ORDER : All these petitions are being decided together by a common judgment as identical questions of fact and law are involved. The questions, posed for determination herein, have arisen from happening of events which have sequentially continued for inordinate period of more than six years. 2. Government of Himachal Pradesh had created posts of Junior Office Assistant (Information and Technology), Class-III, Non-Gazetted [for short, “JOA (IT”)] for recruitment in its various Administrative Departments. Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules (for short, “2014 Rules”) for the post JOA (IT) were notified on 24th December, 2014. The minimum educational and other qualifications for the direct recruitment were prescribed as under:- (a) ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION:- (i) 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University. (ii) One year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application/ Information Technology from a recognized University/Institution. (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. OR (i) 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University. (ii) ‘O’ or ‘A’ level Diploma from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT). (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. (b) DESIRABLE QUALIFICATION(S).- Knowledge of customs, manner and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh.” 3. The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short “HPSSC”) vide Advertisement No. 30/2015 dated 13.02.2015 invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to 1421 posts of JOA(IT). Though the prescribed minimum essential qualifications were as per R&P Rules, still, besides the candidates having qualifications as per advertisement, a large number of candidates falling under one of the following categories were also provisionally admitted by HPSSC: (i) Those who either held qualification higher to the prescribed qualifications; (ii) those who were having prescribed qualifications but from institutes which were not considered as recognized; (iii) those who held qualification equivalent to the prescribed qualification. This anomalous situation was result of the prevalent procedure which required applications to be submitted online without supporting documents merely on the basis of declaration of candidate made in the online recruitment applications. However, there was clear stipulation in the advertisement that the candidates must ensure their eligibility in respect of category, experience, age and essential qualification(s) etc. as per requirement of the post advertised to avoid rejection at later stage. 4. However, there was clear stipulation in the advertisement that the candidates must ensure their eligibility in respect of category, experience, age and essential qualification(s) etc. as per requirement of the post advertised to avoid rejection at later stage. 4. Having received the applications from large number of candidates whose educational qualifications were not strictly in accordance with the prescription made either in the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, HPSSC started to seek clarification from the State Government since as far back as 4.11.2015, when for the first time HPSSC sought clarification from State Government by posing questions as under : “1. Whether a certificate or diploma issued by any registered institute operating within the state of H.P. or from outside the state is valid for determining eligibility for recruitment to the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) or such certificates issued by recognized institutes are to be accepted. 2. A list of registered/recognized institutes whose diplomas/certificates are valid/recognized for determining eligibility for the post. 3. Any other clarification/guidelines as deemed fit in respect of the recruitment to the post.” The process seeking clarification continued thereafter as is evident from series of correspondence dated 25.02.2016, 27.12.2016, 29.5.2017, 3.6.2017, 24.6.2017 and 14.7.2017 available on record of CWPOA 34 of 2019 (Pawan Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P and others). 5. In absence of any decision from the State Government, HPSSC continued with selection process. A written objective type test was held on 10.04.2016. Total 12473 candidates qualified the test and were called to undertake Skilled Typing Test. 10271 candidates appeared for the Skilled Typing Test and 4092 candidates qualified and were called for interviews which were scheduled from 13.05.2017 to 12.07.2017. Candidature of all candidates, except those who were found to be holding qualification strictly as per 2014 Rules, were rejected. Faced with the situation, some of persons with rejected candidature approached the then State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “Tribunal”) against their rejection by way of OA Nos. 2830, 2989, 2994, 2998, 3009 and 3026 of 2017 and an order dated 30.6.2017 came to be passed by the Tribunal in following terms : Heard. Notice in all the original applications except O.A. No.2994 of 2017, which is accepted by Ms. Archna Dutt in O.A. Nos.2830 and 3026 of 2017 and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi in O.A. Nos.2989, 2998 and 3009 of 2017, learned Standing Counsel, respectively. 2. Notice in all the original applications except O.A. No.2994 of 2017, which is accepted by Ms. Archna Dutt in O.A. Nos.2830 and 3026 of 2017 and Mr. Raj Kumar Negi in O.A. Nos.2989, 2998 and 3009 of 2017, learned Standing Counsel, respectively. 2. All these matters being inter-connected, shall stand clubbed together. 3. On an oral prayer made on behalf of the applicant(s), State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, is ordered to be impleaded as co-respondent No.2 in all the original applications except O.A. No.2998 of 2017. Copies supplied. Amended memos of parties be filed by the next date of hearing. The Registry also to reflect this order in the list of parties in all the original applications except O.A. No.2998 of 2017. 4. Notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State in O.A. No.2998 of 2017 and newly added respondent No.2 in other OAs is also waived by Mr. Gaurav Kochhar, learned Dy. AG. 5. Replies be filed within four weeks. 6. In terms of the previous order dated 28.06.2017 passed in O.A. No.2994 of 2017, Bhavnesh Kumar and others Vs. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Commission has filed instructions dated 29th June, 2017, which are taken on record. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the prayer on behalf of the applicant(s) for interim relief. 8. The process for recruitment to the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) has been initiated by the respondent-Commission. The requisite qualifications for the post are as under:- “EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:- (i) 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/ University. (ii) One year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application /Information Technology from a recognized University/Institution. (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. OR (i) 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/ University. (ii) ‘O’ or ‘A’ Level Diploma from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology (NIELIT). (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi. OR (i) 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/ University. (ii) Diploma in Information Technology (IT) from a recognized ITI/Institution. (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi.” 9. All the applicants are 10+2. OR (i) 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/ University. (ii) Diploma in Information Technology (IT) from a recognized ITI/Institution. (iii) Computer typing speed of 30 words per minute in English or 25 words per minute in Hindi.” 9. All the applicants are 10+2. However, the nomenclatures of the one year diploma held by them in Computer is not in consonance with the nomenclature of the diploma mentioned in the aforesaid educational qualifications. However, prima facie, it is made out that they are holding one year diploma in Computer. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction in the interim to the respondent-Commission to permit the applicant(s), who admittedly have already appeared in the written/typing test, to appear in the interview, provisionally. However, their result shall not be declared and instead kept in a sealed cover till the matter with regard to equivalence of the diploma held by them with the diploma required as per the aforesaid educational qualifications is considered and decided by the newly added respondent No.2-State, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, but within a reasonable timeframe. 10. It shall be the responsibility of each of the applicants to produce certified copy of this order before the Secretary to respondent No.1-Commission forthwith. All these original applications were later registered as CWPOA Nos. 2253, 2289, 2290, 2388, 2394 and 7681 of 2020 in this Court after abolition of the Tribunal. 6. On 21.8.2017, the State Government directed HPSSC to go ahead with the recruitment process in terms of decision taken by the equivalence committee formed for the purpose. The communication dated 21.08.2017 reads as under:- “I am directed to refer to your letter No. HPSSC 8(2)-862/15-13161 dated 14th July, 2017 and also the other references seeking clarification on the subject cited above and to say that the matter has been considered at the Government Level in compliance of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2994 of 2017 and other various similar OA's pending adjudication before the Hon'ble, Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal that the applicant(s) be permitted to appear in the interview, provisionally and their result should be kept in sealed cover till the matter with regard to equivalence of the diploma held by them with the diploma required as per prescribed educational qualification in rules is considered and decided by the State. While passing these orders the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh candidates are holding one year diploma in Computer though nomenclature of the one year diploma held by them in Computer is not in consonance with the nomenclature as prescribed. The Government after having detailed examination and convening a meeting of all concerned departments has arrived at the following decisions : (1). All such candidates having one year Diploma in Computer or higher qualification in Computer Science/Application/IT from any private Institution like from. Society under Societies Act. Rashtrya Saksharta Mission IT programme/Skill Development Programme etc. be considered for final selection subject to having successfully passed their skill test i.e. Typing Test on Computer and after having obtained their undertaking/declaration certifying that they had attended the classes/diploma course by attending the classes regularly. (2). That the Computer Science is not limited to the specific nomenclature of Diploma prescribed in the R&P Rules, as such, the Diplomas in Computer and other Higher Qualifications belonging to Computer Science/application Irrespective of their nomenclature be also considered for final selection subject to having successfully passed their skill test i.e. Typing Test on Computer and alter having their undertaking/declaration certifying that they had attended the classes/diploma course by attending the classes regularly. There may be instance where certificates are issued instead of diploma, In: such cases, the Commission is to ascertain and ensure that subjects stadled, are at par with one year Diploma course in Computer Science/Application/IT. (3). The date of personal interview of the candidate concerned in the instant case be treated as valid date for evaluation/consideration/acceptance of his/her diploma/ essential qualification. (4). With regard to educational qualification, as informed during the meeting, the Commission has sought clarification of equivalence in some cases from the concerned authorities, therefore, the Commission need to proceed further in accordance with the clarification/decision obtained from the State Level Board of Equivalence Committee/H.P. Board of School Education by accepting the qualification of such candidate(s) for this job if that is found equivalent to 10+2 and valid for pursuing higher studies.” The decision so taken and conveyed was subsequently approved by the State Cabinet on 18.09.2017. 7. In pursuance to the above noticed decision of the Government, HPSSC reviewed the selection process and allowed those candidates to be considered for selection, who had earlier been rejected. Appointments were accordingly offered and made. 7. In pursuance to the above noticed decision of the Government, HPSSC reviewed the selection process and allowed those candidates to be considered for selection, who had earlier been rejected. Appointments were accordingly offered and made. Consequently, many candidates though eligible as per R&P Rules, could not find place in the merit of selected candidates. This triggered another round of litigation. Some of these candidates approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 5543 of 2017 which later came to be registered as CWPOA 34 of 2019 in this Court and is also being decided herein. Since this Original Application was filed after declaration of final select list of HPSSC and all the selected persons were impleaded as private respondents with the aid of order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Thus, following two sets of litigations arose out of selection process undertaken by HPSSC for posts of JOA (IT) under Post Code 447 (hereinafter referred to as “JOA 447”) (i) OA Nos. 2830, 2989, 2994, 2998, 3009 and 3026 of 2017 (later registered as CWPOA Nos. 2253, 2289, 2290, 2388, 2394 and 7681 of 2020 in this Court after abolition of the Tribunal) by candidates whose candidature for JOA 447 was rejected by HPSSC for not possessing qualification as per R&P Rules. (ii) OA No. 5543 of 2017 (later registered as CWPOA 34 of 2019 in this Court) by candidates who failed to find their names in select list as a consequence of decision dated 21.8.2017 9. The above-mentioned litigation gave rise to the issue, Whether the decision dated 21.8.2017/18.9.2017 of State Government qualified the test of legality and fairness, if so, whether the selections made by HPSSC to JOA 447, in pursuance to such decision, were valid? 10. For adjudication of above question, in the first instance, we propose to consider the challenge raised by petitioners in CWPOA No. 34 of 2019 which has been filed for following reliefs : “i. That Annexure A-2 clarification dated 21st of August 2017 issued by respondent number 1 may be quashed and set aside. Further Annexure A-3 office order dated 8 of September 2017 may also be quashed and set aside. ii. That the respondent number 2 may be directed to prepare merit list of candidates possessing essential and minimum qualification mention in the advertisement No.3/2015 dated 13.2.2015 and recommend their names for recruitment.” 11. Further Annexure A-3 office order dated 8 of September 2017 may also be quashed and set aside. ii. That the respondent number 2 may be directed to prepare merit list of candidates possessing essential and minimum qualification mention in the advertisement No.3/2015 dated 13.2.2015 and recommend their names for recruitment.” 11. Petitioners in CWPOA 34 of 2019 have raised following grounds for seeking the reliefs as noticed above : (a) Respondents could not have prescribed additional mode of selection. (b) There was no power to relax the R&P Rules vis-a-vis essential qualification. (c) The entire exercise was done with oblique motive to allow the ineligible candidates. (d) It nullified the effect of R&P Rules. (e) Those persons also became eligible who had acquired minimum qualifications on dates subsequent to the last date of submission of applications. (f) The changes in R&P Rules could be made only by due process of law. 12. The genesis of dispute can be traced from the following expression used in 2014 Rules:- “One year Diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application/ Information Technology from a recognized University/Institution”. Firstly, there appeared to be a confusion with respect to import of expression “recognized University/Institution” and secondly, in respect of diploma qualification having been held by the candidates under different nomenclatures. The dispute arose when many candidates applied for JOA 447 claiming to have Diploma in the same subjects as prescribed in 2014 Rules but with different nomenclature and the other dispute was raised in respect of authority which was to recognize the institutes issuing requisite Diploma. Another area of discord was created by the candidates having higher qualification. As evident from the said clause of 2014 Rules, no specific nomenclature of required diploma was prescribed. It was mentioned only as diploma in computer science/computer application/information technology, whereas more than one type of curriculum could be said to have satisfied the requirement in this behalf. As regards recognized university is concerned, there could not be any dispute regarding the authority having jurisdiction to recognize the university, but it was totally unclear as to which was the authority whose recognition was valid vis-a-vis the institution prescribed by 2014 Rules. 13. As regards recognized university is concerned, there could not be any dispute regarding the authority having jurisdiction to recognize the university, but it was totally unclear as to which was the authority whose recognition was valid vis-a-vis the institution prescribed by 2014 Rules. 13. Before adverting to the merits of ground or objections raised in CWPOA No.34 of 2019, it is relevant to notice that Original Application was filed before the Tribunal after the process of appointments to the post of JOA (IT) (post code-447) was completed by respondents. Noticeably, neither the selection process undertaken by HPSSC for JOA 447 nor the selections made thereby are under challenge. It is also to be noticed that the decision of the State Government dated 21.08.2017 to allow candidates for selection other than the candidates having qualification strictly as per the R&P Rules was ratified and confirmed by an ex-post facto sanction granted by the State Cabinet on 18th September, 2017 and such decision of the Government has also not been assailed. Simply, the prayer made in the original application seeking directions to HPSSC to prepare merit list of candidates possessing essential and minimum qualification mentioned in the advertisement No.3/2015 dated 13.02.2015 may not suffice in the absence of the reliefs as noticed above 14. In the aforesaid backdrop, we now proceed to consider the objections raised by petitioners in CWPOA 34 of 2019. A challenge has been laid to the competence and power of the State Government to relax R&P Rules and also to prescribe additional mode of selection. It has been contended that change in R&P Rules could not be made by administrative instructions without adoption of due process as envisaged under law. The contention so raised by the petitioners deserves rejection, for the reasons that firstly the 2014 Rules, vide Clause 18 reserves power of relaxation in favour of State Government. The relevant Clause reads as under:- “18. Power to relax.- Where the State Govt. is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, relax any of the provision(s) of these rules with respect to any class or category of person(s) of post(s). Power to relax.- Where the State Govt. is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, relax any of the provision(s) of these rules with respect to any class or category of person(s) of post(s). By virtue of decision dated 21.08.2017 confirmed by State Cabinet on 18.09.2017, it was decided that the category of persons sought to be selected required elaboration. This power to relax is vested in the State Government, in case State Government finds it necessary or expedient to do so. The only prescription that appears to have been lacking in the instant case is that the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission was not consulted before the aforesaid decision. The right of consultation with Public Service Commission is prescribed by Article 320(3) of the Constitution, however, the Proviso to Article 320 empower the Governor of State to make Regulations specifying matters exempted from prior consultation process of the Public Service Commission. In exercise of such powers “The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Exemption from consultation) Regulations, 1973” have been framed. As per Regulation 3 thereof the exemption from consultation extends to services and posts specified in Schedule to such Regulations and clause 8(i) of the Schedule relates to selection and recommendation for making recruitment to Class III posts, excepting certain categories which in any case does not include the post of JOA(IT). Thus the relaxation of 2014 Rules undertaken by the State Government was within its competence and powers. 15. Secondly, it is evident from the facts detailed hereinabove that the prescriptions of requisite qualification be it in 2014 Rules or in the advertisement could not be said to be unambiguous. The subjects of Computer Science or Information Technology cannot be restricted only to the nomenclature used in R&P Rules/advertisement. Both these subjects carry within them more than one type of curriculum. Thus, in the absence of any clarity as to the kind of curriculum required as pre-condition for eligibility, the decision of the State Government dated 21.08.2017 read with cabinet decision dated 18.09.2017 cannot be faulted. In addition, there was also no clarity as to the authority whose recognition was valid, vis-a-vis, the institutions competent to award requisite Diploma. Thus, in the absence of any clarity as to the kind of curriculum required as pre-condition for eligibility, the decision of the State Government dated 21.08.2017 read with cabinet decision dated 18.09.2017 cannot be faulted. In addition, there was also no clarity as to the authority whose recognition was valid, vis-a-vis, the institutions competent to award requisite Diploma. The repeated correspondence inter-se the HPSSC and the State Government is evidences this fact. Further, the material discussed by the equivalence committee appointed by the State Government also warrants the same conclusion. Support can be drawn from the fact that common R&P Rules for the post of JOA (IT) have been amended by the State Government in 2020 (for short, “2020 Rules”), the relevant extract thereof reads as under : “(a) ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION(S) : (i) Should have passed 10+2 from a recognized Board of School Education/University. OR Matriculation from recognized Board of School Education with one/two year's Diploma/Certificate from an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Information Technology Enabled Sectors (ITES) as notified by Director General of Employment & Training (Govt. of India) from time to time or three years Diploma in Computer Engineering/Computer Science/IT from Polytechnic as approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE);” Record reveals that one of the considerations for amendment of these Rules was the imprecise provision as to the exact kind of diploma required and also the authority which was empowered to authorise the institutions to award the requisite diploma. The 2020 Rules now appears to have clearly prescribed the institutes whose diploma will be valid as also the nomenclature of the diploma as will be relevant for considering the selection and appointment to the post of JOA (IT). 16. Thirdly, it cannot be ignored that multifarious litigations had erupted as a result of the ambiguous 2014 Rules and the posts of JOA (IT) involved therein were required to be filled on urgent basis. The number of posts advertised as well as their usefulness in almost all the departments of the Government underlined the importance and urgency involved. Apparently, Class-III, Non-Gazetted posts of JOA (IT) became necessity in all the departments as a result of advent of computerization and information technology. In order to cope with the requirements of personnel having basic knowledge in computer, these posts were created. Apparently, Class-III, Non-Gazetted posts of JOA (IT) became necessity in all the departments as a result of advent of computerization and information technology. In order to cope with the requirements of personnel having basic knowledge in computer, these posts were created. The records further reveal that even after the selection process undertaken for JOA 447, hundreds of more posts of JOA (IT) came to be advertised later through advertisement for post codes 556 and 817. 17. Fourthly, the exercise to constitute equivalence committee was under taken in pursuance to the judicial order passed by the Tribunal on 30.6.2017. This order was never assailed by anyone including the petitioners in the instant petition. This being so, the deviation made by the State Government from R&P Rules in the aforesaid manner cannot be faulted. 18. Last but not the least, there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the impugned action of the State Government/HPSSC had some extraneous motive or was not bonafide. The contention of the petitioners that the entire exercise of respondents was with oblique motive to allow ineligible candidate is to be ignored without any tangible material on record in support or substantiation thereto. 19. The contention raised by the petitioners that by the aforesaid action of the respondents, those persons also became eligible who had acquired the eligibility after the cutoff date prescribed in the advertisement is also required to be rejected for the reason that the petitioners have miserably failed to provide details in respect of such category of persons. In absence of such details no relief can be granted to the petitioners particularly in the view of the nature of dispute that involves more than one categories of candidates. The contention of petitioners, if was to be upheld, would have required such category of persons to be identified separately. Even otherwise there is no trite law that the employer cannot change the prescription during continuation of selection process. This can be said with more certainty in the given facts and circumstances of the case where there was urgency and the time taken to amend ambiguous Rules would have caused prejudice to the employer. Recruitment/selection process cannot be made subject matter of judicial review merely on the ground that the employer has changed/ amended the rule(s) after initiation of the process. Recruitment/selection process cannot be made subject matter of judicial review merely on the ground that the employer has changed/ amended the rule(s) after initiation of the process. Reference in this regard can be placed on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary; Ashok Tukaram Barde Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others; Suhas Sudhakarrao Lavhekar and Others Etc. Etc., (2019) 6 SCC 362 , wherein it has held as under : [9] The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. To similar effect is exposition made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, (1994) 6 SCC 151 , which reads as under : [5] It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have been made introducing Degree in Science or Engineering or Diploma in Technology as qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Weights and Measures. It is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules, the government has withdrawn the earlier notification and wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any accrued right. It is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules, the government has withdrawn the earlier notification and wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously, no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules. 21. Thus, the contentions raised by petitioners in CWPOA No. 34 of 2019 are rejected and the process of selection and appointment already concluded by the respondents against Post Code 447 is upheld. In view of the declaration of selection process for Post Code 447 as legal and valid, the petitions i.e. CWPOA No. 2253, 2289, 2290, 2388, 2394 and 7681 of 2020 have been rendered infructuous as the relief sought in all such petitions was to allow the persons other than those having qualifications strictly as per R & P Rules/advertisement in the selection process. 22. While the selection process for JOA 447 was still experiencing the turmoil of rival claims, as detailed above, HPSSC, undertook yet another process for selection of 1156 posts of JOA (IT) in pursuance to advertisement No. 32-3/2016 dated 18.10.2016 (post code 556) (hereinafter referred to as JOA 556) for brevity, out of which 85 posts were to be filled on regular basis in Excise Department and the rest were to be filled on contract basis. The Essential Minimum Qualification this time also remained as per prescription of 2014 Rules. Again, the online applications were submitted by all categories of candidates, as in the case of JOA 447, and the already existing confusion aggravated. As noticed above, the selection process for JOA 447 stood completed in September, 2017 from perspective of respondents, notwithstanding, pending litigation for rival claims. Again, the online applications were submitted by all categories of candidates, as in the case of JOA 447, and the already existing confusion aggravated. As noticed above, the selection process for JOA 447 stood completed in September, 2017 from perspective of respondents, notwithstanding, pending litigation for rival claims. Faced again with dilemma, HPSSC once again sought clarification from the State Government regarding criteria to be adopted for selection process against post code 556. In response, the State Government vide letter dated 19.03.2018 directed HPSSC to implement the clarification earlier issued vide communication dated 21.8.2017 in the on-going process against post code 556 also. Contents of letter dated 19.3.2018 read as under : “I am directed to refer to your letters No. HPSSC-C92)970/16 dated 01.01.2018 & 16-02-2018 on the subject cited above and to say that since the posts of Junior Office Assistant (IT), Class-III (Non-Gazetted) have been advertised under different post codes i.e. Post Code 447 and 556 but are to be filled up under one set of common Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post and as such carry one or similar cadre. It has been decided that the clarification dated 21-08-2017, issue by this department on the directions of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in respect of post code 447, be also implemented in the on going process under post code 556, being recruitment for the same post with similar provisions of rules. However, the clarification/instructions dated 21-08-2017 are under challenge before the Hon’ble Court, as such, its implementation will be subject to final outcome of Hon’ble Court orders so passed in case of post code 447 in the pending matters.” 23. The aforesaid decision of State Government prepared another battle grounds for rival claimants. CWPOA No. 7585 of 2019 titled Akshay Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others is one such petition which has been filed by the candidate claiming right of selection strictly as per 2014 Rules. The aforesaid decision of State Government prepared another battle grounds for rival claimants. CWPOA No. 7585 of 2019 titled Akshay Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others is one such petition which has been filed by the candidate claiming right of selection strictly as per 2014 Rules. Whereas, petitions filed by candidates seeking benefit of decision taken by the State Government on 21.8.2017 for JOA 447 and made applicable to JOA 556 vide communication dated 19.3.2018 are CWPOA 6985 of 2020, CWP No. 2329 of 2021, CWP No.2361 of 2021, CWP No. 2420 of 2021, CWP No. 2421 of 2021, CWP No. 2422 of 2021, CWP No. 2423 of 2021, CWP No. 2426 of 2021, CWP No. 3111 of 2021, CWP No. 3112 of 2021, CWP No. 3116 of 2021, CWP No. 3133 of 2021, CWP No. 3134 of 2021, CWP No. 3137 of 2021, CWP No. 3141 of 2021, CWP No. 3142 of 2021, CWP No. 3144 of 2021, CWP No. 3148 of 2021, CWP No. 3151 of 2021, CWP No. 3182 of 2021, CWP No. 3184 of 2021, CWP No. 3887 of 2021, CWP No. 3888 of 2021, CWP No. 3891 of 2021, CWP No. 3892 of 2021, CWP No. 3893 of 2021, CWP No. 4032 of 2021, CWP No.4033 of 2021, CWP No. 4349 of 2021, CWP No.4387 of 2021, CWP No. 4503 of 2021, CWP No. 4621 of 2021, CWP No. 4903 of 2021, CWP No. 5078 of 2021, CWP No. 5129 of 2021, CWP No. 5141 of 2021, CWP No. 5142 of 2021, CWP No. 5148 of 2021, CWP No. 5175 of 2021, CWP No. 5189 of 2021, CWP No. 5193 of 2021, CWP No. 5673 of 2021, CWP No. 5674 of 2021, CWP No. 5760 of 2021, CWP No. 5761 of 2021, CWP No. 6465 of 2021, CWP No. 6467 of 2021, CWP No. 6410 of 2021, CWP No.6557 of 2021, CWP No. 7179 of 2021, CWP No. 7203 of 2021, CWP No. 7209 of 2021, CWP No. 7213 of 2021, CWP No. 7234 of 2021 and CWP No. 7743 of 2021. In addition to above, a number of petitions, filed by candidates who had sought benefit of relaxation granted by Government, were allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court on different dates as detailed hereafter and the judgments passed by learned Single Judge have been assailed in Letter Patent Appeals before this Court which are being decided in the bunch of instant matters. The details of such cases in tabulated form are as under : Sr. No. LPA No. CWP No. Titled Decided on 1. 41/2021 2567/2019 HPSSC Vs. Chandermani 19.3.2021 2. 42/2021 2246/2019 HPSSC Vs. Mahesh Thakur 19.3.2021 3. 43/2021 20/2019 HPSSC Vs. Shubham Thakur 6.4.2021 4. 62/2021 1342/2020 HPSSC Vs. Purshotam Kumar 6.4.2021 5. 63/2021 2721/2019 HPSSC Vs. Amit Panwar 6.4.2021 6. 64/2021 2775 of 2019 HPSSC Vs. Indra Devi 6.4.2021 7. 70/2021 3240 of 2019 HPSSC Vs. Mohinder Singh 6.4.2021 8. 71/2021 3239 of 2019 HPSSC Vs. Geeta Devi 6.4.2021 9. 116/2021 2548/2021 State Vs. Sushil Chauhan 7.7.2021 10. 117/2021 2552/2021 State Vs. Kirti Deep 7.7.2021 11. 118/2021 2550/2021 State Vs. Janesh Kumar 7.7.2021 12. 119/2021 2559/2021 State Vs. Vivek Thakur 7.7.2021 13. 120/2021 2558/2021 State Vs. Pankaj Sharma 7.7.2021 14. 121/2021 2551/2021 State Vs. Kiran Thakur 7.7.2021 15. 122/2021 2564/2021 State Vs. Anil Sharma 7.7.2021 16. 123/2021 2554/2021 State Vs. Pardeep Kumar 7.7.2021 17. 124/2021 2547/2021 State Vs. Shashikala 7.7.2021 18. 125/2021 2549/2021 State Vs. Savita Kumari 7.7.2021 19. 126/2021 2553/2021 State Vs. Rohit Kaundal 7.7.2021 24. Despite communication dated 19.3.2918 from State Government to the HPSSC, the selections for JOA 556 were ultimately made strictly in accordance with 2014 Rules. Noticeable, a sequence of events took place after publication of JOA 556 Advertisement which ostensibly made the HPSSC to ignore directions of Government. A glance at such events shall be material to understand the background. 24.1. An Original Application No. 2644 of 2018 (CWPOA 7585 of 2019) titled Akshay Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others was preferred before the Tribunal laying challenge to the communication dated 9.3.2018 of the State Government. A glance at such events shall be material to understand the background. 24.1. An Original Application No. 2644 of 2018 (CWPOA 7585 of 2019) titled Akshay Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others was preferred before the Tribunal laying challenge to the communication dated 9.3.2018 of the State Government. On 16.8.2018 the Tribunal passed interim order in OA 2644 of 2018 in following terms : “In the facts and circumstances, materials on record and interest of justice, subject to keeping fifteen posts of Junior Office Assistant vacant post for the applicants and final outcome of the original applications, respondent No.3-Commission shall be free to declare the result of the process for recruitment to the post of Junior Office Assistants.” The order dated 16.8.2018 was assailed before this Court in CWP 1964/2018, which was disposed of in following terms vide order dated 28.8.2018 : “In this background, we clarify that the appointments to the posts of Junior Office Assistant (Code 556) shall be strictly in accordance with the Common Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the posts of Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III (Non-gazetted) in various Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government, as also Advertisement No. 32-3/2016 and not in terms of communication, dated 19th March, 2018.” Thus, the respondents were directed to make recruitments for JOA 556 strictly as per R&P Rules. 24.2 A review of judgment dated 28.8.2018 of this Court in CWP 1964/2018 was sought by those candidates who supported the communication dated 9.3.2018 of the State Government. Review Petition 82 of 2018 was decided in following terms on 5.11.2018 : “5. Be that as it may, as the matter is sub-judice before the learned Tribunal and the Committee which has submitted its report on 21.08.2017, has been so constituted by the learned Tribunal, its recommendations, can be looked into by the learned Tribunal uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in the perspective of the Common Recruitment & Promotion Rues, in the backdrop of the controversy involved in the application before it.” The effect of judgment dated 16.8.2018 in CWP 1964/2018 was diluted and the matters were left open to be decided by the Tribunal. 24.3 Another Original Application No. 7397 of 2018 titled Naresh Kumar and others came up for hearing before the Tribunal on the ground that candidates with higher qualification could not be considered for selection as settled by Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmed Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiaz Ahmed [ (2019) 2 SCC 404 ] and an order dated 21.12.2018 came to be passed by the Tribunal directing HPSSC to make selections against post code 556 strictly as per Common R&P Rules and also in consonance with decision of Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (Supra). This order became subject matter of challenge in CWP 161 of 2019 titled Bhupinder Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others before this Court. An interim order dated 11.1.2019 was passed in CWP 161 of 2019 to the following effect : “Meanwhile, the operation of impugned order dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-7), passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 7397 of 2018, shall remain stayed. However, the Staff Selection Commission shall only allow the eligible candidates to participate in the process. 24.4. On 23.2.2019 HPSSC declared result of post code 556. Total 596 candidates were selected taking into consideration the R&P Rules and remaining 2400 candidates were rejected. Aggrieved against their ouster from selection process, many rejected candidates approached The Tribunal. On 26.2.2019 the Tribunal directed status quo to be maintained with regard to issue of appointment letters in pursuance to declaration of result of post code 556 by HPSSC in OA No. 677/2019 (CWPOA 20 of 2019). Aggrieved against order dated 26.2.2019 passed by the Tribunal a group of selected candidates approached this Court by filing CWP 629 of 2019. 24.5. Certain candidates whose applications were rejected by the HPSSC on the ground that they had not acquired the technical qualification from a recognised institute filed application in CWP 161/2019 as interveners. On 21.5.2019 Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order in CWP 161/2019 in following terms : “In some of the matters, which have been adjourned for 17.6.2019, learned Advocate General has sought time for constitution of committee to examine equivalence of academic/technical qualification. Let the said committee comprising of 3 to 5 experts be constituted within two weeks, which will examine all the issues regarding recognition and genuineness of the qualifications, which are claimed to be equivalent or higher than those prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Let the said committee comprising of 3 to 5 experts be constituted within two weeks, which will examine all the issues regarding recognition and genuineness of the qualifications, which are claimed to be equivalent or higher than those prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The question whether equivalent qualification will be eligible for the advertised post is kept open to be decided at the appropriate stage. Meanwhile, it shall be discretion of the State Government to offer appointment to the selected candidates strictly in order of merit on contract basis (and not against regular posts) provided such candidates are possessing qualification strictly as per R&P Rules. These appointments will be a stop gap arrangement and subject to outcome of these writ petitions” 24.6. The committee appointed by the Government vide proceedings dated 15.6.2019 considered three issues and made its recommendations in following terms : (i) Equivalence of the academic/ technical qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) Recommendation Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated as above the committee unanimously concluded that no equivalent qualification can be considered/ recommended in the absence of specific clause to this effect in the R&P Rules. (ii) Recognition of the institutions imparting trainings and running courses in computer/ IT related subjects; Recommendation Thus, keeping above in view, the committee agreed that only qualification obtained from recognised institute be considered for recruitment for JOA(IT) and ZONE OF CONSIDERATION/ selection cannot be expanded after start of selection process. (iii) Higher qualification vis-à-vis the minimum essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post. Recommendation Hence, the committee was in consensus that the candidates with higher qualification cannot be considered for appointment to the post of JOA(IT) under the existing R&P Rules. 24.7. A division bench of this Court decided CWP 161/2019 and 629 /2019 by a common judgment dated 29.08.2019. So far as the claim of the candidates with higher qualifications is concerned, the same was declined on merits, however, the claim of candidates having qualified from institutes not considered recognized by State/ HPSSC was left open. The HPSSC while declaring the result of post Code 556 had declared only those candidates successful who fulfilled the prescribed essential qualifications as per R&P Rules. On 17.09.219, HPSSC declared the revised result. The HPSSC while declaring the result of post Code 556 had declared only those candidates successful who fulfilled the prescribed essential qualifications as per R&P Rules. On 17.09.219, HPSSC declared the revised result. Thus, in pursuance to the selection process for post Code 556 only those candidates were selected who strictly held the qualifications as per Advertisement and R&P Rules. 25. On 20.08.2019, amendment was proposed in 2014 Rules. The candidates holding the equivalent qualifications for post Code 556 approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2246 of 2019, in which interim direction was issued vide order dated 11.09.2019 in the following terms:- “In the interim, the appointments, if any, of the selected candidate(s) against the post of J.O.A(IT) post code-556, shall be subject to the order to be passed in the application on the next date of hearing after taking on record the version of the respondents.” 26. On 06.12.2019, the State Government directed the HPSSC to treat the recruitment process for post Code 556 concluded with directions to re-advertise/filled the unfilled and new posts after Notifications/Publication of new common R&P Rules, which were said to be under active consideration of the Department of Personnel. The writ petitions were filed with the reliefs identical to CWP No. 2246/2019. On 15.10.2020, a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of matters lead case being CWP No. 2246 of 2019, again reiterated that the selections made pursuant to the Notification in issue would remain subject to outcome of these petitions. The R&P Rules were finally amended and fresh Advertisement for the post of JOA(IT) was issued against post Code 817 on 21.09.2020. On 15.10.2020 in bunch matters referred to hereinabove, the following order was passed by this Court:- “Pursuant to Advertisement No.36-2/2020, dated 21.09.2020, issued by respondent-HPSSC, to the posts of Junior Office Assistant (IT), the respondent-H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, is permitted to proceed with the recruitment process, however, the final result shall not be announced without permission of this Court. Application stands disposed of.” 27. The HPSSC declared the result of Written Objective Type Screening Test against post Code 817 and provisionally shortlisted total 19024 candidates for typing skilled test. 28. Thus, three successive Advertisements were issued by the HPSSC for recruitment to the post of JOA(IT) but as the irony would have been, none of the selection processes have attained finality. The HPSSC declared the result of Written Objective Type Screening Test against post Code 817 and provisionally shortlisted total 19024 candidates for typing skilled test. 28. Thus, three successive Advertisements were issued by the HPSSC for recruitment to the post of JOA(IT) but as the irony would have been, none of the selection processes have attained finality. There is challenge to the final selection made in post Code 447 by those who held the qualifications strictly in terms of R&P Rules. Challenge to selection process for post Code 447 is also there by the candidates who claimed equivalent qualifications as per R&P Rules but remained unsuccessful. The selection process against post Code 556 had also been challenged by those who either held higher or equivalent qualifications or qualifications from institutes considered not recognised. As regards the persons with higher qualifications probably their fate stands sealed by the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 161 of 2019, but all other challenges were still alive. 29. As regards the selection process for JOA 447, we already have held the decision of State Government dated 21.8.2017 and 18.9.2017 as also the selections/appointments made in pursuance thereto as legal and valid. Now the next question which remains to be decided relates to the selection process undertaken by the HPSSC for JOA 556 and the conduct of respondents-State in respect thereof. As noticed above, the advertisement for the Post Code 556 for 1156 posts was issued by the HPSSC on 18.10.2016. Total 85 posts out of advertised posts were to be filled on regular basis and rest on contract basis. The prescribed minimum essential qualification was again as per R & P Rules and, therefore, in the same language as in the case of Post Code 447. Despite the communication of the State Government to HPSSC dated 19.3.2018 to adopt the same procedure in selection process as was adopted in selection process of Post Code 447 in pursuance to the Government decision dated 21.8.2017 read with 8.9.2017, the selections and appointments were made by applying the 2014 Rules strictly. Thus, the allowance given to candidates in selection process of Post Code 447 was withdrawn in selection process of Post Code 556. Thus, the allowance given to candidates in selection process of Post Code 447 was withdrawn in selection process of Post Code 556. The reason, as appears from the record, was various interim orders passed by Tribunal/Courts from time to time and also the constitution of another Equivalence Committee by the State Government, which had recommended to apply the 2014 Rules strictly without deviation. Noticeably, out of 1156 advertised posts only 596 candidates were declared qualified, selected and appointed. 30. Evidently, the reason for constitution of another equivalence committee was an interim order passed on 21.5.2019 by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 161 of 2019. The second Equivalence Committee had given its recommendations on 15.6.2019. 31. The question that arises for determination is whether the application of different set of rules contemporaneously for the same post by the respondents is justified? The only defence the respondents are relying is an interim order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 21.5.2019 in CWP No. 161 of 2019 and the consequent constitution of second equivalence committee. The perusal of aforesaid order, however, reveals that there was no direction from this Court as such for appointment of equivalence committee. It was specifically noticed that the learned Advocate General had sought time for constitution of Committee to examine equivalence of academic/technical qualification. It was in this context that this Court ordered for appointment of an equivalence committee required to examine all issues regarding recognition and genuineness of the qualifications which were claimed to be equivalent or higher than those prescribed under the R & P Rules. It is worth noticing that vide same order the question whether equivalent qualification will be eligible for the advertised post was kept open to be decided at the appropriate stage. In this view of the matter, the respondents cannot be allowed to take shelter of aforesaid order dated 21.5.2019 passed in CWP No. 161 of 2019 and especially when even while disposing of the said writ petition finally this Court had left the question of equivalence and recognition institutes open. 32. There is nothing on record to suggest that the State Government having once issued communication dated 19.3.2018 had ever issued any correspondence subsequently to withdraw the directions issued to HPSSC. 32. There is nothing on record to suggest that the State Government having once issued communication dated 19.3.2018 had ever issued any correspondence subsequently to withdraw the directions issued to HPSSC. In absence of such an exercise, it is not understandable as to on what basis the HPSSC declared the result by considering the qualifications strictly as per the R & P Rules. Probably, this had resulted in view of interim orders passed in different applications/petitions filed before the Tribunals/Courts. Be that as it may be, the question as posed above is still alive. The mere fact that second equivalence committee was constituted and it had recommended to apply the 2014 Rules strictly cannot be held sufficient reason for the respondents to ignore their earlier decision dated 21.8.2017 made applicable to Post Code 556 vide communication dated 19.3.2018. Indisputably, these decisions were neither withdrawn nor nullified by any subsequent act of the State Government. Once the State Government had exercised its power to relax the R & P Rules, there had to be a conscious decision again of the State Government to revert back to the original position, which is clearly missing in the instant case. There is nothing on record to suggest that the recommendations made by second equivalence committee were even considered by the Government/ employer much less accepted at any stage. That being so, the recommendations of second equivalence committee cannot by themselves have the effect of nullifying the decision dated 21.8.2017/9.3.2017 made applicable to Post Code 556 vide communication dated 19.3.2018. Thus, the denial of the right to all persons similarly situated to those, who were considered for selection in Post Code 447 from outside the purview of 2014 Rules is clearly arbitrary and needs to be interfered with. 33. Thus, the HPSSC is directed to re-cast the merit list for JOA 556 by including all categories of candidate as was done for JOA 447 on the basis of decision of Government dated 21.8.2017/18.9.2017 and further made applicable to JOA 556 vide communication 19.3.2018 except the candidates with higher qualification, who have already been held ineligible vide judgment dated 29.8.2019 of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP 161/2019. These selections for JOA 556 shall be made by taking into account the entire number of vacancies advertised for JOA 556 and the decision of the Government/HPSSC to close the selection procedure for JOA 556 is set aside and quashed. 34. Since the Common R&P Rules stand amended by 2020 Rules and the cause of persistent confusion for the time being appears to have been removed, as a necessary consequence selection for JOA 817 shall take place in accordance with 2020 Rules, however, the selection process shall not include the selection for posts which were left over from advertised posts of JOA 556 as the said posts have already been directed to be filled through selection process of JOA 556. 35. In view of above discussion and directions, all the petitions considered herein are decided accordingly: (a) CWPOA 34 of 2019 is dismissed. CWPOAs 2253, 2289, 2290, 2388, 2394 and 7681 of 2020 have been rendered infructuous. (b) CWPOA No. 7585 of 2019 titled Akshay Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others is dismissed. 35. In view of above discussion and directions, all the petitions considered herein are decided accordingly: (a) CWPOA 34 of 2019 is dismissed. CWPOAs 2253, 2289, 2290, 2388, 2394 and 7681 of 2020 have been rendered infructuous. (b) CWPOA No. 7585 of 2019 titled Akshay Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and others is dismissed. (c) CWPOA 6985 of 2020, CWP No. 2329 of 2021, CWP No.2361 of 2021, CWP No. 2420 of 2021, CWP No. 2421 of 2021, CWP No. 2422 of 2021, CWP No. 2423 of 2021, CWP No. 2426 of 2021, CWP No. 3111 of 2021, CWP No. 3112 of 2021, CWP No. 3116 of 2021, CWP No. 3133 of 2021, CWP No. 3134 of 2021, CWP No. 3137 of 2021, CWP No. 3141 of 2021, CWP No. 3142 of 2021, CWP No. 3144 of 2021, CWP No. 3148 of 2021, CWP No. 3151 of 2021, CWP No. 3182 of 2021, CWP No. 3184 of 2021, CWP No. 3887 of 2021, CWP No. 3888 of 2021, CWP No. 3891 of 2021, CWP No. 3892 of 2021, CWP No. 3893 of 2021, CWP No. 4032 of 2021, CWP No.4033 of 2021, CWP No. 4349 of 2021, CWP No.4387 of 2021, CWP No. 4503 of 2021, CWP No. 4621 of 2021, CWP No. 4903 of 2021, CWP No. 5078 of 2021, CWP No. 5129 of 2021, CWP No. 5141 of 2021, CWP No. 5142 of 2021, CWP No. 5148 of 2021, CWP No. 5175 of 2021, CWP No. 5189 of 2021, CWP No. 5193 of 2021, CWP No. 5673 of 2021, CWP No. 5674 of 2021, CWP No. 5760 of 2021, CWP No. 5761 of 2021, CWP No. 6465 of 2021, CWP No. 6467 of 2021, CWP No. 6410 of 2021, CWP No.6557 of 2021, CWP No. 7179 of 2021, CWP No. 7203 of 2021, CWP No. 7209 of 2021, CWP No. 7213 of 2021, CWP No. 7234 of 2021 and CWP No. 7743 of 2021 are allowed. (d) LPAs 41/2021, 42/2021, 43/2021, 62/2021, 63/2021, 64/2021, 70/2021, 71/2021, 117/2021 to 126/2021 filed by HPSSC or/and the State Government are dismissed. The judgments passed by learned Single Judge are upheld subject to modification that directions issued in said judgments shall be read in consonance with the directions issued hereinabove by this Court. No orders as to costs. Misc. applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.