JUDGMENT : 1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the petitioner had filed the writ petition with the prayer to get a direction against the respondents for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for NEET PG Counselling, 2021 and further, the respondents to be directed to relieve the petitioner for getting admission in PG Medical Course-DNB/PG Diploma Course and all other benefits of service rendered by the petitioner in the Department were also claimed to be extended. 3. This Court while initially hearing the petition passed an order on 08.02.2022 and considering the prima facie case, this Court directed that service rendered by the petitioner from 15.10.2018 to 14.07.2021 was to be considered, on provisional basis, by taking into account the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his suspension, for the purpose of award of bonus marks and further, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the second round of counselling and his result was not to be declared without prior permission of the Court and the interim order was not to create any equity in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submission on the amendment application highlighted the fact of the petitioner not being granted NOC and the other similarly situated candidates were given NOC by the respondents and as such, prayer is also made that service rendered by the petitioner before his suspension, is also required to be counted for the purpose of award of bonus marks. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that necessity of filing of the present amendment application has arisen because the petitioner is not extended the benefits of two years of service prior to his suspension and as such, grounds of the writ petition as well as the prayer clause need to be amended. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State Mr.Harshal Tholia submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner may not be permitted by this Court. 7. Learned counsel submitted that provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not strictly apply to writ petition, however, amendment is to be considered in view of certain parameters, relevant for deciding the amendment in the pleadings. 8. 7. Learned counsel submitted that provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC does not strictly apply to writ petition, however, amendment is to be considered in view of certain parameters, relevant for deciding the amendment in the pleadings. 8. Learned counsel submitted that all the facts, which are now sought to be inserted in the writ petition by way of amendment, were already available with the petitioner when the writ petition was filed and no subsequent event has taken place, which warrants amendment in the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the prayer sought by the petitioner in his original writ petition is not very specific and now also does not make out a case of granting any benefit to the petitioner for the service rendered by him prior to suspension. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that counsel for the petitioner initially sought permission of this Court to amend the writ petition by challenging Rule 55 of RSR, whereby, it has been specifically provided that any employee, who is under suspension, will not be granted any kind of leave. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in the garb of the present amendment wants the relief for counting his service, which he has rendered prior to his suspension. 12. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner has any other remedy under the law, he is always free to avail the same, however, in the garb of the amendment sought for, the entire nature of writ petition cannot be changed. 13. This Court finds that the case initially set up by the petitioner was with regard to the issuance of NOC and further, prayer to get a direction from this Court to take into account the benefits which the petitioner may be entitled for the service rendered in the Department like study leave, etc. This Court further finds that now by way of amendment, the petitioner intends to change the entire contents of petition by seeking a declaration from this Court that service, rendered by the petitioner prior to his suspension, may be taken into account for the purpose of award of bonus marks and he may still continue to be in Govt. Service. 14. Service. 14. This Court, considering the nature of averment made in the original writ petition and the averment made in the application for amendment, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read-with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, finds that the amendment sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed. 15. This Court further finds that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a different/inconsistent stand before this Court. The amendment in the writ petition also seems to be an afterthought, as the interim order was passed by this Court and now the petitioner in the garb of amendment, seeks confirmation of the interim order, which this Court had passed on 08.02.2022. 16. This Court accordingly, dismisses, the amendment application. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner is free to argue his main writ petition. 18. List on 03.03.2022