ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:- (A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application. (B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the form of writ of mandamus quashing and setting aside impugned notifications (recruitment rules) notified by the Sports, Youth and Cultural Activities Department on 17.11.15 and 15.3.16 as being unconstitutional, illegal as well as arbitrary and further be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondents in deleting Master's Degree in Chemistry as a pre-qualification for the post of Director and Deputy Director under the Directorate of Archeology and Museums to be illegal and arbitrary. (C) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No. 2 herein to re-notify recruitment rules for direct recruitment of candidate to the post of Director and Deputy Director, Class I in General state Service under the Directorate of Archeology and Museums and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to include II Class Master's Degree in the Chemistry to be a pre-condition for appointment to such posts. (D) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay further recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 15.2.17 for the post of Deputy Director, Class I General State Service under the Directorate of Archeology and Museums, Gujarat State, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Special Civil Application. (E) ...." 2. The background of facts which have given rise to this petition is that the petitioner is a Senior Chemist posted at Vadodara Museum under the Directorate of Archeology and Museums, State of Gujarat, working right from 6.4.2013 and prior thereto, the petitioner was working with Central Salt and Marine Institute, Bhavnagar affiliated to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India for about 5 years. The case of the petitioner is that on 17.11.2015 and 15.3.2016, the Government has notified different sets of Recruitment Rules in which the Rules for the post of Deputy Director Class-I and Director Class-I, Gujarat State Service under the Directorate of Archeology and Museums, in which crucial subject of 'Chemistry' came to be omitted without any justification or valid reason as a necessary qualification entitling a person to be recruited for both the posts either Director or Deputy Director. It is further case of the petitioner that from beginning, when the Recruitment Rules were framed for making recruitment to the post of Director in the erstwhile department of Museums, Chemistry was always one of the subjects as part of pre-condition and pre-qualification for recruitment to the post of Director. A person seeking appointment to the post of Director ought to have obtained a Master Degree in second class from a recognized University in any of the subjects, including Chemistry, which is figuring out. Later on, recent Rules pertaining to recruitment, which have been published, is arbitrary insofar as it has deleted/omitted the crucial subject, being 'Chemistry'. Resultantly, by raising multiple contentions, an attempt is made to seek the aforesaid reliefs and further has sought an interim relief to the effect that no recruitment process be undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.2.2017. 3. This petition appears to have been entertained by issuance of notice vide order dated 1.11.2017, in which as an interim measure, it has been provided that any appointment shall be subject to further orders that may be passed in the petition. Thereafter, it appears that for pretty long period, the matter got adjourned from time to time and when it has come on 3.5.2018, it was also observed by the Division Bench of this Court that if any representations are pending for amendment of the Rules in question, it is open to the Government to consider the same without reference to the pendency of this proceeding before this Court and since then, the matter is pending before this Court. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the action on the part of the respondent authority in deleting and omitting the subject of Chemistry is wholly unjustified and looking to the significance of the post and the work related to the post in question, Chemistry should have been a part of pre-qualification provided in the earlier Rules. It has further been categorically submitted that there is no justification attached to such deletion, finding place in recruitment rules and just like the petitioner, there are several other similarly situated persons who are illegally deprived of the employment opportunity on the ground that the subject of Chemistry has been removed as pre-qualification in the recruitment rules and as such, after amending the rules, the posts are required to be re-notified for the purpose of recruitment. It has further been asserted by Mr. Hasurkar that the Rules from beginning are providing consistently the subject in question almost right from 1968 onwards, as a pre-qualification requirement to the posts in question and suddenly, without any justification, in 2015-16, only such deletion has taken place. As a result of this, the action on the part of the respondent authority is not only unjust and arbitrary but additionally the action of deletion/omission of Chemistry subject is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been provided that there appears to be non-application of mind on the part of the authority in such deletion and as such also, there is no justification but has reiterated that this deletion has deprived the petitioner from competing in the recruitment process for the post in question. That being so, the relief contained in the petition deserves to be granted. To substantiate this contention, learned advocate Mr. Hasurkar has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant documents but then has further submitted that even the Division Bench on earlier occasion has provided to decide the representation for seeking amendment of the Rules in question. No such response has yet been given, which has resulted into pressing for this petition. No other submissions have been made. 5. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. No such response has yet been given, which has resulted into pressing for this petition. No other submissions have been made. 5. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Chintan Dave appearing on behalf of the concerned respondent authority has vehemently contended that the petition is suffering from vice of principle of delay and laches and since the impugned Rules are notified late in 2015 and early 2016, at a much belated stage, an attempt is made to challenge in the month of October 2017 and therefore, there is no justification in belatedly challenging the same since the public advertisement was issued way back on 15.2.2017. Resultantly, no relief deserves to be granted and as a preliminary objection to this effect, the petition be dismissed. 6. It has further been contended that the petition also deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the prayer is made to the effect that the recruitment process of the Deputy Director is to be stalled and re-notification be made but then, affected persons have not been joined as party to the proceedings and as such, without their presence, who are to be affected, no prayer should have been granted. It has further been submitted that uptil now, no post of Deputy Director was notified, the same came to be notified vide Government Resolution dated 21.2.2014 and new Rules have been made more compatible with focus on development of Archeology and Museulogy since on account of merger of two directorates, i.e. Director of Archeology and Director of museums, only related subjects have been retained which are found to be just for experts who are in the process of framing of Rules. It has further been contended that Chemistry subject is an inalienable from Archeology and Museums, is an ill-founded submission and as such, if Admission Manual of a degree, if to be perused, Chemistry being an inalienable subject from Archeology and Museums, Recruitment Rules have been framed. It has been submitted that at one point of time, request of the petitioner was under active consideration but then, the petitioner himself did not take any interest nor anybody in addition to the petitioner has approached this Court for such grievance. In fact, when the Rules are to be challenged by the petitioner, there has to be some valid ground. In fact, when the Rules are to be challenged by the petitioner, there has to be some valid ground. A bare reading of the petition does not reflect any justification about the challenge made by the petitioner and except non-application of mind and no justification, there is no valid reason or contention is raised to seek the relief. On the contrary, just with a view to see that somehow, the recruitment process be stalled, attempt appears to have been made. Whenever there is any challenge made, the petitioner has to assert proper pleadings in the petition and bare look at the petition would clearly indicate that there are no pleadings about the challenge being made in the present proceedings and therefore, simply because, isolated petitioner has come to raise the grievance and no other affected persons have been joined nor other similarly situated persons have come to this Court, there is no justification in the challenge made by the petitioner. The petition, itself being wholly misconceived and based upon the illogical contentions, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and having examined the petition, it appears that there is a categorical contention raised in para 3.1 that not only the petitioner but several other similarly situated persons are deprived of the employment opportunity, but except the petitioner, nobody has come forward to raise such kind of grievance. Additionally, we also found that after getting order on 1.11.2017, even appointees pursuant to the advertisement have not been joined till date in the present proceedings and therefore, we see serious infirmity in the present proceedings, which is not possible to be unnoticed. 8. Apart from that, it is also further visible from the record that two departments have been merged, one Directorate of Archeology and Director of Museums, and on account of such merger, Rules have been framed with an object of giving compatible focus on development of Archeology and Museology and in that context, subjects have been allocated as a pre-qualification in the recruitment rules and it is not in dispute that the rules are framed with proper authority of law. So, when such is a situation, the contention which has been raised that right from 1968 onwards, subject of Chemistry is continuing and now in the recent Rules, it has been omitted has no legs to stand. So, when such is a situation, the contention which has been raised that right from 1968 onwards, subject of Chemistry is continuing and now in the recent Rules, it has been omitted has no legs to stand. The contention appears to be misconceived and we are not in a position to accept such contention to allow the petitioner to maintain the challenge. 9. We also found that the subject of Chemistry, as it has been contended, is an unalienable, but having examined the stand taken by the authority, we have noticed from page 64 of the petition compilation that an Admission Manual published by M.S. University stipulating the criteria of admission to M.A. Fine Museology, Admission Manual permits the applicants having Bachelor degree in subjects like Arts, Science, etc. and as such, there is no conclusive evidence about Chemistry being unalienable from Archeology and Museums. Resultantly, the challenge made in the petition about the Rules is without any basis and in absence of any concrete pleading, there is hardly any reason to entertain the petition. 10. On the contrary, we found that the Recruitment Rules which are framed appears to be in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and has been set up as a part to provide regulating recruitment to the post of Deputy Director Class-I in General State Service and therefore, legislative competence since not under challenge by the petition, we hardly see any reason to accept the stand of the petitioner. Even the notification which has been made as part of challenge dated 15.3.2016 is also in exercise of the powers conferred by virtue of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. When that being so, when the Rules making authority thought it fit to incorporate such subject as a part of pre-qualification, we see no reason to interfere in our judicial review powers. In absence of any proper pleadings and in absence of any justification, the petition deserves to be dismissed. No case is made out to call for any interference except an observation that if Government is inclined to consider pending representation, it may do so. Except this, we see no reasons to pass any order in the present proceedings. 11. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed hereby with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. No case is made out to call for any interference except an observation that if Government is inclined to consider pending representation, it may do so. Except this, we see no reasons to pass any order in the present proceedings. 11. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed hereby with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.