ORDER : I.A. No.4343 of 2020 1. I.A. No.4343 of 2020 in W.P.(S) No.1241 of 2020 has been filed for impleading the intervenors as respondents in this writ petition. 2. Prayer is allowed. 3. I.A. No.4343 of 2020 stands allowed and disposed of. 4. In view of the pandemic, let this Interlocutory Application be treated as part of this writ petition. W.P. (S) No.1241 of 2020 With W.P. (S) No.1244 of 2020 5. In both these writ petitions, common question of facts and laws are involved and that is why both the writ petitions have been heard together. 6. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sreenu Garapati and Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents-State as well as Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the newly added respondents-intervenors. 7. These writ petitions have been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 8. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 14.03.2020 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau by which the petitioners have been called for to appear in counselling afresh. Further prayer is not to take steps for terminating the services of the petitioners. 9. On 15.06.2020, while hearing of this writ petition, interim order was passed to the effect that any progress made, will be the subject to the result of the writ petition. 10. The case arises in view of the advertisement no.01/2010 dated 26.07.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau on 22.07.2017 and 31.08.2017 regarding appointment on Class IV post of Anusevak. Pursuant to that, the petitioners have made application for appointment and the petitioners were called for appearing in counselling and the interview. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and declared successful. Thereafter, they were called for interview. Their documents were verified and police verification was done. On 08.03.2018, the District Establishment Committee recommended the names of the petitioners to different departments for appointment on Class-IV post. The petitioners were appointed in different departments on 08.03.2018, 05.06.2018 and 24.05.2018 respectively. By the impugned order dated 14.03.2010, the petitioners were again asked to appear in counselling. Their documents were verified and police verification was done. On 08.03.2018, the District Establishment Committee recommended the names of the petitioners to different departments for appointment on Class-IV post. The petitioners were appointed in different departments on 08.03.2018, 05.06.2018 and 24.05.2018 respectively. By the impugned order dated 14.03.2010, the petitioners were again asked to appear in counselling. The intervenors earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 with analogous cases which was decided on 12.09.2018. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to prepare merit list as per the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by them on 05.11.2017. It was further observed that it is open for the candidates after preparation of the merit list to go for appointments of the candidates as per the rules laid down in accordance with law subject to verification of certificates in the counselling. The entire exercise was to be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. It was further observed that if the petitioners are found fit for appointment as per marks obtained in the written test and upon verification of the certificates in the counseling and if there is no other legal impediments, the appointments shall be made within a period of four weeks thereafter. The said order was taken before the Division of this Court in L.P.A. No.26 of 2019. While disposing of the L.P.A., the Division Bench observed that :- “We do not find any scope of confusion in the impugned judgment passed by this Court, but if there is some confusion in the matter, the clarification may be sought for before the Writ Court by filing appropriate application, but for clarification of any such confusion, the L.P.A. could not be filed and the L.P.A. was dismissed.” 11. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the advertisement is contained in Annexure-1. Clause 7 and 8 of advertisement provides that local persons and the persons who were working in daily wages, will be given weightage on the basis of every year of service. For that they were required to provide certificates. He further submits that the petitioners were provided weightage in terms of the advertisement as the petitioners were working prior to the said advertisement. For that they were required to provide certificates. He further submits that the petitioners were provided weightage in terms of the advertisement as the petitioners were working prior to the said advertisement. In that view of the matter, the weightage was provided to the petitioner and the petitioners were appointed. He further submits that the petitioners in earlier writ petition are intervenors in this writ petition, also appeared in the counselling. At the time of appointment of the petitioners and in the first round of litigation and after counselling, the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 were taken in custody and F.I.R. was lodged against them for mal practicing in the written examination. Mr. Sinha submits that the petitioners were not party in the earlier writ petition. He refers to paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of order dated 12.09.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 and analogous cases. Paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 reads as under:- 11. In view of facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination. No additional marks can be allotted in counselling. Counselling is permitted in accordance with law as per terms and conditions of the advertisement for verification of certificates. If the candidates who have appeared in the written examination and have been declared successful and are eligible for appointments after verification of certificates and testimonials, it is open for the respondents to prepare a list for appointment in accordance with law. 12. In the instant case, admittedly examinations were held on 05.11.2017 pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2010 for appointment to the Class-IV posts in Palamau Collectorate. Said Advertisement No. 01/2010 nowhere speaks about the holding of any interview or re-test. The appointment has to be carried out in accordance with the advertisement notice. Once the respondents have floated the advertisement and process of appointment has started, it cannot change the rules of the game once the game has started. In the instant case examination is already over and merit list has been prepared. Once the process is over, how can the respondents change the rules for such appointment. Once the respondents have floated the advertisement and process of appointment has started, it cannot change the rules of the game once the game has started. In the instant case examination is already over and merit list has been prepared. Once the process is over, how can the respondents change the rules for such appointment. There cannot be a doubt that it is the absolute discretion of the employer to make or not to make appointments, even after an advertisement has been issued for inviting applications for appointment but the respondents cannot be allowed to change rule for such appointment. 13. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, all these writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to prepare merit list as per the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by them on 05.11.2017. It is open for the respondents after preparation of the merit list to go for appointments of the candidates as per the rules laid down in accordance with law subject to verification of certificates in the counselling. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if petitioners are found fit for appointment as per marks obtained in the written test and upon verification of the certificates in the counselling and if there is no other legal impediments, the appointments shall be made within a period of four weeks thereafter. 12. By way of referring paragraph 12, learned senior counsel, Mr. Sinha submits that the Writ Court has rightly observed that once the respondents have floated the advertisement and process of appointment has started, it cannot change the rules of the game once the game has started. He submits that in that view of the matter, the respondents are required to follow the terms and conditions of advertisement in view of the observations made in para 12 of earlier order. He further submits that it is not known what criteria now the respondents authorities have adopted pursuant to order of Court. The petitioners are not knowing as to whether in view of Clause 7 weightage are being provided to the persons of local and daily wages persons who have worked and produced certificates or not in view of new process. He further submits that it is not known what criteria now the respondents authorities have adopted pursuant to order of Court. The petitioners are not knowing as to whether in view of Clause 7 weightage are being provided to the persons of local and daily wages persons who have worked and produced certificates or not in view of new process. He submits that without providing any opportunity of hearing, now the respondents have issued show cause contained in I.A. No.4394 dated 31.07.2020. By way of Annexure-7, it has been stated that the petitioners’ appointment is not in accordance with law and show cause has been sought to be issued. He further submits that the respondents authorities have decided to terminate the petitioners and this Annexure-7 is only the eye wash. 13. Per contra, Mr. Sreenu Garapati and Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the respondents authorities are proceeding in the matter in view of order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 which was affirmed by the Division Bench. They further submit that the petitioners have already appeared in the counselling pursuant to the impugned order and at present it is not known whether the petitioners have been selected or not as the final list are yet to come out. They jointly submit that the writ petition is premature. 14. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for intervenors-respondents submits that the intervenors appeared for counselling before filing of W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017. Thereafter, they were arrested. 15. By order dated 15.06.2020, it was observed that any progress will be the subject to the result of the writ petition. It is admitted position that the petitioners have appeared in the further counselling in terms of the impugned letter dated 14.03.2020. The direction issued in the earlier writ petition clearly stipulates that once the respondents have floated the process of appointment, it cannot change the rules of the game once the game has started. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is being disposed of reiterating the direction of the Court to strictly follow the advertisement. The petitioners have already appeared pursuant to the notice. It is expected that the respondent authority shall consider the direction of the Writ Court passed in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 particularly in paragraph 11 and 12 and following that the merit list will be prepared. 16. The petitioners have already appeared pursuant to the notice. It is expected that the respondent authority shall consider the direction of the Writ Court passed in W.P.(S) No.6709 of 2017 particularly in paragraph 11 and 12 and following that the merit list will be prepared. 16. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 17. It is open to the petitioners that if they are aggrieved by final outcome of the merit list, they may take appropriate step in accordance with law. 18. I.A. No.4394 of 2020 and I.A. No.4392 of 2020 have been filed for quashing of show cause notice stand disposed of.