JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte for the respondent Nos. 1 to 33. 2. The respondent No. 1 is the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC in short) constituted and governed by the 6th Schedule to the Constitution. The respondent No. 2 is the Executive Secretary, Chakma Autonomous District Council, Kamalanagar, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai. The respondent Nos. 3 to 33 are the private respondents, who have been appointed to Group C & D posts in pursuance to the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and the Order dated 26.11.2019, without the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 issuing any advertisements for filling up the vacant sanctioned posts. 3. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned Notification No. 12032/41/2017-2018 (CADC)(G) dated 24th October, 2019 issued by the respondent No. 1 should be set aside, inasmuch as, the same provides that the State respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall appoint only those persons to vacant sanctioned posts under the CADC, who have been nominated by employees of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC in short) and who have availed the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, thereby excluding consideration of candidates from the open market. He submits that as per the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been made for the employees of the CADC who had a minimum of 3 years of service for reaching superannuation pension. If the employee of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) opts to go on voluntary retirement, a family member nominated by the employee who opts for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS in short) could be considered for appointment to a vacant equivalent post held by the employee who went on voluntary retirement. Thus, the person nominated effectively replaces the person who opts for the VRS. 4. The petitioners’ counsel further submits that in terms of the Notification dated 16.08.2016, issued by the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, recruitment and filling up of all categories of post under the CADC, required the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to obtain the concurrence and prior approval of the Governor of Mizoram. However, as no prior concurrence or prior approval of the Governor had been obtained by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, prior to appointing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to obtain the concurrence and prior approval of the Governor of Mizoram. However, as no prior concurrence or prior approval of the Governor had been obtained by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, prior to appointing the respondent Nos. 3 to 33 to vacant sanctioned posts under the CADC, in terms of the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019, the appointments of the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33 were invalid/void. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per paragraph No. 20 BB of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution, the CADC was required to obtain the approval of the Governor, so that the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 could come into force. In this respect, the learned counsel has referred to Rule 28 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc) Rules, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the “2002 Rules” and the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc)(Amendment) Rules, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “2012 Amendment Rules”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the private respondents to vacant sanctioned post in terms of the Notification dated 24.10.2019 is in violation of Article 16 and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in the case of Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic & Anr. Vs. Anu Lamba & Ors., reported in (2006) 7 SCC 161 . He accordingly prays that the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 3 to 33 to vacant sanctioned posts under the CADC should be set aside. 7. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 33 submits that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall be relied upon by the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33. He submits that the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33 will not be filing any affidavit-in-opposition due to the above reason. 8. The counsel for the respondents submits that as the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 was found to be incomplete, modification of the same was done vide Order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1. He however submits that the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33 will not be filing any affidavit-in-opposition due to the above reason. 8. The counsel for the respondents submits that as the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 was found to be incomplete, modification of the same was done vide Order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1. He however submits that the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33 have been appointed to various Group C & D posts in terms of the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019, even though the same was modified in terms of the Order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1. 9. He submits that the Scheme for voluntary retirement of employees of the CADC and appointment to vacant sanctioned posts in the CADC in respect of nominated persons was valid for a period of 6 (six) months, i.e. from 26.11.2019 to 25.05.2020. He further submits that the Scheme for voluntary retirement and appointment of the nominees of the retired persons who availed of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, being an internal policy matter of the CADC, this Court should not interfere in the appointments made to the private respondents. He also submits that the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33, who are the nominees of the employees of the CADC who availed of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, have been appointed against Group C & D post only, wherein the approval of the Governor is not required. He also submits that the Scheme for voluntary retirement and appointment of the nominees of the retirees, as provided in the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and subsequent Order dated 26.11.2019, does not require the prior approval of the Governor, for the same to become applicable in the CADC. He further submits that the approval of the Governor for appointment to various posts, except Gazetted posts, in the CADC in terms of the Notification dated 16.08.2016 issued by the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department is not required, inasmuch as, the said Notification dated 16.08.2016 had been set aside by this Court in WP(C) No. 23/2018 “Surje Pun & 104 Ors. Vs. The State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.” 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. On a perusal of the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 23/2018, “Sh.Surje Pun & 104 Ors. Vs. Vs. The State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.” 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. On a perusal of the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 23/2018, “Sh.Surje Pun & 104 Ors. Vs. The State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.”, it is seen that this Court had set aside the Notification dated 16.08.2016, issued by the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department. As such, the Notification dated 16.08.2016 would not be applicable to the CADC. In the Judgment & Order dated 17.01.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 23/2018, “Sh. Surje Pun & 104 Ors. Vs. The State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.”, this Court had also held that Rule 28 (2)(g) of the 2002 Rules provided that the approval of the Governor was required for appointment of all Gazetted officers. In the present case, there is nothing to show that prior approval of the Governor was required for appointing the private respondents to Group ‘C’ & ‘D’ posts. 12. With regard to whether the CADC, i.e. the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could have considered and appointed only the nominees of the retiring employees of the CADC who opted for VRS, in terms of the Notification dated 24.10.2019 and the Order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1, this Court is of the view that the said 2 (two) documents should be reproduced for a better understanding of the issue. Accordingly, the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and Order dated 26.11.2019 are reproduced below:- (1) Notification dated 24.10.2019 “NOTIFICATION The Executive Committee of the Chakma Autonomous District Council as per the decision taken in its meeting held on 12/10/2019, is pleased to issue Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its staffs on the following terms and conditions:- 1. Eligibility :- Having not less the 3 years of service for reaching Superannuation age may, opt to retire under this provision. 2. Entitlement: (a) An optee is entitled for Pensionary benefits, Family Pension and leave encashment under CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. (b) The Executive Committee of Chakma Autonomous District Council may consider for appointment of an eligible family member not above the level of the retiree. 2. Entitlement: (a) An optee is entitled for Pensionary benefits, Family Pension and leave encashment under CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. (b) The Executive Committee of Chakma Autonomous District Council may consider for appointment of an eligible family member not above the level of the retiree. (2) Order dated 26.11.2019 ORDER In pursuance of this department OM issued vide L/No.A. 12032/41/2017- 2018/CADC(G): Dated Kamalanagar, the 24th October, 2019 adopting Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for the employees of CADC and with a view to achieving optimum human resource utilization, the Executive Committee of Chakma Autonomous District Council is pleased to order as follows:- 1. All persons employed on regular basis against different categories of posts including teaching staff under CADC will be eligible to seek voluntary retirement provided they have completed a minimum 20 years of qualifying service and have at least 3 years of service remaining before superannuation. However, the request of an employee for voluntary retirement should not be considered in case disciplinary action is pending or contemplated against an employee who has sought voluntary retirement and the same shall be communicated in writing. 2. An employee whose offer for voluntary retirement under the scheme is granted will be eligible to retirement benefits that would have been available to him/her upon superannuation as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972. 3. An eligible employee may submit request opting voluntary retirement from service to the competent authority with detailed particulars of the applicant and his/her proposed nominee shall be: Applicant: Name, date of initial appointment, date of birth, pay level in the pay matrix, total emolument and present place of posting. Proposed nominee: Name, father’s name with permanent address, educational qualification, date of birth. Educational documents & other documents like birth certificate, ST/PRC required to be submitted together with the application. 4. The Executive Committee of CADC may after considering the application pass an order either granting or rejecting the request made by an applicant within a period of 3 months. In case the competent authority fails to pass an order rejecting the request of an applicant by the due date, the request would be deemed to have been accepted and the employee would be retired. A copy of every order made in this regard shall be given to the employee. 5. In case the competent authority fails to pass an order rejecting the request of an applicant by the due date, the request would be deemed to have been accepted and the employee would be retired. A copy of every order made in this regard shall be given to the employee. 5. A request for voluntary retirement submitted in writing may be withdrawn subsequently only with the approval of the appointing authority provided the request for such withdrawal is made before passing the order for acceptance. 6. The scheme shall remain in operation for 6 (six) months from the date of issue of this order in this regard. However, the Executive Committee may decide to extend it from time to time. 7. Only completed year of service shall be reckoned for arriving at the minimum eligible service. 8. No employee shall be allowed to withdraw the request made for voluntary retirement from service under the scheme after it has been granted/accepted by the competent authority. 9. The competent authority shall have absolute discretion either to accept/grant or reject an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme. The reasons for rejecting the request of any employee seeking voluntary retirement shall be recorded in writing by the competent authority. 10. All pension benefits payable to an employee shall be subject to the prior settlement/re-payment in full of loans and any other outstanding due against him/her and payable by him/her to the Chakma Autonomous District Council. 11. The Executive Committee may consider for engagement/appointment of an eligible nominee of the retiree to the post not above the level of group C posts on MR/regular basis. The engagement/appointment shall be made as per report of a committee to be constituted for screening the candidates against the vacancy caused by voluntary retirement under the scheme. This will take with immediate effect. (RASIK MOHAN CHAKMA) Chief Executive Member Chakma Autonomous District Council Kamalanagar MemoNo.A.12032/41/2017-2018/CADC(G): Dated Kamalanagar, the 26th November, 2019. Copy to:- 1. P/S to CEM, CADC, Kamalanagar. 2. P/S to Chairman, CADC, Kamalanagar. 3. P/A to all Ems/Vice Chairman(P), Adviser to P&DC/Dy. Chairman/Dy. Chief Whip/Adviser to CEM/President DSEB/Chairman TPC. 4. Sr. Finance & Account Officer, CADC, Kamalanagar. 5. All Heads of Departments, CADC, Kamalanagar. 6. Guard file. (RASIK MOHAN CHAKMA) Chief Executive Member Chakma Autonomous District Council Kamalanagar.” 13. Copy to:- 1. P/S to CEM, CADC, Kamalanagar. 2. P/S to Chairman, CADC, Kamalanagar. 3. P/A to all Ems/Vice Chairman(P), Adviser to P&DC/Dy. Chairman/Dy. Chief Whip/Adviser to CEM/President DSEB/Chairman TPC. 4. Sr. Finance & Account Officer, CADC, Kamalanagar. 5. All Heads of Departments, CADC, Kamalanagar. 6. Guard file. (RASIK MOHAN CHAKMA) Chief Executive Member Chakma Autonomous District Council Kamalanagar.” 13. As can be seen from the Notification dated 24.10.2019, the CADC had made a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees and also provided a provision for appointment of an eligible family member of the employee, to an equivalent post held by the retiring employee. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on 31.07.2020 is to the effect that the Notification dated 24.10.2019, regarding adoption of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for CADC employees was found to be incomplete. Accordingly, a detailed Voluntary Retirement Scheme was made by way of the subsequent Order dated 26.11.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1. 14. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 26.11.2019 shows that while a regular employee of the CADC can opt for Voluntary Retirement if he has at least 3 (three) years of service remaining before superannuation, the said retiring employee can propose a nominee for appointment to a regular sanctioned post in the CADC. The impugned Order dated 26.11.2019 also states that the Executive Committee may consider engagement/appointment of an eligible nominee of the retiree not above the level of Group-‘C’ post on MR/regular basis. Further, the engagement/appointment shall be made as per the report of a committee to be constituted for screening the candidates against the vacancy caused by Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme. The impugned Order dated 26.11.2019 clearly shows that the filling up of vacant sanctioned Group-‘C’ & ‘D’ posts would be limited only to those persons, who are nominated by the CADC employees, who opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. This kind of favoritism shows the arbitrariness of the State respondents. There is no justification for considering nominees of retiring persons for appointment to Government jobs in terms of the Order dated 26.11.2019 without issuing an advertisement, whereby all eligible candidates could apply for the same. The manner in which the private respondents have been appointed clearly goes to show that there has been no selection process employed by the State respondents prior to issuing them appointment orders to Group-‘C’ & ‘D’ posts. 15. The manner in which the private respondents have been appointed clearly goes to show that there has been no selection process employed by the State respondents prior to issuing them appointment orders to Group-‘C’ & ‘D’ posts. 15. The appointment orders of the private respondents to regular sanctioned Group-‘C’ & ‘D’ posts has been made vide orders that have all been issued on 22.05.2020. One of the Orders dated 22.05.2020, appointing 3 (three) of the private respondents is reproduced below:- “No.A.12032/3/2020-21/CADC(G): Dated Kamalanagar, the 22nd May, 2020. ORDER: In the interest of public service and on the basis of the Report of the Committee constituted Vide No.A. 12032/68/2011-2012 GAD (CADC): dt. 19.05.2020, the Executive Committee of Chakma Autonomous District Council is pleased to order appointment of the following persons to the post of LDC in the Level 4 of the Pay Matrix Rs. 25500-56800/- p.m plus usual allowances as admissible under rules from time to time with effect from the date of joining their respective post as shown against their names. Sl.No Name & Father’s Name with address Place of Posting Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. Shri Bini Moy Chakma S/o Bindu Kumar Chakma of Nalbonya. Local Administration Department Vacant 2. Shri Aestar Chakma S/o Joy Chandra Chakma of Borapansury-II. Rural Development Department Vacant 3. Shri Romit Chandra Chakma S/o Bimal Chandra Chakma of Ajasora-I. Relief& Rehabilitation Department Vacant 16. Similar appointment orders, as indicated above have been issued to the private respondents in various Departments of the CADC, like Primary School Education, General Administration & Control Department, Finance & Accounts Department, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Forest Department, Road & Transport Department, Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation Department, Middle School Education Department and Law & Judicial Department etc. The appointment orders of the private respondents show that no Recruitment Rule or Service Rule has been followed at the time of making the appointments. The appointment orders themselves show that the private respondents dated 22.05.2020 have been appointed on the basis of the report of Committee constituted vide letter No. A. 12032/68/2011-2012 (CADC) dated 19.05.2020. 17. The report of the Committee dated 22.05.2020 constituted vide letter No. A. 12032/68/2011-2012 (CADC) dated 19.05.2020, shows that the private respondents have been appointed on the basis of the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and not the Order dated 26.11.2019. 17. The report of the Committee dated 22.05.2020 constituted vide letter No. A. 12032/68/2011-2012 (CADC) dated 19.05.2020, shows that the private respondents have been appointed on the basis of the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and not the Order dated 26.11.2019. The Committee consisting of 3 (three) members, scrutinized 37 candidates for appointment to various vacant sanctioned posts under the CADC, on being nominated by the employees of the CADC who had opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Committee’s report on the selection process and on the basis on which the appointments of the private respondents have been made clearly shows that no Recruitment Rules or Service Rules were followed, while making appointment of the private respondents to various Group C & D posts in various Departments under the CADC. The Committee report dated 22.05.2020 only states that 37 persons had been nominated for appointment to vacant posts by the employees of the CADC who availed of the VRS. Out of the 37 candidates/nominees, 33 were recommended for appointment. While the Committee report dated 22.05.2020 states that the Committee recommendation is shown in the remarks column of the annexure against each of the candidates (nominee), the Annexure to the Committee report only has 4 columns. The 1st column is the serial number, the 2nd column is the names of the eligible candidates, i.e. the private respondent Nos. 3 to 33. The 3rd column is the designation/posts to which the nominated persons have been recommended and the 4th column is the Department in which the said posts are located. There is nothing in the annexure to show that there was any selection made vis-à-vis some other candidate for being appointed to the posts they have been appointed against. 18. Besides the above, the Governor of Mizoram has made the Lai, Mara and Chakma District Councils (Group B, C & D posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992, hereinafter referred to as the “1992 Rules” in exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph 2(6)(h) of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution. A perusal of the 1992 Rules shows that Group C & D posts in the various Departments of the CADC would have to be filled up through a selection process. In the case of filling up of the post of LDC in the General Administration Department, a candidate has to be an HSLC Pass or its equivalent from a recognized Board/Institution. In the case of filling up of the post of LDC in the General Administration Department, a candidate has to be an HSLC Pass or its equivalent from a recognized Board/Institution. A candidate has to have typing speed of 30 words per minute with working knowledge of a local language. 10% of the post is to be filled up by promotion and 90% by direct recruitment. The composition of a DPC for filling up of the post of LDC by direct recruitment is as follows:- (i) Executive Secretary, Chairman (ii) Superintendent Member (iii) F.A.O Member (iv) One Non-Official Member (to be nominated by the CEM Member) (v) One Senor Officer of D/C Member 19. Similarly, for filling up of various other posts in various other Departments, the 1992 Rules requires that the selection of the candidates should take place for various Group C & D posts to be conducted by a Departmental Promotion Committee, the constitution of the same being not less than 4 members. In the present case, the appointment of the private respondents has been made de-hors any Rules and only on the basis of the report of Committee constituted vide letter No. A. 12032/68/2011-2012 (GADC) dated 19.05.2020, which consist of three persons. Also, there is nothing to show that the private respondents have the requisite criteria/qualifications for being appointed to the concerned group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts as per the “1992 Rules”. 20. It is not disputed by any of the parties that no advertisement was ever issued in respect of the posts to which the private respondents have been appointed against. 21. In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the framing of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme is an internal policy matter is not disputed by this Court. Further, though the power given to the CADC to appoint persons nominated by retiring Government officials, who have opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, without giving any opportunity to other eligible candidates to compete for the said posts, may be an internal policy matter, this Court finds the same to be arbitrary. The appointments of the private respondents is in effect an exercise to replace the CADC employees who opted for VRS, without issuing advertisements, without any selection process and dehors the Rules. The appointments of the private respondents is in effect an exercise to replace the CADC employees who opted for VRS, without issuing advertisements, without any selection process and dehors the Rules. Even if it is assumed that the Scheme for appointment in terms of the impugned Order dated 26.11.2019 is an internal policy matter, the same has to be struck down and set aside as it is not only arbitrary, but also in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 22. In the case of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 434, the Apex Court has held that a policy decision of the State can be subjected to judicial review. 23. In the case of Uma Devi 3 (Supra), the Apex Court had referred to the various decision of the Apex Court, such as Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 482 and Indra Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1992 Supp(3) SCC217, wherein the Apex Court held that the main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public office. It also held that appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made, inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee, whose members are fair and impartial. 24. In the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela (Supra), the Apex Court further held that any regular appointment made on a posts under the State or Union, without inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection, where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution. 25. Paragraph Nos. 35 & 36 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 states as follows:- “35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. Vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 states as follows:- “35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” The law laid down by the Apex Court in the above case clearly states that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or adhoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates and any appointment made in violation of the same would violate the mandate of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 26. 26. The decisions of the Apex Court having clearly held that appointments made without issuing advertisement being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, this Court finds that the appointments of the respondent Nos. 3 to 33, which had been made without any advertisement for the said posts in question are arbitrary and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, they would have to be set aside. 27. In view of the above reasons stated above, this Court finds that the impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and the Order dated 26.11.2019 are arbitrary, insofar as it provides appointment of only nominated persons to regular vacant posts in the CADC, nominated by employees of the CADC, who have opted for the VRS. No advertisements having been issued to enable candidates from the open market to participate in the selection process for the specific posts to which the private respondents were appointed and the appointment of the private respondents being done in violation of the 1992 Rules, the appointment orders of all the private respondents are hereby set aside. The impugned Notification dated 24.10.2019 and the Order dated 26.11.2019 are also set aside. The above being said, as and when the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 intend to fill up the vacant Group C & D posts in the various Departments of the CADC, they shall publish advertisement not only in the print media, but also in the electronic mode, so as to ensure that all eligible candidates have a chance to participate in the selection process. 28. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.