JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Both these Writ Appeals blossom out of the desire of the appellants to be appointed as Ombudsman under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREG) Act, 2005 (for brevity the Act of 2005, hereinafter), subsequent to the cancellation of the draft select list for the same. 2. Writ Appeal No. 2151/2019 arises out of W.P. (C) No. 3602/2019, where the appellants are the petitioners and respondents herein are the respondents. Writ Appeal No. 2108/2019 is at the instance of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 3251/2019 and the respondents herein are the respondents therein. 3. In the Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenged Government Order dated 22.01.2019, Ext.P10 (in both the Writ Petitions), whereby the draft rank list prepared by the Selection Committee for appointment as Ombudsman under the Act of 2005 was cancelled, vide publication in the Kerala Gazette No. 5 dated 10.04.2018. 4. The writ petitioners approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “W.P. (C) No. 3251/2019: (a) Call for the records leading upto Ext.P10 and quash Ext.P10 by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners, who have secured the first rank in their respective district as Ombudsman, in terms of Ext.P7 and P8. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents not to start the process of appointing Ombudsman pursuant to Ext.P10. (d) Declare that Ext.P10 order cancelling the selection that was validly done was for extraneous considerations and therefore unsustainable. (e) Grant such other deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court. W.P. (C) No. 3602/2019 (i) To call for the records leading to issue Ext.P10 notification and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writs or order or direction to quash Ext.P10 notification issued by the 1st respondent. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents to publish the final Rank list with respect to Ext.P7, of persons who are found suitable for appointment as Ombudsman for MGNREGS after removing the ineligible candidates and make appointment, forthwith. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents to publish the final Rank list with respect to Ext.P7, of persons who are found suitable for appointment as Ombudsman for MGNREGS after removing the ineligible candidates and make appointment, forthwith. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the 1st, 3rd and 4th respondents to appoint the petitioners herein in the post of Ombudsman for MGNREGS for the district of Kozhikode and Kannur, respectively, forthwith. (iv) Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings. (v) Grant any other relief, in the interest of justice, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The common case of the writ petitioners is that as per Ext.P10 notification issued by the Government, the select list for the post of Ombudsman to administer the MGNREG scheme under the Act of 2005 was cancelled on the premise that it was not prepared in accordance with the revised guidelines issued on 28.08.2017. It is contended that the 2nd and 3rd respondents invited applications to fill up vacancies of Ombudsman, through open advertisement in News paper dated 04.07.2017 and following the same, the 3rd and 4th respondents issued notice dated 27.12.2017 requiring the appellants to appear for an interview on 10.01.2018 for appointment to the post of Ombudsman under the Act, 2005. Thereafter, a draft rank list was prepared by the selection committee on 14.03.2018. The appellants were entitled to be appointed in their respective districts. However, the appellants did not receive any appointment letter for over 6 months following which they preferred representation on 13.11.2018 before the 2nd respondent. No action was taken on the representation and on 22.01.2019 the 2nd respondent issued a subsequent order as Notification No. 144/DD2/2017/LSGD cancelling the notification dated 14.03.2018, on the ground that the selection procedure adopted by the selection committee in preparing the draft rank list was not in accordance with the revised guidelines dated 28.08.2017 issued by 1st respondent. The revised guidelines having been issued after the selection process commenced, it is not applicable to the selection carried out is the compelling argument. It is in the said background facts, these Writ Petitions were filed. 5. The revised guidelines having been issued after the selection process commenced, it is not applicable to the selection carried out is the compelling argument. It is in the said background facts, these Writ Petitions were filed. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the Gazette Notification published on 10.04.2018 is not a final rank list, but a formal call for objections raised, if any, and the Gazette notification states that the rank list is prepared by the selection committee for consideration of appointment as Ombudsman under the Act, 2005 and notice is given inviting any objections or suggestions with respect to the draft rank list from any person within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the gazette notification is not a final list as claimed by the appellants/writ petitioners and it is up to the State Government to decide upon final selection. 6. The appellants/writ petitioners filed reply to the counter affidavit refuting the averments therein contending that as per clause 2.2.1 of the guidelines the rank list is required to be published in the official website of the State and the official website of nodal department for objections and therefore what was published in the gazette was the final rank list and not the draft list seeking objections from public. 7. The learned Single Judge heard both the writ petitions together and as per common judgment dated 05.09.2019, both the writ petitions were dismissed negativing the contentions raised by the writ petitioners. The appellants argue that the said judgment is liable to be set aside while the State maintains that it should be upheld. 8. The main challenge against cancellation of Ext.P10 has been urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants on the principle that after starting selection process the changes brought in the rules of the game are not to be applied in the selection commenced. It is submitted that Ext.P7 rank list was prepared by the duly constituted selection committee for the selection of Ombudsman in so far as it relates to various districts and the said select list cannot be cancelled to prepare fresh select list on the basis of subsequently issued guidelines during the selection process. It is submitted that Ext.P7 rank list was prepared by the duly constituted selection committee for the selection of Ombudsman in so far as it relates to various districts and the said select list cannot be cancelled to prepare fresh select list on the basis of subsequently issued guidelines during the selection process. By placing heavy reliance on the decision N.T. Bevin Katti and Others vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others, 1990 (3) SCC 157 , it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that a candidate, on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement, though does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if found eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of the limited right by amending the Rules for selection during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature. 9. In N.T. Bevin Katti's case (supra), appointment to the post of Tahsildars regulated by the Karnataka Administrative Services (Tahsildars recruitment/special) Rules, 1975 was the issue. In that case, pursuant to the advertisement, the appellant, who were in service of the State Government, appointed and selected for the post of Tahsildars after the written examination and viva voce test, the Commission finalised the list of successful candidates and published the same in the Karnataka Gazette. An additional list of candidates was also published on 18.03.1975, but the Government did not approve the list as the Government was of the opinion that the reservation for the Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes should have been made in accordance with the directions and procedure contained in the Government Order dated 09.07.1975. Accordingly, Commission prepared a select list afresh in accordance with the Government Order dated 09.07.1975. The appellants' names did not figure in the revised list of candidates. The appellants challenged the validity of the Government Order directing the recast of the selection list as well as the revised list. Therein it was noticed that paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 09.07.1975 specifically made the revised direction therein, inapplicable to the selection for which advertisement has already been issued, to set aside the revised list. 10. The appellants challenged the validity of the Government Order directing the recast of the selection list as well as the revised list. Therein it was noticed that paragraph 11 of the Government Order dated 09.07.1975 specifically made the revised direction therein, inapplicable to the selection for which advertisement has already been issued, to set aside the revised list. 10. Another decision reported in Y.V. Rangaiah and Others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, 1983 (3) SCC 284 is placed to contend that vacancies which occurred prior to amended rules would be governed by old rules and not by the new rules. 11. Another decision reported in P. Mahendran and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1990 (1) SCC 411 , has been placed to contend that amending rule seeking change in the eligibility criteria for selection and appointment is not retrospective and amended rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates, who were being considered for selection, as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the rules before its amendment. In this case, recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors in Karnataka Government service was the subject matter, where amendment was made in the recruitment rules during the process of selection. 12. Decisions reported in K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. and Another, 2008 (3) SCC 512 and Madan Mohan Sharma and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2008 (3) SCC 724 are also given emphasis to buttress this point. 13. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader highlighted decision reported in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 47 to contend that candidate included in the merit list has no indefeasible right for appointment even if a vacancy exists. Further, State, while filling up the vacancies, has to act bona-fide and not arbitrarily. Another decision reported in Dr. K. Ramulu and Another vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 59 also is placed to contend that for germane reasons, the Government is entitled to take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies as on the relevant date since the candidate did not acquire any vested right for being considered merely for the reason that he was in the select list. 14. 14. Reading the common judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge decided the seminal question as to whether any manner of interference is warranted to the Government notification dated 22.01.2019 cancelling the draft select list prepared under the Act of 2005, for appointment of Ombudsman so as to conduct a fresh selection process in accordance with the new guidelines issued after having completed the selection process already commenced before the revised guidelines were brought in. In the judgment impugned, the learned Single Judge held that though various contentions were raised in the writ petitions, no allegation of mala-fides was raised. It has been observed further that as per Ext.P8 notification published in the Gazette, objections or suggestions were invited by the State Government addressed to the additional Chief Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department and it has been specifically stated in Ext.P8 that it was only a `draft rank list'. The learned Single Judge held further that the original guidelines were revised and amendments were made, including clauses, by which the qualification prescribed for 20 years had been limited to 10 years. Thus the zone of consideration was expanded and persons who were having experience as prescribed in the revised guidelines, were also entitled to be considered in the fresh selection since as per the earlier guidelines, only persons who have experience of 20 years alone were entitled to apply. Therefore, as per the revised guidelines, more persons were entitled to apply for the post. Further the petitioners also could apply under the revised guidelines and their chances were not affected and no prejudice is caused to them as their eligibility to be considered has not been altered. It was specifically found by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners made out no case of arbitrariness, illegality or any objectionable action on the part of the State Government in cancelling the list. It was held further that Ext.P8 was styled as a ‘draft list’ and therefore, none of the petitioners could make out a claim that they have to be appointed and therefore they had an accrued right or interest inasmuch as the appointments to be made as per the Act of 2005. 15. It was held further that Ext.P8 was styled as a ‘draft list’ and therefore, none of the petitioners could make out a claim that they have to be appointed and therefore they had an accrued right or interest inasmuch as the appointments to be made as per the Act of 2005. 15. On the question as to whether any interference is called for in so far as the judgment under challenge to have a quietus to the dispute raised, it has to be observed that, after issuing notification for selection, the rules cannot be changed during the process of selection or thereafter is a settled principle of service law. Even if the rules are changed in the midst of an ongoing selection process, it cannot be applied to the selection already commenced. The decisions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are also in support of this settled legal proposition. However, when a draft rank list published with a prescribed time limit of 30 days seeking objections or suggestions to make the list final and the Government/appointing authority decides to start selection afresh, by cancelling the draft select list, as done in this case, the issue is to be looked at from a different perspective. 16. Ext.P7 is the notification dated 14.03.2018 publishing the draft select list. The revised guidelines admittedly came after the selection leading to the draft select list commenced. It was thereafter Ext.P10 notification dated 22.01.2019 was issued in which Ext.P7 draft rank list was cancelled for the reason that, on a close scrutiny, it has been revealed that the selection procedure adopted by the Selection Committee for preparing the draft rank list is not in accordance with the revised guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 28.08.2017. If the Government had directed the revised guidelines to be applied in the commenced selection, then definitely it would have been vitiated. The Government did not do so, but directed a fresh selection to be conducted which action, even the appellants do not allege to be actuated by any mala-fides. Therefore, the general rule that rules for selection cannot be changed after starting selection process or thereafter as such cannot be applied in the facts of this case. There also cannot be found any mala-fides or arbitrariness on the part of the Government in the matter of issuing Ext.P10. Therefore, the general rule that rules for selection cannot be changed after starting selection process or thereafter as such cannot be applied in the facts of this case. There also cannot be found any mala-fides or arbitrariness on the part of the Government in the matter of issuing Ext.P10. The Government was considering the representations against the draft select list filed by one of the appellants and it was realized that the revised guidelines brought changes to the eligibility criteria enabling the Government to carry out the selection from a wider range of persons. This was the only reason evident from Ext.P10 notification, which as appointing authority the Government has the prerogative to exercise; especially when the appellants who figured in the draft list are not clothed with any vested right for appointment. The revised guidelines also do not disentitle the appellants from applying again too. 17. While carving out the difference, reference to the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 8th respondent in W.A. No. 2151/2019 is also pertinent. In the additional counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that Sri. P.G. Rajan Babu, who obtained 3rd rank in the Pathanamthitta district and 3rd rank in Idukki district in the cancelled list, had secured 2nd rank in Idukki district and 4th rank in the Pathanamthitta district in the finalised list after fresh selection. Similarly, one Abdul Azeez K.V. who was holding 1st rank in the Ernakulam district as per the cancelled list, secured 2nd rank in Thrissur district and 3rd rank in Ernakulam district in the finalised rank list. Some others including the petitioners Sathyanathan T.K. and others did not find a place in the finalised select list. Therefore, it is not as if the Government intended to purposefully avoid some persons and cherry pick persons for appointment. It has to be observed that Government started fresh selection process after cancelling the draft rank list published pursuant to the earlier selection process without issuing appointment orders to the persons in the draft select list and the Government did not even finalize the draft select list. Nothing is available on record to find any mala-fides on the part of the Government nor has such an allegation been raised. Nothing is available on record to find any mala-fides on the part of the Government nor has such an allegation been raised. In this context, it is apposite to refer to a decision reported in State of Tripura and Others vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and Others, (2017) 3 SCC 646 where it was held in para.9 that it is by now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rule in force” on the date the consideration took place. There is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises, after referring decision reported in Dr. K. Ramulu's case (supra). Again it was held in para.10 that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely “rules in force on the date” the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. It was held after referring Deepak Agarwal and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2011) 6 SCC 725 further that as against the case of total exclusion and absolute deprivation of a chance to be considered as in the case of Deepak Agarwal (supra), in the instant case (the case dealt therein) certain additional posts have been included in the feeder cadre, thereby expanding the zone of consideration. It is not as if the writ petitioners or similarly situated candidates were totally excluded. At the best they now had to compete with some more candidates. In any case, since there was no accrued right, nor was there any mandate that vacancies must be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arose, the State was well within its rights to stipulate that the vacancies be filled in accordance with the rules as amended. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Razak A. and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 KHC 2812 considered cancellation of select list drawn up in connection with the selection to the posts of Chairman and members of the Child Welfare Committees in various districts in the State of Kerala. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Razak A. and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 KHC 2812 considered cancellation of select list drawn up in connection with the selection to the posts of Chairman and members of the Child Welfare Committees in various districts in the State of Kerala. While dismissing the challenge against the said order in Para-6, it was observed, after referring to decision reported in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. D. Dastagiri and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 373 that even if the selection process was complete and the only task remaining was to publish select list, the candidates, who were selected and whose name found a place in the select list, do not get a vested right to get appointment based on select list. 19. The upshot of the precedents discussed above in detail is that Government being the appointing authority can take policy decision without elements of mala-fides to cancel a select list as done in the present case, since the candidates, who were selected and whose names found a place in the select list, do not get any accrued or vested right to get appointment based on the select list. As such the writ appellants, whose stature which is similar to the candidates covered by the decisions above, also cannot claim any accrued or vested right of appointment pursuant to the draft select list which was cancelled as per Ext.P10. 20. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in holding that the challenge made against the notification dated 22.01.2019, Ext.P10, does not require any interference. 21. Coming to the question as regards the reappointment also, an issue raised in W.A. No. 2151/2019, the learned Single Judge relying on a decision reported in Radhakrishnan vs. State of Kerala, 2018 (1) KLT 720 held that reappointment prescribed under the Act is in respect of a person holding the office of a member and any person, who had held the office earlier and if qualified to be applied when a notification would be invited, the reappointment restriction would not stand in the way of a qualified person submitting application for appointment. Thus, it was held that merely because a person has held a post as Ombudsman earlier, that would not stand in the way of his applying when fresh applications are invited by the State Government. The said finding also cannot be found fault with. 22. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Writ Appeals have to fail. In the result, both the Writ Appeals will stand dismissed.