taken such measures, therefore, the On Screen Marking resorted to by it is clearly antithesis to the evaluation of answer scripts done in accord with the mandate of law and the Rules in force. We would come later to the point(s) sought to be raised and made out by the petitioners in this petition on this count. Presently, these documents are referred herein only to deal with the point of the OSM system being prone to errors taken by the petitioners in SWP no.07/2019. The first of these documents is the copy of a Tender Notice issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, Residency Area, Indore (M.P.) 452001 dated 14.10.2016. It reads: as under: “M. P. P. S. C. invites sealed tender for Scanning of Answer Books and On Screen Marking System. All interested consulting organizations (Bidders) may submit Single Bid for following category: Scanning of Answer Books and on screen Marking System. .... ....” This tender notice clearly demonstrates that the Commission is not the only Public Service Commission in the country which has resorted to On Screen Marking of answer scripts. In fact, it is specifically pleaded by the Commission in its reply, and it is carried in the press statement of the Chairman referred to earlier, as well, that the Public Service Commissions of Gujarat, Rajasthan and other premier institutions in the country also resort to this system of marking. In fact, it is specifically pleaded by the Commission in its reply, and it is carried in the press statement of the Chairman referred to earlier, as well, that the Public Service Commissions of Gujarat, Rajasthan and other premier institutions in the country also resort to this system of marking. It is, therefore, not comprehendible how can an aspirant of an Administrative Service claim to be, or be, oblivious of such a technological advancement and application thereof in the world, and also say since he has no access to the methodology adopted by the Commission, there is no transparency in the system and no candidate is in a position to have any information as to how the evaluation has been done. The name of the system: “On Screen Marking”, itself suggests how the evaluation has been done. And Rule 31A had given a clear understanding to the competing candidates how the evaluation would be done. 57. It is the case, rather assumption, of the petitioners in SWP no.07/2019 that it is not possible to correctly scan each and every page of the answer scripts from top to bottom and then transmit them to the Examiners. The answer to this assumption is contained in the aforesaid Tender Notice, produced not by the Commission, but by the petitioners in another writ petition. At page 2 of the Tender Notice, against item 3.3, under the caption “Providing Software”, it gives the specification of the software to support scanning of the answer books and storing them. Few of these specifications may be quoted hereunder: “3.3.1.1 One Answer Book will consist of a main book 40 to 52 pages of A4 horizontal (MPPSC Standard) size and in some cases one or more supplementary books of 8 pages. For MPPSCState service mains examination each applicant will be provided with (i) Three papers of 72 (2 copies of 36 pages each) pages answer book (ii) Three papers of 48 pages answer books. 3.3.1.2 Candidates will write on both sides of sheets of answer book. 3.3.1.3 The 1st page of each Answer Book would be of OMR type, in which KYC of the candidate and details of examination will be marked by the candidate. 3.3.1.4 Every leaf of the Answer Book will have identification barcode. 3.3.1.5 ... 3.3.1.6 ... 3.3.1.7 ... 3.3.1.2 Candidates will write on both sides of sheets of answer book. 3.3.1.3 The 1st page of each Answer Book would be of OMR type, in which KYC of the candidate and details of examination will be marked by the candidate. 3.3.1.4 Every leaf of the Answer Book will have identification barcode. 3.3.1.5 ... 3.3.1.6 ... 3.3.1.7 ... 3.3.1.8 The scanning of Answer Books will be done as per agreed SoP by the SPA in the scanning centre. 3.3.1.9 Scanning should be of High Quality and scanned image should not have any impression of mechanical fault or scanner parts, shadow, too light/dark, disproportionate margin, vertical lines, etc. 3.3.1.10 The scanning solution should provide for automatic correction of parameters like format / compression not proper, skew, wrong orientation, error in automatic cropping, punch hole marks etc. during scanning. 3.3.1.11 The scanning solution should provide support for automatic document quality analysis so that any bad quality document doesn’t get uploaded to the repository. There should be an independent software quality check service available as part of overall scanning solution which shall be used to audit scanned documents for resolution, format/compression, orientation etc. 3.3.1.12 All the pages of scanned Answer Book should be in proper sequence and orientation. 3.3.1.13 Scanning should be done with actual colours not BW. 3.3.1.14 All the pages of the Answer Books should be scanned even if pages are blank. Scanning software or an application plug-in should ensure that the number of pages in scanned Answer Book is equal to the number of pages of an Answer Book. This will also ensure accidental miss of pages in Answer Book. 3.3.1.15 A small team comprising representatives of MPPSC and SPA will ensure that scanning quality is at satisfaction level and acceptable to MPPSC. 3.3.1.16 ... 3.3.1.17 ... 3.3.1.18 All the scanning work will be completed in a single instance. MPPSC may ask SPA to perform scanning operation in 2 shifts per day and during holidays. 3.3.1.19 ... 3.3.1.20 ... 3.3.1.21 ... 3.3.1.22 After completion of scanning work, SPA will maintain one back up scanning system till the completion of answer book evaluation work to resolve any scanning related issue. 3.3.1.23 ... 3.3.1.24 After declaration of mains examination result, interview marks will be added for calculating final merit list. SPA will provide software for calculating final merit list as per the logic provided by MPPSC. 3.3.1.23 ... 3.3.1.24 After declaration of mains examination result, interview marks will be added for calculating final merit list. SPA will provide software for calculating final merit list as per the logic provided by MPPSC. SPA will also provide software for the input of interview marks by the interview board and prepare final result of selection as per the logic provided by the MPPS. ... ...” The specifications of the software and the requirements of the examining body, quoted above, clearly demonstrate that the assumption raised by the petitioners is wholly unfounded and baseless. The softwares used for scanning such answer scripts, their quality of imaging to the satisfaction of the examining body, storage, transmission etc. – all conceivable aspects relating thereto – are taken care of by the software. The question may arise only vis-à-vis the quality of software, but that would depend upon the requirement of the examining body. For instance, as seen above, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission has put almost all conceivable terms and conditions about the quality of the software in the aforesaid tender document; so there can be no scope for any suspicion about the effectiveness of the software. In one of these petitions it is stated that the digitalization was programmed in a manner that only 64 pages in a paper could be scanned. It is not stated in the petition wherefrom such information was obtained by the petitioners. Be that as it may, as seen from the very first serial of the above tender notice, quoted above, the magnitude of the answer books has been even shown as 72 pages plus 48 pages. The assumption made by the petitioners is belied by the tender document itself. Further, the aforesaid tender notice against item 3.6 under the heading “providing infrastructure”, at serial 3.6.1.1 provides a condition that the SPA will setup a scanning centre on temporary basis with a capacity of scanning around 75000 answer books in 10 days of time, meaning thereby that 7500 answer books could be scanned each day. Then there is a provision that the successful bidder shall undertake training of Head Examiners / Examiners appointed by the MPPSC for On Screen Marking as per the sample marking scheme provided by the MPPSC. So this takes care of the apprehension that Examiners might not have been computer savvy resulting in prejudice to the petitioners. Then there is a provision that the successful bidder shall undertake training of Head Examiners / Examiners appointed by the MPPSC for On Screen Marking as per the sample marking scheme provided by the MPPSC. So this takes care of the apprehension that Examiners might not have been computer savvy resulting in prejudice to the petitioners. It is true that this tender notice, [relied upon by the petitioners in SWP no.457/2019 to canvass the point that before switching over to OSM, the Commission was required to acquire the infrastructure as had been done by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission by dint of the said tender notice], we are discussing here pertains to Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the grievance relates to the J&K Public Service Commission, but the fact is that the Commission in its supplementary affidavit has clearly stated that it held consultations with different State Public Service Commissions in the country which had adopted the On Screen Marking System or were in course of adopting the same, and, on being satisfied about the credibility of the consultancy, opted for the assignment of the given task to the Consultancy of international standard. Further, the aforesaid tender notice shows that the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission itself had sought bids for outsourcing the task, not that it invited tenders for purchasing the infrastructure, and so has the Commission outsourced the task to a consultancy stated to be of international standard. The Commission has also, in its reply and supplementary affidavit, detailed out the precautions and standards it adopted and applied through the Consultancy / Service provider to ensure error free evaluation. There is nothing before the Court to suspect the Expert Body, i.e., the Commission, or not to accept its version on this score or in this regard. If as per the writ petitioners in SWP no.457/2019, who have relied on this tender notice and, therefore, appended it with their writ petition, the standards mentioned therein by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission are satisfactory for that Commission, the same equally should be befitting the requirement of the Commission of the State. It is nobody’s case that the Commission had adopted software or scanners of any lower quality. Assumptions of the petitioners are mere assumptions, bereft of any foundation, not to speak of any proof. 58. It is nobody’s case that the Commission had adopted software or scanners of any lower quality. Assumptions of the petitioners are mere assumptions, bereft of any foundation, not to speak of any proof. 58. The other document appended with the writ petition, comprising of 16 pages (actually pages 2 to 17 of 53 pages) is a copy of tender notification issued by Registrar, University of Mumbai. This tender notification commences with the following words: “The University of Mumbai invites bids from interested and qualified firms for providing On Screen Marking of Answer Books to manage their examination related activities in a scientific and secured manner in order to bring in transparency, ease of operations and value to all stake holders…” Again, at page 6 of the document, under the heading introduction, the following is stated: “The University of Mumbai, one of the significant universities in India, has decided to automate certain key functions of examination process by On Screen Marking of Answer Books for all its courses of study as part of their automation reforms / initiatives using latest technology in order to bring in efficiency, transparency and ease of work.” Further, at page 14 of the above document, it states as under: “A. The objectives of Onscreen Marking Systems is to provide transparent, secured, cutting, scanning, staking of digitalized answer scripts, publishing, fragmentation of question papers, digitally allotting marks by evaluators and retrieval of soft copies as per the request.”(Underlining supplied) The above tender notice thus establishes the fact that On Screen Marking ensures efficiency, transparency, ease of work and secured marking / evaluation. Again, it is to be borne in mind that this document has been brought on record by the petitioners in SWP no.457/2019, not by the Commission. It again belies the apprehensions and assumptions of the petitioners expressed by them about the effectiveness of the system. 59. The other document placed at page 179 of the same writ petition, is the Tender document of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, India, issued by it for computer based scanning and marking of answer books. At page 3 of the document in its Section I under the heading ‘aims and objective’, the document states that the Board has approximately 13,200 schools affiliated with it, including 150 schools in twenty one countries. At page 3 of the document in its Section I under the heading ‘aims and objective’, the document states that the Board has approximately 13,200 schools affiliated with it, including 150 schools in twenty one countries. Then it proceeds to state that the Board has decided to implement the On Screen Marking of Answer Books for Class X Board Based Examination 2013 in first phase and Class XII in second phase in 2014 examination so as to set up new standards of evaluation in the country as done in the past. The Board is regularly taking initiative for setting high standards and improving overall quality on a continuous basis to enhance the quality, speed and transparency in evaluation. So, this document establishes that On Screen Marking enhances the quality, speed and transparency in evaluation. 60. At page 192 of the writ petition, SWP no.457/2019, the petitioners have attached another document with the petition. It is a report published by the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate dated Monday, 7 January, 2002 titled On Screen Marking of Scanned Paper Scripts. It is a report on the trial of On Screen Making made by the said Syndicate. It is seen that it is a report on the trials of the on screen marking conducted in the year 2000. Eversince a sea of change, development and advancement has taken place in technology. Therefore, whatever deficiencies might have been noticed then at the initial stages of the system cannot be relevant today or be read as authentic. Nonetheless, after the trials were conducted and the opinion of the Examiners was obtained, the report concluded as under: “The results indicated that with suitable modifications to the software used by examiners, screen based marking of whole scanned paper scripts would be likely to be as reliable as conventional marking. Individual question marking required more investigation, particularly for English Literature. What next? UCLES is engaged in a programme of research and development to identify the refinements needed for a production quality system and the contexts in which screen based marking is fully valid and reliable. Individual question marking required more investigation, particularly for English Literature. What next? UCLES is engaged in a programme of research and development to identify the refinements needed for a production quality system and the contexts in which screen based marking is fully valid and reliable. Contracts for the development of production software have been entered into and we expect to introduce and ramp up the use of the on screen marking of scanned paper scripts over the next few years.”(Emphasis supplied) This document instead of lending any credence to the apprehensions, assumptions and allegations of the petitioners, cuts them at the very root, inasmuch as it clearly states that the University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate expected to introduce and ramp up the use of on screen marking of scanned paper scripts over the next few years as reliable as the conventional marking. The documents in the shape of tender notices issued by various examination bodies in the country, including the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Central Board of Secondary Education, News Delhi, referred to hereinabove, are a testimony to the fact that consequent to the research and development that was envisioned in the aforesaid report, did, in fact, take place, and that advancements have been made in the technology such that it is reliable in all its facets as the conventional marking. We may repeat, all that is said above, is established and substantiated by the documents produced by the petitioners themselves. It is not the case of the petitioners that what was said by the aforesaid Syndicate on the basis of trials conducted in the year 2000 still hold good, and that no advancements have been made in the technology eversince, especially in relation to what was identified in the aforesaid report. At this stage, we deem it apt to mention some of the features of the aforesaid report. It is seen that aim of the Syndicate was faster and more flexible marking and script management process. The first question the report posed was: What is On Screen Marking of Scanned Paper Scripts? It states that on screen marking of scanned paper scripts is the process by which paper scripts are scanned and the images transmitted to an image server. Copies of these images are then distributed electronically and marked on screen by examiners. Question-based marks and examiners’ annotations are captured without manual intervention. It states that on screen marking of scanned paper scripts is the process by which paper scripts are scanned and the images transmitted to an image server. Copies of these images are then distributed electronically and marked on screen by examiners. Question-based marks and examiners’ annotations are captured without manual intervention. The second question posed in the report was: What do we want it for? The answer was faster and more flexible marking and script management processes. Then, the third question posed in the report was: Does it work? It may be reiterated here that the report was about the trial of the system conducted by the Syndicate. In answer to this question, the report said as under: “UCLES’ first major test of on screen marking of scanned paper scripts was conducted in winter 2000 (though several small scale trials were conducted before this). The main aims of this study were to prove the practical possibility of the scanning and electronic movement of scripts to provide research data concerning examiner reliability, and to uncover issues, both technical and human, to be investigated in later stages of the development of a production system....”. Everything before us as on date substantiates, beyond any doubt, that what was conceived way back in 2000 has been achieved, inasmuch as system has since reached not only to the production stage but has been effectively and reliably in use to the satisfaction of many an examination bodies in the country. 61. The above document is followed by a copy of another document titled RPSC: Leveraging IT to build robust marking system. It is a policymaker’s perspective, namely, Mr. Akhilesh Mittal, Joint Director, IT, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Government of Rajasthan, given by him to Elets News Network. The document is not wholly legible. The legible part of it is its introduction, which reads as under: “The paper-based exam marking system follows a tedious and time consuming process involving several levels of sorting before bundles of handwritten scripts are delivered to the evaluators to assess the candidates. To make the process simpler and efficient, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) has taken an initiative to adopt an on screen marking system that exploits the latest Information Technology tools to achieve the desired results.” So, this document, professedly from an IT Expert, being the Joint Director of IT, describes On Screen Marking as simpler and efficient. To make the process simpler and efficient, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) has taken an initiative to adopt an on screen marking system that exploits the latest Information Technology tools to achieve the desired results.” So, this document, professedly from an IT Expert, being the Joint Director of IT, describes On Screen Marking as simpler and efficient. It further establishes that even Rajasthan Public Service Commission has switched over to the system. 62. Yet another document is placed on record at page 212 which is from some writer, titled bizfluent. It writes about advantages and disadvantages of Scanners. At the bottom of it, it mentions about the author. Mentioning the name of the author, it states that the author is a freelance writer and editor, based in a State in United States. The author is stated to have written on everything from fly fishing to parenting! Not an IT expert; unfortunate – what nature of documents are sought to be placed before the highest Court of the State and to prove what? That, Scanners can be bad! Let there be some seriousness of thought. 63. We have referred to the above documents produced by the petitioners in one or the other writ petition, only to show that the contents of these documents relied upon by them, belie all their assumptions, apprehensions and contentions about the quality of the infrastructure, the On Screen Marking itself and the various processes involved therein. Apart from their own documents disproving their assumptions, the Commission, being the Expert Body in this regard, has extensively detailed the numerous measures taken by it to employ a suitable infrastructure by engaging the services of a service provider for scanning and electronically transmitting the answer scripts to the Examiners, and to get them evaluated by the Examiners engaged by the Commission as per their practice, to ensure fair and error free evaluation and results. It is reiterated that there is nothing brought on record, except the boomeranging documents, to doubt the stand and version of the expert body, i.e., the Commission. 64. It is reiterated that there is nothing brought on record, except the boomeranging documents, to doubt the stand and version of the expert body, i.e., the Commission. 64. It may be reiterated here that the documents referred to hereinabove from para 54 onwards have been appended by the petitioners in SWP no.457/2019 with their writ petition to make a point that before switching over to On Screen Marking system, the kind of infrastructure mentioned in these documents had to be put in place to build a robust system in the manner the two examination bodies, viz. the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, had done in terms of the two tender notices, referred to above. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel, submitted that in absence of any such infrastructure in place for a robust Digital / On Screen Marking, which is sine quo non for switching over from manual evaluation to On Screen Marking of answer scripts the impugned evaluation of the scanned answer scripts as well as the result thereof are void ab initio. In this behalf, it may be reiterated here that the two examining bodies, cited by the learned senior counsel, as becomes axiomatic from a bare perusal of the two tender notices, had not invited the bids for purchase of the infrastructure, but for outsourcing the On Screen Marking including the different processes involved therein. In that regard, the two examining bodies gave the specifications of the IT and electric tools those would need to be used by the successful bidder in the process of scanning of the answer scripts and electric transmission thereto to the Evaluators. So it is not a fact that the two examining bodies had first acquired the infrastructure and then switched over to the system. In the instant case, it is true, rather admitted by the Commission, that it did not invite tenders even for hiring a service provider, but engaged a service provider of international standard after deliberating its all necessary details with the examining bodies in the country which had switched over to the system or were in the process of doing so. The Commission has also stated the reasons why it did not invite open tenders. The Commission says that such a course would comprise the secrecy involved and the efficiency of the infrastructure. The Commission has also stated the reasons why it did not invite open tenders. The Commission says that such a course would comprise the secrecy involved and the efficiency of the infrastructure. We are of the opinion that the Commission, being an expert body, is the best authority to decide how things ought to be done. The Court cannot delve into such intricate matters of the Commission, especially so when it states that it engaged a service provider of international standard after having consultations with the other similar examining bodies in the country. Unfortunately, for the sake of future secrecy, which is at the core of the process, the Commission cannot divulge the name of the service provider to the public at large. Nonetheless, having considered the contentions raised in this regard in context of the materials placed on record and the reply of the Commission, we have no reason to disbelieve or doubt the Commission that it had engaged a service provider of good standard and repute, and that the scanning of answer scripts, transmission thereof to the two Hubs/Examiners, evaluation by the Examiners thereof on screen, return of the marks awarded by the Examiners and formulation of the results were done fairly and without any error. 65. There is also a misunderstanding amongst the petitioners that the Commission had outsourced the evaluation of the answer scripts. That is not the correct position. The fact is that the Commission outsourced only the scanning and electronic transportation of the answer scripts to the Examiners engaged by the Commission itself, as per their practice. It is their case that they engaged 150 Examiners for accomplishment of the task. So the misgivings on this count are baseless. 66. It may be mentioned here that at the hearing all the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced their respective arguments before the Court. However, Mr. R.A. Jan, Sr. counsel, led the arguments. His first submission was that Rule 31A inserted by the Commission in the Examination Rules, 2005 and application and adoption thereof vis-a-vis the present selection process, which had commenced with the issuance of advertisement notification dated 18.06.2016, amounted to changing the rules of the game in the midst which has infringed the rights of the petitioners and greatly prejudiced them in the matter of their selection. He next submitted that Rule 31A, by its language, reflected the intention that the Commission was to switch over to On Screen Marking system gradually and, in any case, it could not have been applied to the current selection process. The learned counsel laid a great stress on the word “Gradually” occurring in the Rule, and submitted that the intention discernable from it is that the object is to prepare the Commission to acquire and develop a robust infrastructure, arrange manpower, training of such manpower and of the Evaluators and to get equipped with the knowledge of the system by utilizing the services of experts / agencies. He further submitted that for applying Rule 31A, the Commission also needed to take a decision in tune with the mandate of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules of 1980 which provide procedure for transaction of business of the Commission. He submitted that the Commission did not take a decision to switch over to On Screen Marking as was required of it and, in any case, no notification in that regard was issued for information of the competing candidates. It was further argued by him that the so called decision dated 28.02.2018, stated to have been taken by the Commission to adopt On Screen Marking system, obviously, is based on non-agenda item which is not in tune with Rule 3 of the Conduct of Business Rules of the Commission. It was also argued by him that outsourcing of evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible under the rules governing the subject. He also submitted that in terms of the relevant Rules, the paper setters and evaluators are required to be the same, they cannot be two different set of persons; that the answer scripts had not been bar-coded; that the scanning had been done on vertical size papers when the answer scripts were of horizontal shape. During the course of such arguments the learned counsel referred to the various Rules governing the subject. The learned counsel appearing in other writ petitions, namely, Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Mr. Abhinave Sharma, also made their respective submissions on almost identical lines. The learned counsel cited and relied upon the following judgments: (i) U. P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav, 2018 (3) SCC 706 (Para 10 to 12); (ii) Secy. The learned counsel appearing in other writ petitions, namely, Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Mr. Abhinave Sharma, also made their respective submissions on almost identical lines. The learned counsel cited and relied upon the following judgments: (i) U. P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav, 2018 (3) SCC 706 (Para 10 to 12); (ii) Secy. A. P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, 2005 (4) SCC 154 (Para14 & 17); (iii) Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India, 2014 (5) SCC 774 ; (iv) P. Kishore Kumar v. The State of A. P., 2016 (6) ALT 408 (Para 20 to 26, 33) (vi) Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 (4) SCC 534 (Para 13); (vi) Benny T. D. v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 1998 (5) SCC 269 (Para 15); (vii) Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, 1997 (9) SCC 527 (Para 12, 16); (viii) Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U. P. Public Service Commission, AIR 2003 SC 2661 (para 14). 67. On the other hand, Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Advocate General, argued the case on behalf of the State and the Commission. 67. On the other hand, Mr. D. C. Raina, learned Advocate General, argued the case on behalf of the State and the Commission. Broadly speaking, the learned Advocate General put forth his arguments on these lines: that the selections made by an expert body can be challenged only on the grounds of mala fides and infraction of rules; that no mala fides have been attributed by the petitioners against the Commission; that no infringement of any rule or any of the rights of the competing candidates has been committed in the selection process; that the writ petitions are in the realm of contemplations and apprehensions; that insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules of 2005 was duly notified and it was applied with immediate effect; that the petitioners having participated in the Main Examination and having failed to make the grade, cannot turn around and have any grievance against Rule 31A and the methodology adopted for evaluation; that the petitioners cannot claim any prejudice; that the Rules do not contemplate inspection of answer scripts by the competing candidates after they have been evaluated; that the Commission is not obliged to tell the competing candidates each and every thing at every stage under principles of natural justice; that switching over from manual to On Screen Marking during any selection process in currency does not amount to changing the rules of the game, it is only change in modality; that there has been no change in the rules of the game; that the decision to adopt On Screen Marking was duly taken by the Commission on 28.02.2018; that the Experts are appointed by the Commission, Evaluators are selected by the Commission and the job of the Agency is only to facilitate the use of technology in transmitting the answer scripts to the evaluators under the supervision of the Commission; that the Agency selected and engaged by the Commission has the requisite expertise, technological infrastructure and is well renowned and reputed; that the Evaluators were trained beforehand in the On Screen Marking system and they were put to tests before they could do the actual task of On Screen Marking; that the endeavour of the Commission always is to select the best and the meritorious candidates. The learned counsel for the private respondents, namely, Mr. J. I. Ganai, Sr. Advocate; Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate and Mr. The learned counsel for the private respondents, namely, Mr. J. I. Ganai, Sr. Advocate; Mr. M. A. Qayoom, Advocate and Mr. Arif Sikander, Advocate, mostly argued that the petitioners having participated in the Main Examination and taken calculated risk, fully knowing about the operation of Rule 31A, and having failed to make the grade, cannot turn around and raise a grievance about the method of evaluation adopted by the Commission and, consequently, the results declared by the Commission. 68. The learned Advocate General cited and relied upon several judgments already mentioned hereinabove, including some judgments on the maintainability of the PIL as also the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan, (2016) 1 SCC 454 ; and D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakam, (2017) 9 SCC 478 for the proposition that once a candidate consciously takes part in a selection process, he is estopped from challenging the selection process after he has failed to .make the grade, and that he is deemed to have acquiesced and waived his right to challenge the same. 69. Similarly, the learned counsel for the private respondents referred to and relied upon some judgments on the above proposition of law. 70. We will come later to the question whether the Commission has changed the rules of the game while the game was on. Presently, we would deal with the arguments raised concerning Rule 31A inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005. There is no dispute that the Commission is the creation of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and, therefore, a Constitutional authority. Section 133 of the Constitution delineates the functions of the Commission. It mandates that it shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. To fulfil its aforesaid constitutional duty, the Commission has framed several sets of Rules. One such set of Rules is the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980 (Business Rules, 1980), and the other is the Examinations Rules, 2005. There is also no qualm that the Commission is empowered to frame such Rules. Rules 3 to 5 of the Business and Procedure Rules, 1980 provide the procedure for transaction of business of the Commission and Rule 11 thereof provides for record of decisions. We quote Rules 3, 4 and 11 hereunder: “3. There is also no qualm that the Commission is empowered to frame such Rules. Rules 3 to 5 of the Business and Procedure Rules, 1980 provide the procedure for transaction of business of the Commission and Rule 11 thereof provides for record of decisions. We quote Rules 3, 4 and 11 hereunder: “3. Procedure for transaction of business The Commission shall meet as often as may be necessary for the transaction of its business as may be brought formally or informally before it. Formal agenda will be got prepared and circulated in advance by the Secretary for consideration of the Commission. The Commission may meet and consider such matters as may be brought up before it even in the absence of a formal agenda. However, action on decisions taken in the absence of a formal agenda not circulated in advance shall not be taken until the minutes thereon are confirmed. 4. All procedural matters relating to the business of the Commission, including the work of fixation of schedules for interviews and examinations, shall be decided upon by the Chairman. As soon as dates for any such examination / schedules are finalised all members of the Commission shall be apprised of the same.” “11. Record of decisions All decisions of the Commission taken at its meeting shall be recorded by the Secretary. The draft of the minutes shall be put up by the Secretary to the Chairman for approval; thereafter the minutes shall be circulated to Members and subsequently brought up for formal confirmation at the next meeting of the Commission.” From a bare perusal of Rule 3 quoted above, it is seen that the Commission is authorised to consider such matters as are brought before it even without a formal agenda. It is not always necessary that there ought to be an agenda, only then the Commission can consider it and take a decision. The submission of Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel, that since the decision dated 28.02.2018 as to adoption of On Screen Marking of the answer scripts of the Main Examination, 2016 was taken without there being an agenda and, therefore, it is void ab initio, is not supported by the Rule and, therefore, is untenable. The submission of Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel, that since the decision dated 28.02.2018 as to adoption of On Screen Marking of the answer scripts of the Main Examination, 2016 was taken without there being an agenda and, therefore, it is void ab initio, is not supported by the Rule and, therefore, is untenable. It may also be stated here that we have called for and perused the original record of the Commission in this regard and found that the Commission has, in fact, taken a decision on 28.02.2018 to adopt the On Screen Marking system for the answer scripts of the Main Examination in question. These minutes have been confirmed on 09.03.2018. Rule 4 quoted above, otherwise, empowers the Chairman of the Commission to decide upon the procedural matters. 71. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel, next submitted that the intention expressed vide Rule 31A inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005, had to be carried into execution and manifested in a formal decision in the shape of a notification. He contended that since there was no notification issued reflecting the decision of the Commission to evaluate the answer scripts of the Main Examination in question by resort to On Screen Marking method, it is inferable that there was no decision at all. He submitted that without notifying the decision for information of the public in general, and the candidates in particular, resort to On Screen Marking system under Rule 31A could not have been had. We have considered the submission. In this regard, it simply needs to be reiterated that Rule 31A so inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005 by the Commission, was duly notified by it for information of public at large. It also was notified to be immediately effective. This notification clearly expressed the intention and decision of the Commission that it would be gradually switching over to On Screen Marking of answer scripts, depending upon the decision of the Commission on case to case basis. Once the Rule was made effective and operational with immediate effect, it was applicable from the date of its notification. Then, thereafter, the decision to switch over to On Screen Marking in the case of the Main Examination in question was duly taken by the Commission on 28.02.2018. Once the Rule was made effective and operational with immediate effect, it was applicable from the date of its notification. Then, thereafter, the decision to switch over to On Screen Marking in the case of the Main Examination in question was duly taken by the Commission on 28.02.2018. There is no Rule either in the Examination Rules or the Procedure Rules of the Commission making it obligatory on the Commission to notify such decisions as relate to modalities of evaluation and bring them in public domain. We are of the considered view that the Commission was not obligated to notify this decision for the information of the public, for it had nothing to do with any interest or right of the competing candidates. Learned senior counsel submitted that the decision taken by the Commission on 28.02.2018 was only to avail the services of a Service Provider in facilitating On Screen Marking of the answer scripts; it is not that by that decision the Commission decided to get the answer scripts of the Main Examination in question evaluated by On Screen Marking system, as was required of it under Rule 31A. As said above, we have perused the original record in this regard. The decision reflects both the approval of the Commission to go for On Screen Marking as well as the approval to the engagement of the services of the Service Provider. The submission made is not supported by the relevant/contemporaneous record. 72. It was next argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, almost in all the petitions, that Rule 31A inserted in the Examination Rules, 2005, was prospective in nature and that it could not have been applied retrospectively. It was argued that the language used in the Rule reflected that the intention of the Commission was to switch over to On Screen Marking only gradually, meaning thereby in future and not to the current examination process. A great deal of stress was laid on the use of word ‘gradually’. Concomitantly, it was argued that consequently, the system could not have been applied to current Examination, especially so without arranging the requisite infrastructure and, in any case, in the midst of the selection process. Let the notification dated 07.12.2017 be quoted hereunder. A great deal of stress was laid on the use of word ‘gradually’. Concomitantly, it was argued that consequently, the system could not have been applied to current Examination, especially so without arranging the requisite infrastructure and, in any case, in the midst of the selection process. Let the notification dated 07.12.2017 be quoted hereunder. It read as under: “Notification No:PSC/EXAM/75/2017 Dated:07.12.2017 It is hereby notified for the information of the general public that Rule 31A shall be inserted after Rule 31 of Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examinations) Rules 2005 as under: ‘31 A. The Commission shall gradually switch over to Digital Evaluation / On Screen Marking and to begin with the same (DE/OSM) to be adopted in such examinations as may be decided by the Commission on cases to case basis.’ This shall come into force with immediate effect.” The first and the foremost fact discernable from a bare perusal of the aforesaid notification is that Rule 31A inserted thereby has become operational with immediate effect. We hope we do not need to explain that the connotation of the phrase ‘with immediate effect’ means that it began to apply and was valid immediately with the issue of the notification. It was, however, submitted that the application of the Rule was prospective in nature in the sense that it could not be applied to the Examinations conducted vis-à-vis a selection process which had commenced much before the date of issue of the notification, way back in 2016. Let Rule 31A be minutely examined. 73. The Rule 31A, as is seen, comprises of two parts joined by a conjunction ‘and’: the first part describes the intention of the Commission as to what it intended to do, which is ‘switching over to On Screen Marking’. Let us forget, for the time being, about the use of the word “gradually” in the first part of the Rule; we will come to it later. The second part of the Rule speaks about as to what the On Screen Marking system is intended to be applied, when and on what basis. It speaks of and uses the word ‘examinations’, not ‘selections’ or ‘the selection processes’. Had the Rule used the words ‘selections’ or ‘selection processes’, one could say that the intention of the Rule was to switch over to such system in the future selection processes, not the current ones. It speaks of and uses the word ‘examinations’, not ‘selections’ or ‘the selection processes’. Had the Rule used the words ‘selections’ or ‘selection processes’, one could say that the intention of the Rule was to switch over to such system in the future selection processes, not the current ones. Instead, the Rule uses the word ‘examinations’ – that too, in plural. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the Rule had become operational with effect from 07.12.2017. Axiomatically, therefore, it would be applicable to all Examinations as would fall or be conducted by the Commission after this date. Admittedly, the Main Examination was conducted from 02.07.2018 to 08.08.2018, i.e., after the Rule in question had become operational. Therefore, the On Screen Marking, as permitted by the Rule, could be applied to the said Examination as well. Of course, the Rule would not automatically operate vis-à-vis all or a particular Examination. In this regard, the Rule itself laid a condition, insofar as it related to the switching over to On Screen Marking, to the decision of the Commission, that too, ‘on case to case basis’. This means that though On Screen Marking system was permitted to be applied to all Examinations falling 07.12.2017 onwards, yet it would depend upon the decision of the Commission as to which Examination it should be commenced with and applied. Of course, if the Commission would take a decision that it would be applied to all Examinations, that would be enough, but it could also take a decision in this regard ‘on case to case basis’, i.e., Examination to Examination. 74. Now coming to the meaning of the word ‘gradually’ used in Rule 31A, much stress was laid on its connotation. It was contended that use of this word clearly reflected the intention of the Commission not to switch over to On Screen Marking immediately, but to do so over a period of time. What is sought to be made out is that this was the impression given to the candidates by the notification of the Rule in question, and that switching over to the system in the Examination in question has come as a shock to the petitioners in that they have been prejudiced. We think there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word ‘gradually’. We think there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word ‘gradually’. The word ‘gradual’, as an adjective, means proceeding by steps or degrees; moving or changing slowly and regularly; slow; and the word ‘gradually’ is its adverb [The new international Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopaedic Edition, 2004 Edition, published by Typhoon International Corp.]. The word ‘gradually’, thus, is not referable only to time, it is also equally relatable to space; space, in turn, would be referable to the spread of the activities. In the context of the activities of the Commission, it would be relatable to the spread of different Examinations conducted by it. This can be explained like this: For instance, one says that “the whole town was gradually inundated by the flood waters”. Here the word ‘gradually’ is used in context of the coming of the different areas of the town within inundation slowly and steadily, one after the other. So the word is not always used in context of time, it is also used in context of spread of the sphere of activities. The question is whether in context of its use in the Rule in question, it relates to time or to the sphere of examination activities of the Commission? One would not need to delve deep to find an answer to this question. The second part of the Rule which says ‘to begin with the same (DE/OSM) to be adopted in such Examinations as may be decided by the Commission on case to case basis’ makes it manifest that here the word ‘gradually’ has been used in context of variety of Examinations conducted by the Commission. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Commission does not conduct the examinations only for selection of candidates for Kashmir Administrative Services; there are varied other Services for which Examinations are conducted by the Commission. For instance, as per the information furnished by the Commission, after the insertion of the Rule in question, the Commission, apart from conducting the instant Examination, also conducted the Examination for selection of candidates for the posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests, 2018; Range Officers, Grade-I Forest (Territorial), 2015; J&K Civil Services (Judicial) Examination, 2018; Range Officers Grade-I, Forest (Territorial) 2018; Range Officers Wild Life (Forest) 2018; Combined Competitive Examination, 2018. And On Screen Marking system has been adopted for evaluation of the answer scripts in three of these Examinations, namely, Assistant Conservator of Forests, 2018; J&K Civil Services (Judicial) Examination, 2018; Range Officers Grade-I, Forest (Territorial) 2018; whereas the Examination of Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 is stated to be in progress. So the word ‘gradually’ as used in Rule 31A is particularly relatable to the various Examinations conducted by the Commission. The Rule confers discretion on the Commission to apply the system to different examinations, depending upon its decision, on case to case basis, i.e. on examination to examination basis. As to the submission that it has prejudiced the petitioners, it is not comprehendible how would a candidate be prejudiced if he does not know how the answer scripts are going to be transmitted to the Evaluators and how the Evaluators are going to assess them. Even prior to adoption of the system, the candidates would not know the mode of transportation of the materials by the Commission to the Evaluators etc. Furthermore, their comprehension of the provision of the Rules would not alter the situation, or be a ground for them to raise a grievance against the modality of evaluation adopted by the Commission. 75. It may also be relevant to mention here that the applications for admission to the Main Examination from the candidates who had qualified the Preliminary Examination were invited by the Commission vide notification dated 09.05.2017 read with notification dated 25.08.2017. In both these notifications, the Commission invited online application from the candidates who had been declared to have qualified for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016 vide Notification No.PSC/Exam/2017/44 dated 09.08.2017, inter alia, in accordance with the Examination Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time. The Examination Rules, 2005, as noticed, were subsequently amended to the extent of insertion of Rule 31A by notification dated 07.12.2017 and the Main Examination was conducted thereafter. That being the factual position, the petitioners cannot claim any prejudice or ignorance of the amendment and its application to the Examination in question. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioners have not felt aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated 09.08.2017 to the extent it had notified that the Main Examination would be conducted in accordance with, inter alia, the Examination Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time. 76. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioners have not felt aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated 09.08.2017 to the extent it had notified that the Main Examination would be conducted in accordance with, inter alia, the Examination Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time. 76. It was next argued on behalf of the petitioners that the method and manner as countenanced by rules is manual evaluation of the answer Scripts, and not On Screen Marking of scanned answer scripts. It was submitted that the law is settled that when the statutory Rules mandate a thing to be done in a particular manner, the Commission is bound to do it in that manner and, if the rules are violated, the action would be void in law. To put across this argument, reference was made to Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules and Rules 5 to 12 and 29 to 33 of the Examination Rules of 2005. Rule 4 of the 2008 Rules provides for the conduct of Examination. It reads as under: “4. Conduct of Examination The examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005.” It may be reiterated here that the 2008 Rules have been framed by the Governor of the State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for the conduct of combined competitive examinations by the Commission. The Rule does not speak anything about the evaluation of answer scripts. So far as Rules 5 to 12 of the Examination Rules of 2005 are concerned, it is noticed that Rule 5 provides for the procedure to issue the notification inviting applications for permission to appear in the Examination; Rule 6 deals with the procedure for submission of the application; Rule 7 deals with refund of Examination fee; Rule 8 deals with issue of permission card; Rule 9 provides for appointment of Examiners; Rule 10 provides for appointment of Supervisory staff; Rule 11 provides for conducting of preliminary objective type tests and Rule 12 provides for short listing of candidates through objective type screening. Perusal of these Rules reveals that none of these deals with evaluation of answer scripts, except that Rule 9 mentions that all Examiners will be required to strictly adhere to the instructions for setting the question papers and marking the scripts and these instructions for setting the question papers and marking the scripts shall be deemed to form part of these rules. So it transpires from Rule 9 that the instructions issued by the Commission for observance of the Examiners would constitute a part of the Rules, meaning thereby that the same would be enforceable in the same manner as the Rules themselves. Now, coming to Rules 29 to 33, Rule 29 speaks of dispatch of answer books by Supervisors to the Controller of Examination; Rule 30 speaks of dispatch of these answer books to the Evaluators; Rule 31 provides for checking of these answer books after they have been evaluated by the Examiners and received back at the Commission from the Examiners, by the Secrecy Section of the Commission to determine whether the Evaluators have made any error in totalling the marks awarded by them or have left any question unmarked and the procedure to be followed on such checking. Rule 32 provides for announcement of results; and Rule 33 provides for scrutiny of marks and rechecking of the results on the application of any candidate, who has taken the Examination. It is true that words ‘answer scripts’ and ‘answer books’ occur in Rules 29 to 33, but it has to be borne in mind that Rule 31A inserted in the Rules vide notification dated 07.12.2017 is also a part of the Rules; it is not anything outside the Rules. It rather is the law, enforceable equally as the other provisions contained in the Rules. What is contained in Rules 29 to 33 cannot be read and interpreted in insolation of Rule 31A. It rather is the law, enforceable equally as the other provisions contained in the Rules. What is contained in Rules 29 to 33 cannot be read and interpreted in insolation of Rule 31A. Yes, prior to insertion of Rule 31A, the Rules would have to be read in the sense that whatever is provided therein would be relatable to the original answer scripts only, but with the insertion of Rule 31A in the Rules, the use of the words would be referable to either scanned copies of such answer scripts/answer books or the originals thereof, depending upon the decision of the Commission whether to go for On Screen Marking vis-à-vis an Examination or not to which such answer scripts may pertain. Assuming, tomorrow the Commission takes a decision that On Screen Marking would be adopted for all Examinations conducted by it, the words ‘answer scripts’ used in Rule 30, which provides for despatch of scripts to the Evaluators, would be referable to scanned answer scripts, not the original answer scripts. Similarly, the connotation of the words ‘answer scripts’ used in Rule 31, 32 and 33 of the Rules would be understood commensurate to said decision of the Commission. We may observe here that we cannot be oblivious of the fact that during the last a decade or two, the global community has undergone an enormous transformation with the ever increasing impact of technology in almost every sphere of our lives. Technology has permeated every conceivable aspect of human life. It has equally permeated the Education sector and the Examination mechanism/systems. In such a changing scenario world over, we cannot afford to live in the past and, at the same time, dream of competing with the world community. We need to adapt as fast as we can to compete in the evolving technological requirements in all our facets of life. See, for example, the use of technology in our justice delivery system; it has brought a sea of change for the benefit of the public at large. Technology has brought similar advantages and ease in every conceivable aspect of our lives. In that scenario, if the Commission has decided to switch over to the use of technology, we think, it ought to be appreciated, rather than finding baseless faults in it. Technology has brought similar advantages and ease in every conceivable aspect of our lives. In that scenario, if the Commission has decided to switch over to the use of technology, we think, it ought to be appreciated, rather than finding baseless faults in it. Coming back to the Rules, we are of the considered view that the Rules referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners have to be read harmoniously with Rule 31A inserted in the said Rules. 77. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the answer scripts provided to the candidates for writing answers contained Bar codes only on their first page; whereas in On Screen Marking the answer scripts need to have bar codes on each and every page. It was also submitted that the answer books supplied to and used by the candidates while taking examination were horizontal shaped; whereas scanning of these answer scripts has been done vertically. We have called samples of both the original answer scripts as well as the scanned copies thereof and have examined the same. We have found the aforesaid allegations as baseless and unfounded. Every page of the answer scripts have been bar coded and they have been scanned in a manner as has ensured that content of every page is copied in the scanning process. 78. A great stress was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners that switching over from manual evaluation of the answer scripts to On Screen Marking by the Commission tantamount to changing the rules of the game while the game was on. On that count, it was submitted that the candidates have been prejudiced and, therefore, not only the On Screen marking got done by the Commission is liable to be declared arbitrary, but also the consequential result thereof is liable to be quashed. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the Commission has not changed any Rules of the game, in as much as neither the conditions of eligibility have been changed, nor the criteria for selection comprising the stages and the syllabus for Examinations or the interviews has been changed. He submitted that the Commission has only changed the modality of transportation of the answer scripts to the Evaluators, in that instead of hard copies of the answer scripts, soft copies thereof have been transmitted to them for evaluation. He submitted that the Commission has only changed the modality of transportation of the answer scripts to the Evaluators, in that instead of hard copies of the answer scripts, soft copies thereof have been transmitted to them for evaluation. He submitted that such modality does not come within the definition of condition of eligibility or the criteria for selection. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to buttress their submission by a number of judgments of the Supreme Court. Let few of these judgments be discussed. Before that, we would wish to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U. P. Public Service Commission, AIR 2003 SC 2661 , cited and relied upon by Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel for the proposition that reliance on decisions cannot be placed without discussing whether it was rendered in same factual and legal background. Therein the Supreme Court has quoted the following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents, saying that the same have become locus classicus, meaning a passage considered to be the best known or most authoritative on a particular subject): “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” Now, coming to the judgments cited at Bar, in Secy. A. P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna, 2005 (4) SCC 154 (with specific reference to paras 14 & 17), it was held that once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. In that case certain posts were advertised. The selections were finalised on 02.07.1996. Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, which were applicable, provided as under: “The ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which the selection list is published on the notice board of the Commission or till the publication of the new selection list, whichever is earlier. The Commission may select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within the time given and also new requisitions sent by appointing authority. However, the Commission shall have the right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded.” During the currency of the ranking list, on 14.4.1997, 14 more vacancies were notified. Meanwhile, there was an amendment in Rule 6 with effect from 30.07.1997 and the amended Rule read as under: “The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserve communities/categories notified by the unit officers / Government. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining, etc. of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.” The writ petitioner, stating to have figured at serial no.1 in the wait list, and claiming that she was entitled to appointment, approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and issued necessary directions in favour of the applicant. That order of the Tribunal came to be challenged before the High Court. The High Court, though directed the Commission to forward the name of the applicant to the Government for appointment to the post concerned, was of the view that though the rule was amended with effect from 30.07.1997, it was applicable to the present dispute. It is in the context of the above facts that the Supreme Court in para 14 laid down as under: “14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned counsel for Respondent no.1-applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment, if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Rules regarding qualification for appointment, if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. “ Further, in para 17 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has quoted what was held by it in Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve, (2001) 10 SCC 51 . Para 17 is quoted hereunder: “17. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve it was held as under (SCC pp 55-56, para 5). ‘It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, meaning thereby that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the circular orders dated 24-6.1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside’.” Obviously, such is not the case here. In the instant case, neither the eligibility qualifications nor the selection criteria have been changed. Secondly, the judgment does not fit in the ratio laid down in Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U. P. Public Service Commission (supra). 79. In Bishnu Biswas v. Union of India, 2014 (5) SCC 774 , the facts are that an advertisement was published calling for applications for certain posts. The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination, having 50 maximum marks. The written examination was held and the candidates, who had obtained 20 and above marks, were called for interview, though such interview was not part of the recruitment process. For the interview 50 marks were allocated, though not covered by the recruitment rules. After conduct of the interviews, the final result sheet was published in pursuance whereof appointment letters were issued to the appellants before the Supreme Court. The unsuccessful candidates challenged the said appointments before the Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the appointments. The appointees challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court. After conduct of the interviews, the final result sheet was published in pursuance whereof appointment letters were issued to the appellants before the Supreme Court. The unsuccessful candidates challenged the said appointments before the Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the appointments. The appointees challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal, but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated. In pursuance of the judgment of the High Court, termination letters were issued to the appointees who filed SLP before the Supreme Court. It was in the context of the above facts, wherein though recruitment rules did not provide for conduct of interviews or allocation of 50 marks therefor, and that the concerned recruiting authority had done so and thus changed the selection criteria, that the Supreme Court said that the rules of the game had been changed after conducting the written test. It was also found that that marks awarded in the interview lacked transparency. In the instant case, it is reiterated, the selection criteria have not been changed. Therefore, the judgment is not attracted. 80. The decision in Benny T. D. v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, (supra) was cited for the proposition that when recruitment to posts is governed by statutory rules framed in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the said Rules must be strictly adhered to or else the appointments would be struck down for not being in conformity with such statutory rules. There can be no reservation insofar as the principle of law is concerned, but, the fact is that in the instant case there has not been infraction of any statutory rule framed by the Governor under proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, namely, the 2008 Rules. 81. The learned counsel for the petitioners also cited and relied upon the following judgments: Kunjukunju v. State of Kerala, (2015) 11 SCC 440. This judgment holds that a candidate on making application for the post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection. If he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules, he does not acquire right for being considered for selection as per existing rules. This judgment holds that a candidate on making application for the post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection. If he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules, he does not acquire right for being considered for selection as per existing rules. The Apex Court in the said judgment, referring to its earlier decision in N. T. Kevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, said that the Court has made it clear that if the recruitment rules are amended with retrospective effect during the pendency of the selection, in that event the selection must be held in accordance with the amended rules. We are of the opinion that this judgment does not help the petitioners. 82. The next judgment cited and relied upon is K. Manjusree v. State of A. P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 , This case related to recruitment for posts of District & Session Judges (Grade II) which were governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1958. The Rules prescribed quota for direct recruitment, educational qualification etc. but did not prescribe any criterion for selection. There were, however, Resolutions dated 24.07.2001 and 21.02.2002 which prescribed criteria for selection of candidates. According to prescribed criterion, there were 75 marks for written examination and 25 for interview. It was decided vide Resolution dated 30.11.2004 that existing criterion would be followed, but while holding written examination, 100 marks were prescribed instead of 75. The High Court, on the administrative side, made two changes after the written examination and interviews were over. First, marks for written examination were proportionately scaled down so as to maintain ratio between written examination and interview as 3:1 (75:25) instead of 4:1 (100:25). This was done because original criterion prescribed 75:25 ratio. Secondly, it introduced minimum qualifying marks for interview also. This resulted in reshuffling of selection list. The Supreme Court considered effect of these resolutions and concluded that the Resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 provided qualifying marks for written examination only but not for interview. It held that introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process, consisting of written examination and interviews, was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. It held that introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process, consisting of written examination and interviews, was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. In para 33 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed: “What we have found to be illegal, is changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection proceeded on the basis that there will be no minimum marks for the interview”. In para 32 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as under: “32. In Maharashtra, SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandv [ (2001) 10 SCC 51 , this Court observed that ‘the rules of the game, meaning thereby that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced’. In this case the position is much more serious. Here, not only the rules of the game were changed, but they were changed after the game had been played and the results of the game were being awaited. This is unacceptable and impermissible.” The above judgment clearly lays down that the rules of the game mean the criteria for selection. Since the criteria for selection has not been changed, the judgment is not attracted to the facts of the instant case. 83. The learned counsel next cited the Apex Court judgment in Bedanga Talukdar v Saifudullah Khan, AIR 2012 SC 1803 , for the proposition that the terms and conditions of advertisement notice are to be strictly followed and cannot be relaxed or taken lightly. The backdrop in which the above judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court can be gathered from the following paras of the judgment: “28. 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. 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 can not 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. 29. 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 no.1. Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” This judgment, viewed in context of the law laid down in Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U. P. Public Service Commission (supra), is not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. As seen, in the above case, it was the High Court which had made a direction contrary to the advertisement notice which had the effect of relaxing the condition of eligibility. 84. The next judgment cited is the decision of the Supreme Court in Hemani Majhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 . Therein, applications were invited by the Delhi High Court for 16 vacant posts to be filled up by direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. 84. The next judgment cited is the decision of the Supreme Court in Hemani Majhotra v. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 . Therein, applications were invited by the Delhi High Court for 16 vacant posts to be filled up by direct recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The advertisement notice mentioned the following selection criteria: “Delhi Higher Judicial service Examination shall be a two stage selection process comprising the following: (a) There shall be a written examination comprising one paper only of 250 marks. It shall have two parts. Part I shall be objective and Part II shall be descriptive. Syllabus for written examination shall comprise General Knowledge, Current Affairs, English Language and topics on Constitution of India, Evidence Act, Limitation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code, Contract Act, Partnership Act, Principles governing Arbitration Law, Specific Relief Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Transfer of Property Act and Negotiable Instruments Act. (b) Interview/viva voce. Minimum qualifying marks in the written examination shall be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.” After the written examination was over, the candidates were called for interview. However, it was postponed. Meanwhile, the Selection Committee resolved that as it was desirable to prescribe minimum marks for the viva voce, the matter be placed before the Full Court. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Full Court for considering the question whether minimum marks should be prescribed for viva voce test. It resolved as under: “Considered. It was resolved that for recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service from Bar, the minimum qualifying marks in viva voce will be 55% for General candidates and 50% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.” Consequent to the interviews conducted, three candidates were selected. Two of the five candidates who had qualified for interview, but were not selected, filed the writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the selections so made. The question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court, as mentioned in para 14 of the judgment, was whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. The Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment held as under: “15. The Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment held as under: “15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before commencement of selection process, the authority concerned cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement / qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva voce test was illegal.” Obviously, the decision is not attracted to the facts of this case. 85. Mr. M. Y. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners in SWP no.07/2009, also cited and sought to rely on an order of a Single Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Parmar Jiteshkumar Babubhai v GujaratTechnologicalUniversity dated 23.02.2017. Though this judgment is not binding on this Court, yet we do not want to disappoint the learned counsel and would wish to reproduce hereunder the relevant portion of the order relied upon by the learned counsel. It reads as under: “13. Though it has been sought to be submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mehta for the respondent Corporation that by introducing the negative marking system, the Corporation wanted to select the best candidates. The said submission cannot be accepted. It cannot be gainsaid that it would be the prerogative of the employer, i.e., the respondent Corporation in the instant case, to decide about the manner and method of conducting the examinations and of evaluating the performance of the candidates to get the best out of the lot. However, such manner and method should have been made known to all, prior to the commencement of the selection process. As held by the Supreme Court, the rules of game cannot be changed and that too (to the) detriment to the interest of the players, once the game has started. In the instant case, the respondent Corporation and the GTU flip-flopped at various stages. Initially, the respondent Corporation did not introduce the negative marking system and decided to evaluate marks as per the regular system. The respondent GTU introduced the said system by printing instructions on the question paper. In the instant case, the respondent Corporation and the GTU flip-flopped at various stages. Initially, the respondent Corporation did not introduce the negative marking system and decided to evaluate marks as per the regular system. The respondent GTU introduced the said system by printing instructions on the question paper. Again the GTU declared the result without applying the negative marking system, then again revised the result after applying the said system. The model answer keys of some of the questions were also admittedly found to be wrong…it clearly transpires that the model key answers of many questions were not correct, and therefore, the result declared for the first time on 23.12.2016 was also defective.” We fail to understand how this judgment is relevant to the facts of the instant case. Here the examining body is the Commission, which stands empowered by the Constitution, rather assigned the duty to conduct examinations for appointment to the services of the State, decide about the method and manner of conducting the examinations and evaluating the answer scripts of the candidates, and to choose the best of the lot amongst the competing candidates. Furthermore, nothing of the sort has been done by the Commission in the instant case as is reflected from and depicted in the above quoted passage of the judgment. Of course, no exception can be taken to the law laid down by the Supreme Court that rules of the game, i.e., the eligibility and criteria for selection cannot be altered during the process of selections, but, again, nothing like that has been done by the Commission. 86. Now, at this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the selection criteria prescribed for the instant Examination. The Kashmir Administrative Service is constituted under Rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules, 1979. Rule 5 thereof says that recruitment to the Service shall be made by competitive examination at the junior scale. Such competitive examinations are governed by the 2008 Rules [Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008]. Rule 4 thereof says that the Examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Examination Rules, 2005 [Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005]. Rule 5 of the 2008 Rules prescribes the conditions of eligibility. Rule 4 thereof says that the Examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Examination Rules, 2005 [Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005]. Rule 5 of the 2008 Rules prescribes the conditions of eligibility. Then Rules 8 and 9 lay down the criteria for selection and Rule 10 provides for determining the final order of merit. We deem it appropriate to quote Rules 8, 9 and 10 hereunder. These read as under: “8. Examination (1) The examination shall consist of two successive stages:- (a) Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination (Objective Type) for the selection of candidates for the main examination; and (b) Combined Competitive (Main) Examination (written and interview) for the selection of candidates for the various services and posts. (2) The preliminary examination will consist of two papers of objective type (multiple choice questions) and carry 450 marks in the subjects set out in Appendix-I. This examination is meant to service as a screening test only. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination shall count only for short-listing of the candidates for the Main Examination. Subject to the minimum qualifying marks as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion, the number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination shall be, as far as practicable, 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination or twenty five times the total number of vacancies to be filled in various services and posts, whichever be lower. (3) The Main Examination shall consist of a written test and an interview. The written test shall consist of question papers of the descriptive type, out of which one paper shall be of qualifying nature only, from the subjects set out in Appendix-I as per the detailed syllabus in Appendix-II: Provided that the Commission may revise or update the syllabi for the Combined Competitive (Preliminary/Main) examination from time to time. (4) Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in written part of the Main Examination as may be fixed by the Commission in any or all the papers at their discretion shall be summoned by them for interview. Note:- The interview test is intended to judge the mental calibre of a candidate. In broad terms, this is really an assessment of not only his intellectual qualities but also social traits and his interest in current affairs. Note:- The interview test is intended to judge the mental calibre of a candidate. In broad terms, this is really an assessment of not only his intellectual qualities but also social traits and his interest in current affairs. Some of the qualities to be judged are mental alertness, critical powers of assimilation, clear and logical expositions, balance of judgment, variety and depth of interest, ability for social cohesion and leadership, intellectual and moral integrity. (5) A candidate who fails to secure such minimum number of marks as are fixed by the Commission in their discretion in more than one subject shall not be eligible to be called for interview. (6) A candidate must write the papers in his own hand. In no circumstances will anybody be allowed the help of a scribe to write the answer for him. (7) If a candidate’s handwriting is not easily legible, a deduction will be made on this account from the total marks otherwise accruing to him. (8) Marks will not be allotted for mere superficial knowledge. (9) Credit will be given for orderly, effective and exact expression combined with due economy of words in all subjects of the examination. (10) A candidate shall specify in his application form the optional paper/papers in which he wants to appear. The option once made shall be final. Failure to specify any or all the optional papers shall render the form liable to be rejected. (11) A candidate shall have to write the compulsory papers and optional papers (except language paper) in English. 9. Interview (1) The number of candidates to be summoned for interview will not be more than thrice the number of vacancies to be filled. The interview will carry a maximum of 250 marks (with no minimum qualifying marks). Failure to appear in the interview shall render a candidate ineligible for being recommended for appointment notwithstanding the marks obtained by him in the written examination. The interview will carry a maximum of 250 marks (with no minimum qualifying marks). Failure to appear in the interview shall render a candidate ineligible for being recommended for appointment notwithstanding the marks obtained by him in the written examination. (2) The candidates shall be short-listed for interview on the basis of overall merit obtained by them in the Main Examination irrespective of the category(ies) to which he/she/they belong: Provided that if the number of candidates belonging to any reserved category, who .qualify for the interview on the basis of the above short-listing criteria, falls short of upto three times the number of vacancies reserved for such a category, the Commission shall call the candidates belonging to such category over and above the number short-listed for interview. 10. Merit List Marks thus obtained by the candidates in the Main Examination (written part as well as interview) would determine the final order of merit. Candidates shall be allotted to the various services keeping in view their inter se merit in the examination and the preferences expressed by them for the various services and posts. The allotment of candidates to various services shall be made by the Commission. Provided that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, though not qualifying by the standard prescribed by the Commission may be declared suitable for appointment thereto by reduced standards with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in administration and recommended for appointment to vacancies reserved for members of such class in that service: Provided that physically challenged candidates shall be considered for selection in the services and against the posts identified for their respective categories in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2003 and in accordance with their merit-cum-preference, if otherwise found suitable for selection.” Then Appendix-I mentions the scheme and subjects for the Preliminary and Main Examinations, setting out the Paper-wise marks, and Appendix-II prescribes the syllabi for the two Examinations. Of course, Rule 11 of the said Rules also provides the condition of medical fitness. 87. So, above are the criteria for selection of candidates for appointment to the Service prescribed by the 2008 Rules. How these Examinations are to be conducted is prescribed by examining body, i.e., the Commission in terms of the Rules framed by it which are Examination Rules, 2005. 87. So, above are the criteria for selection of candidates for appointment to the Service prescribed by the 2008 Rules. How these Examinations are to be conducted is prescribed by examining body, i.e., the Commission in terms of the Rules framed by it which are Examination Rules, 2005. These Rules delineate and provide for the in-house mechanism and procedure of the Commission for the conduct and completion of the selection process and, therefore, have nothing to do with the eligibility of a candidate or the selection criteria prescribed for selection. Similarly, the Commission has framed the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business and Procedure) Rules, 1980. These Rules, obviously, provide for the procedure for transaction of the business of the Commission and, therefore, do not, directly, indirectly or otherwise, deal with the eligibility of a candidate to participate in the selection process in question or the selection criteria prescribed for the selection. These Rules provide for the in-house procedures and have nothing to do with any rights or interests of the competing candidates. In light of these facts, the amendment made by the Commission in the Examination Rules, 2005, inserting Rule 31A therein, which provided for On Screen Marking of answer scripts, and the decision of the Commission dated 28.02.2018 adopting the On Screen Marking system to the answer scripts of the Main Examination of the Competitive Examination, 2016, by no stretch of imagination or standard can be said to have changed or impacted the selection criteria prescribed by the 2008 Rules. 88. The judgment in U. P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar, AIR 2018 SC 1233 : 2018(3) SCC 706 , cited at the Bar by Mr. R. A. Jan and Mr. M. Y. Bhat, concerns scaling method adopted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for awarding marks in the said Examination. The Supreme Court has declared such method adopted by that Commission as arbitrary and irrational. Though the petitioners herein have taken a stand that the Commission has adopted the scaling and moderation method in the instant selection, the Commission has denied it having resorted to such a method. We are of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 (4) SCC 534 (Para 13) (supra), referred to and relied upon by Mr. We are of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1988 (4) SCC 534 (Para 13) (supra), referred to and relied upon by Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel aptly applies to the point raised by the petitioners, unsupported by any evidence. Para 13 of the judgment, as referred to at the Bar may be quoted hereunder: “13. ...In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it...” It would suffice to say that the plea has been raised without any material to support it. 89. As mentioned earlier, it was also argued that outsourcing of evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible under the rules governing the subject and that in terms of the relevant Rules, the paper setters and evaluators are required to be the same. We have already dealt with the point of outsourcing in para no.57 of this judgment. We reiterate that by introduction of On Screen Marking the Commission did not outsource the evaluation of answer scripts to the Service Provider. The task entrusted to the Consultancy or the Service Provider was only to scan the answer scripts, transmit it electronically to the Examiners appointed by the Commission for their evaluation and transmit the marks awarded by such Examiners to the Commission. The task entrusted to the Consultancy or the Service Provider was only to scan the answer scripts, transmit it electronically to the Examiners appointed by the Commission for their evaluation and transmit the marks awarded by such Examiners to the Commission. Now, looking at this aspect in a realistic way, factually, practice of outsourcing the task of evaluation of answer scripts by the Commission has been in vogue since long. Admittedly, the Commission does not have Examiners, Evaluators and Experts on its establishment as its employees. The Commission has been engaging such personnel available in the country since long and assigning to them this job to be performed in accordance with the instructions framed by the Commission from time to time. This is what Rule 9 of the Examination Rules, 2005 relates to and speaks of. Let Rule 9 of the Rules be quoted hereunder. It reads thus: “9. Appointment of Examiners The examination papers shall be set by such of the examiners as may be appointed by the Chairman. A panel of examiners shall be drawn up by the Chairman at the beginning of each year. A Committee comprising the Chairman and one member to be nominated by him may review the panel at least once or as and when necessary during the year. The Examiners shall be paid such remuneration as may from time to time be fixed by the Commission. All Examiners will be required to strictly adhere to the instructions for setting the question papers and marking the scripts and these instructions shall be deemed to form part of these rules.” Then Rule 30 of the said Rules provides for dispatch of answer scripts to such Evaluators as are engaged under Rule 9. Rule 9 not only makes it manifest that the practice of outsourcing of evaluation of answer scripts has been there since inception, but the Rule permits so to be done. So, in that sense outsourcing of evaluation of answer scripts is not something new or dehors the Rules. As to the argument that Paper Setters and Evaluators have to be the same persons, meaning thereby that a person, who sets the paper, alone has to be the Evaluator in such paper, we may say that this is neither the scope of the Rule 9, nor practicable. Examiner in context of Rule 9, as quoted above, means a paper setter. Examiner in context of Rule 9, as quoted above, means a paper setter. However, Rule 3(j) of the Examination Rules, 2005 defines the term ‘Examiner” as meaning a person appointed under the Rules to act as such and includes an evaluator or head examiner. It is an inclusive definition of the Examiner which can either refer to paper setters or evaluators, but it does not mean that the two have to be one and the same person. Such a connotation is illogical. The two may be the same, but the two need not be the same always. As said above, it is otherwise impracticable. For instance, there is one paper set for a subject for an Examination and the number of candidates to appear in such examination is 5,000. It would not be possible for a single paper setter-evaluator to evaluate such a large number of answer scripts within a short span of time. It would take a long time for him to do so which would not be in the interest of transparency of the selection process. Otherwise also, even if it were so, how would it affect the competing candidates, like the petitioners herein, is not comprehendible. 90. Now, we come to the other very important point raised in these petitions, which is about the maintainability of these writ petitions. The learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that insertion of Rule 31A by the Commission in the Examination Rules of 2005 regarding switching over to On Screen Marking of answer scripts was duly published much before the conduct of the Main Examination by the Commission for information of the public at large. This amendment made in the Rules was also notified to take immediate effect. It is submitted by them that in that view of the matter, all the candidates were conscious of the operation of the Rule, yet they appeared in the Examination. In these circumstances, it is argued, that the petitioners cannot turn around and challenge the Rule in question, its application to the Examination in question and the result thereof. On that count, it is argued that the writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable. In these circumstances, it is argued, that the petitioners cannot turn around and challenge the Rule in question, its application to the Examination in question and the result thereof. On that count, it is argued that the writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable. The learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the private respondents also referred to the facts and circumstances which, according to them, suggest that they were not aggrieved of the action of the Commission or that they did not have the intention to challenge it, and that the filing of the writ petitions was only an after-thought. We do not wish to refer to the facts and circumstances narrated by the learned counsel in this behalf. It would be suffice to mention that the notification inserting Rule 31A was published by the Commission on 07.12.2017, the written examination was conducted by the Commission from 02.07.2018 to 08.08.2018 and the result thereof was notified on 04.12.2018. The PIL was commenced on 21.12.2018 and the first of these three writ petitions, SWP no.07/2019, was instituted on 04.01.2019. The law on the subject is not res integra. A few of the judgments cited and relied upon at the Bar may be mentioned. In Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K. Sivasubramaniyan, (supra), the appellant Institute before the Supreme Court invited applications for posts of Professor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. Respondent no.1 before the Supreme Court took part in the selection process. He was not selected. He challenged the order of the Executive Council dated 14.08.2004, approving the appointment of various persons to the posts in question on the ground, inter alia, that the selection was not done strictly as per the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and that he having fulfilled all the requirements ought to have been selected against one of the three vacancies. It was also alleged by him that there had been infraction of the recruitment rules. The appellant Institute denied and disputed the allegation regarding infraction of the recruitment rules and further denied and disputed the allegations of irregularities in the selection process. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioner having taken part in the selection process without raising any objection cannot challenge the selection process after being declared unsuccessful. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioner having taken part in the selection process without raising any objection cannot challenge the selection process after being declared unsuccessful. The Division Bench of the Court, however, reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment said that the question whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in this behalf referred to its earlier decisions in G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow [ (1976) 3 SCC 585 ]; Madan Lal v State of J&K [ (1995) 3 SCC 486 ]; Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar [ (2010) 12 SCC 576 ] and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [ (2013) 11 SCC 309 ] and quoted passages therefrom in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment with approval. 91. In D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakam, (2017) 9 SCC 478 , the Management of the Samuel LMS High School, Parassala, invited applications for filling up the post of Music Teacher on direct recruitment basis. The Appellant and Respondent No.1 both applied for the said post. The appellant was appointed as Music Teacher on 12.07.1999 in SamuelLMSHigh School, Parassala. Though Respondent No.1 had applied for being considered for appointment as Music Teacher in the Samuel LMS High School, but after she was not selected in the process of direct recruitment, she raised a plea that since the Management of both the schools were same, she was entitled to be promoted as Music Teacher on the basis of her seniority in the Light to the Blind School, Varkala. In this regard, she first filed a petition before the District Educational Officer who accepted her petition and held that the case of Respondent No.1 was covered under Rule 43 of Kerala Education Rules. The appellant filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Director, Education. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed and the main ground raised by Respondent No.6 was that the two Schools were separate units. It was contended that the SamuelLMSHigh School was run for all children, whereas the Light to the BlindSchool, Varkala, was meant only for differently abled children. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed and the main ground raised by Respondent No.6 was that the two Schools were separate units. It was contended that the SamuelLMSHigh School was run for all children, whereas the Light to the BlindSchool, Varkala, was meant only for differently abled children. It was pointed out that Respondent No.6 had never maintained a common seniority list for these two schools and this was never challenged by Respondent No.1 or any other member of the staff. The Director, Public Instruction, held that both schools had different identities and Rule 43 was not applicable. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a representation which was rejected by the State Government in which it was held that these two schools were separate units and Respondent No.6 had been treating the schools run by them for specially challenged children as separate entities. Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed a writ a petition in the High Court of Kerala. An objection was raised that since Respondent No.1 herein had taken part in the selection process, she could not, after being not selected, be permitted to turn around and claim that the process of direct recruitment could not have been resorted to by the Management of Samuel LMS High School. This objection was overruled by the High Court only on the ground that there can be no estoppel against a statute and the appellant could not be debarred from filing a writ petition. The two writ appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that Respondent No.1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The Supreme Court held that the law was well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. The Supreme Court cited its various decisions in the judgment and quoted passages therefrom in the following manner: “5. In Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows:- ‘15. In Dr. G. Sarna vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows:- ‘15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to get into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection (1976) 3 SCC 585 Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee…’ 6. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors., the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows:- ‘9…Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted…’ 7. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, this Court held as follows :- ‘23…Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name (1995) 3 SCC 486 (2010) 12 SCC 576 does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name (1995) 3 SCC 486 (2010) 12 SCC 576 does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.’ 8. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general Rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. This Court held as follows:- ‘24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.’ 9. Same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others, (2016) 1 SCC 454 . 10. The Kerala High Court did not note the above mentioned judgments and ignored the well settled position of law in rejecting the specific plea raised by the appellant herein that the appellant could not raise the issue that no direct recruitment should have been conducted once she had applied for and taken part in the selection process by direct recruitment. 11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in SamuelLMSHigh School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised. 12. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside order dated 25.07.2003 of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition O.P.No.36563 of 2002 as being not maintainable.” 92. Viewed in context of the above settled position of law, we are of the opinion that the petitioners having been in know of notification dated 07.12.2017 about insertion of Rule 31A in the Examination Rules, 2005 as also the fact that it was made applicable with immediate effect and the petitioners having participated in the Main Examination, but failed to make the grade to be called for Personality Test / Interview, they cannot be allowed to turn around and raise a grievance against the On Screen Marking system adopted by the Commission and the allied mechanisms connected therewith adopted and applied by the Commission, and the consequent result of the Main Examination declared by the Commission. We are of the considered view that these writ petitions, therefore, are not maintainable on this count. Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel, referring to the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, 1997 (9) SCC 527 (Para 12, 16) (supra) submitted that the proposition that estoppel to question the correctness of the selection after a candidate has participated in the selection process, but failed, is not a universal rule. However, we having gone through the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, (supra), especially paras 12 and 16 thereof, relied upon by the learned senior counsel. There the Rules framed by the Governor under Section 309 of the Constitution provided for consulting the SSSB for making selections for filling up the relevant posts. However, we having gone through the judgment in Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj, (supra), especially paras 12 and 16 thereof, relied upon by the learned senior counsel. There the Rules framed by the Governor under Section 309 of the Constitution provided for consulting the SSSB for making selections for filling up the relevant posts. But after the examinations were held and the results were declared, the posts were taken out from the purview of the Board and the Government constituted a committee. The committee so constituted evolved its own criteria of awarding marks to select the candidates, but did not adhere to such scheme of awarding marks; instead it awarded marks in lump sum. It is in the context of these facts that it was held that the entire procedure adopted was illegal and that the Government had committed glaring illegalities and that the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence did not apply to the facts of the case. Such is not the case herein. The judgment is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case; it is wholly distinguishable on all fours. 93. Mr. R.A. Jan, learned Sr. counsel, has also cited a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in P. Kishore Kumar v The State of A. P., MANU/AP/0603/2016 : 2016 (6) ALT 408. The judgment does not lay down any law as such. Therein the High Court has directed the Vice Chancellor of the concerned University to re-look at total functionality of online evaluation and change the manner of evaluation to better overall situation. Whatever direction has been passed in that judgment is based on and actuated by the facts which were attendant to that case and discerned from the records produced before the Court therein, a few of which have been copied in the judgment. We have also perused the relevant records produced by the Commission before us and found that the allegations and assumptions raised by the petitioners herein are baseless and unfounded. In that view of the matter, the factual scenario attendant to that case and the directions made in the judgment in that context are not attracted to the case at hand. We have also perused the relevant records produced by the Commission before us and found that the allegations and assumptions raised by the petitioners herein are baseless and unfounded. In that view of the matter, the factual scenario attendant to that case and the directions made in the judgment in that context are not attracted to the case at hand. Nonetheless, the observation made by the Court in para 24 of the judgment concerning employing information technology are relevant and important and we deem it apt to extract the same hereunder: “24. This Court, at the outset, hastens to add that the endeavour of 2nd respondent to capacity build the human resources and employ information technolgoy is appreciated. These result in perspective change of a few academic matters. This Court is of the view that the decision of Vice Chancellor of 2nd respondent University to introduce online valuation and information technology enhances transperency in conduct of affairs of the University and also the confidence of the students at large3, provided the change is foolproof. A reference to the following quotes is apt at this juncture: This Court is reminded of a quote of Lord Budha that ‘Everything changes; nothing remains without change’...”. The observation made by the Court clearly says that introduction of online evaluation and information technology enhance transparency and that change is inevitable: provided the change is foolproof. In the instant case, except the assumptions, nothing is brought on record to even remotely suggest that the change adopted by the Commission is not foolproof. 94. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, also raised an issue concerning the Commission’s conduct in allowing a group of students, who had opted for Zoology as one of their optional subject, to take re-examination in the paper after cancelling their earlier examination. It was argued that the cause of holding second examination was totally unjustified and that the Commission has thus shown favour to the candidates who had opted for Zoology as one of their subjects. On behalf of the Commission it was stated that such course was necessitated by the reasons stated by it in notification dated 28.07.2018 whereby the examination of the relevant paper was cancelled. We have gone through the reasons stated in the notification. The examination of the students in the said paper was conducted both at Srinagar and Jammu Examination centres. On behalf of the Commission it was stated that such course was necessitated by the reasons stated by it in notification dated 28.07.2018 whereby the examination of the relevant paper was cancelled. We have gone through the reasons stated in the notification. The examination of the students in the said paper was conducted both at Srinagar and Jammu Examination centres. At Jammu centre, hardly 3 to 4 minutes into the Examination, the majority of the candidates had risen on their chaires and started sloganeering on the ground that the question paper was out of syllabus and it contained some questions from Anthropology and Physics which did not relate to Zoology. They are stated to have forced other students to join the protest. It is the case of the Commission that the protests had started before the invigilating staff would take the attendance of the candidates who were appearing in the Examination. However, later some candidates had taken the Examination. When the matter was placed before the Commission, it decided to cancel the Examination and conduct a fresh Examination of all the candidates who had opted for Zoology Paper-I. Such a course is permissible even under proviso to Rule 12A(c) of the Examination Rules, 2005. We are of the view that assuming the Commission could not, under Rules, have cancelled the Examination and conducted a denovo Examination of the candidates, if the petitioners were aggreieved of such a course adopted by the Commission, the appropriate stage to challenge the action of the Commission and the notification would have been immediately after the notification in that regard was issued. It is seen that the notification in that regard was issued by the Commission on 28.07.2018 while the Main Examination was still on which concluded on 08.08.2018. The denovo Examination of this paper was scheduled by the very same notification and, in fact, was conducted on 08.08.2018. The petitioners could and ought to have immediately challenged the notification before the denovo Examination was held or even thereafter, but before the results were declared. They did not do so at the relevant time and they have not challenged it even in the present writ petitions. Not to speak of challenging the notification, they have not bothered to place a copy thereof on record of either of these writ petitions as annexure. They did not do so at the relevant time and they have not challenged it even in the present writ petitions. Not to speak of challenging the notification, they have not bothered to place a copy thereof on record of either of these writ petitions as annexure. Obviously, the point has been raised for the sake of it and by way of an afterthought. In any case, no arbtrariness can be read in the conduct of the Commission on this count. After all, the Commission has the duty to exhibit responsible attitude based on fair play in such Examinations; it cannot have a martenet approach when it is convinced that the grievances raised have a foundation. 95. Learned Advocate General, during the course of arguments, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar v Bihar Public Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495 , submitted that it has been held that only the expert bodies like Public Service Commissions can decide appropriate methodology for evaluation on the basis of facts specific to a particular examination and that power of judicial review by its very nature is limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power. He submitted that since the petitioners have not alleged any mala fides, nor the arbitrariness on the part of the Commission is established, these petitions for judicial review of the methodology adopted by the Commission would not lie. We are of the opinion that since we have considered the matter on merits, have called for and gone through the original records of the Commission and found the allegations, assumptions and apprehensions of the petitioners as baseless and belied by such records, the matter should rest at that. 96. In light of all what has been discussed above, we find that the grievances projected by the petitioners are imaginary and unsupported by any material, muchless plausible. Consequently, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions. The same, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 97. Now, coming to the PIL, we are of the view that since the matter involved in the PIL has been considered by us on merits in the three writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, nothing survives to be determined in the PIL. The same, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 97. Now, coming to the PIL, we are of the view that since the matter involved in the PIL has been considered by us on merits in the three writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, nothing survives to be determined in the PIL. Apart from that fact, we are also of the considered view that the PIL is not maintainable for two reasons: first, that it is settled law that PIL would not lie in service matters; and second, after the PIL was commenced, the unsuccessful candidates filed regular writ petitions raising their grievances. It may be observed that the Apex Court has consistently held that in service jurisprudence PILs are not entertained. There is a catena of judgments in this regard, the latest in the series being the judgment dated 19.07.2019 delivered by the Apex Court in certain clubbed matters, the lead case being: Civil Appeal no. 5444 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 31957 of 2018, titled Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate. Therein, the Supreme Court laid down as under: “38… It is well settled that with regard to service jurisprudence, PIL are not entertained. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , this Court has reiterated that PIL should not be entertained in service matter. In paragraph 15 following has been laid down: ‘15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 114 ; Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 540 ; and Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 758 )’ 39. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the High Court was influenced by the submission of the appellant that loss being caused to the public revenue by appointment of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who did not fulfill qualification as laid down in notification dated 12.06.1989, the High Court has virtually entertained the writ petition as PIL. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the High Court was influenced by the submission of the appellant that loss being caused to the public revenue by appointment of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who did not fulfill qualification as laid down in notification dated 12.06.1989, the High Court has virtually entertained the writ petition as PIL. Following observations made by the High Court in paragraph 29 clearly indicate that the High Court proceeded to treat the writ petition as PIL, although, it relates to condition of service of Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles...” In light of the above, the PIL has to be held to be not maintainable and it is so held. 98. Resultantly, the writ petitions, being without any merit, are dismissed together with the connected CMs/IAs/CMPs. The PIL is dismissed as not maintainable. Interim direction, if any, passed by this Court and subsisting shall stand vacated. 99. The original records produced by the Commission are returned to the learned Advocate General in the open court. 100. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, we pass no order as to costs.