JUDGMENT : Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the Gazette Notifications issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereby amendment has been effected under Rule 8(1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, 'Rules of 1961'), sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 C of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and the Circulars issued by General Administration Department dated 29.07.2020, Finance Department dated 06.08.2020, and lastly by the School Education Department dated 15.09.2020. One writ appeal has also been filed challenging the order dated 10.6.2021passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No 2090/2021, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, some circulars, which are under challenge in the present batch of writ petitions, were challenged. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are Teachers in School Education Department, Constables in Police Department, Government Servants appointed by Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and aspirants, who wish to appear in the competitive examinations in future. The petitioners, who are in service, are being governed by their respective Recruitment Rules. The core challenge being almost similar, the writ petitions as well as the writ appeal are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners, who are in service, are being governed by their respective Recruitment Rules. The core challenge being almost similar, the writ petitions as well as the writ appeal are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The amendment brought by the State Government in the Rule 8(1) of Rules, 1961 reads as under :- In the said rules.– For sub-rule (1) of rule 8, the following shall be substituted, namely: – "(1) A person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall be placed on probation for first three years.” The amendment brought by the State Government in the sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 C of Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules is as under:-- In the said rules:– For sub-rule (1) of rule 22 C, the following shall be substituted, namely:– “(1) (a) The following stipend shall be payable to the Government Servant selected to the post of direct recruitment during the probation period of three years:– First year - 70 percent of the minimum of the pay scale of the post; Second year - 80 percent of the minimum of the pay scale of the post; Third year - 90 percent of the minimum of the pay scale of the post; Provided that during the probation period, other allowances along with stipend shall be received as a Government Servant. (b) On confirmation in the service or post after the expiry of the period of probation, the pay of the Government Servant shall be fixed at minimum in the time-scale applicable to the service or the post. (c) The Government Servant selected on the posts of direct recruitment also includes the appointment of selected candidates through Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission.” 4. The circular dated 29.07.2020, issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, says that as Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1961 had been amended, all the departments of the State Government have to amend their respective Recruitment Rules and till the same is done, the Recruitment Rules of all the departments shall be considered as amended. Further, circular dated 06.08.2020 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, says that in pursuance of the notification issued by the General Administration Department dated 28.07.2020, a person appointed by direct recruitment to a service, has to be appointed on probation for a period of three years, and till the amendment is carried out in the Recruitment Rules by all the departments, the Recruitment Rules would be deemed as amended. In the circular issued by School Education Department dated 15.09.2020, it is stated that process for appointment of 14,580 teachers was under process and results were announced on 30.09.2019 and 22.11.2019 by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short ‘CG.VYA.PA.M.’). On account of Covid-19, the Finance Department could not take decision on the issue of appointment and thereafter, sanction was accorded with certain conditions, and permission was granted to issue provisional select list. The duration of the probation period has been extended to three years as per the instructions of Finance Department dated 29.07.2020. It is also observed that the said order would be effective from 14.09.2020. 5. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel, who presents the lead argument on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that advertisements were issued prior to date of gazette notification prescribing therein the eligibility criteria, period of probation and pay-scale. She would further submit that the State Government cannot change condition of the advertisement on the basis of gazette notification and executive instructions, which have been notified/issued after completion of selection process. She would admit the fact that in all cases, the appointments orders have been issued after 28.07.2020, but both the gazette notifications issued on 28.07.2020 are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Her further contention is that the rule of payment of stipend to the government servants, selected through direct recruitment for a period of three years, viz. in first year 70%, in second year 80% and in third year 90%, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the conditions of advertisements and the Recruitment Rules. She would also submit that the decision taken by the State Government is hit by principle of legitimate expectation as the petitioners had expectation that they will get basic salary during the probation period and the State Government has made promise in the advertisement to pay particular grade pay-scale to the appointees. She would also submit that the decision taken by the State Government is hit by principle of legitimate expectation as the petitioners had expectation that they will get basic salary during the probation period and the State Government has made promise in the advertisement to pay particular grade pay-scale to the appointees. The amendment effected by the State Government in the Fundamental Rules and the Rules of 1961 are contrary to the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the executive instruction issued by the General Administration Department on 28.07.2020 says that the same would be prospective, whereas, notifications are being given retrospective effect. She would also submit that the petitioners participated in the selection process, which commenced prior to 28.7.2020, and the entire selection process was completed prior to the date of notification except the issuance of appointment orders, and therefore, the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect. The Recruitment Rules of the respective departments, which have not been amended yet, provide basic pay and grade pay and the State Government cannot enforce it without amendment. She would further submit that the statute, which affects substantive rights, is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective. She would also submit that right accrued in favour of the petitioners as they participated in the selection process and the whole selection process was completed prior to the date of notification. It is further contended that the Doctors who were appointed after amendment had come into force are being paid full salary and therefore, denial of same treatment to the petitioners is, ex facie, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that Clause 3(7) of the advertisement deals with disqualification only and it cannot be used to curtail the terms and conditions of Advertisement or existing Recruitment Rules. One more submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the advertisement, there being no whisper of change of rules of the game of the recruitment process and pay scale, etc., the gazette notifications and the executive instructions issued by the State Government are illegal and hence, liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. One more submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the advertisement, there being no whisper of change of rules of the game of the recruitment process and pay scale, etc., the gazette notifications and the executive instructions issued by the State Government are illegal and hence, liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel, who is appearing in WP(S) No. 2530/2021 and WP(S) No. 5489/2021, would submit that while some of the candidates were appointed after the date of notification, most of the selectees were appointed prior to the date of notification in the same cadre while the candidates who were appointed prior to the date of notification i.e. 28.07.2020 are getting full salary, the candidates who were appointed after 28.07.2020 are getting stipend according to the notification dated 28.07.2020. He would further submit that all of them are similarly situated and are discharging same functions, duties and responsibilities but while some of them are getting basic salary according to recruitment rules and advertisement, the selected candidates (after 28.7.2020) are getting stipend, which is discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 23 and 38 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the petitioners were appointed to substantive posts, and therefore, they are entitled to minimum basic salary of the pay-scale along with all the allowances according to the Advertisement and the Recruitment Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of The Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. vs. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 363 , Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682 ; Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others, reported in (1997) 6 SC 623; judgment dated 04.02.2022 of Gauhati High Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar and Another vs. The Union of India and Others passed in WP(C)/7369/2021, judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed by High Court of Rajasthan in matter of Chandra Shekhar Swami and anr. Vs. The Secretary Cum Commissioner and others, Civil Writ petition No. 1465/2020 and judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by High Court of Delhi in matter of Dr. Davinder Singh Brar Vs. Union of India and ors. 8. Vs. The Secretary Cum Commissioner and others, Civil Writ petition No. 1465/2020 and judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by High Court of Delhi in matter of Dr. Davinder Singh Brar Vs. Union of India and ors. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though the advertisement was issued prior to 28.07.2020, but appointment orders were issued in favour of selected candidates after issuance of notifications and executive instructions. They would further submit that from executive instructions dated 15.09.2020, it is crystal clear that the gazette notification dated 28.07.2020 and other instructions would be effective from 14.09.2020. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the Doctors were given basic salary by virtue of Rule 16 of Rules of 1961, which deals with relaxation. There are less numbers of Doctors and they were not willing to opt for government job during the Covid-19 pandemic, and therefore, they have been given the basic salary from the dates of their appointment. They would submit that the State Government has issued the gazette notification dated 28.07.2020 bringing therein amendment under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 1961 and Rule 22 C of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, exercising the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in pursuance of those notifications, executive instructions have been issued to enforce the same. They would also submit that if the petitioners are not satisfied with the stipend, which is being given by the State Government after appointment, they should not have accepted the services of the State Government. Learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners before issuance of the appointment orders and the appointment orders were issued only after issuance of the gazette notifications and executive instructions. They would further submit that some of the petitioners are aspirants for government jobs and who may appear in the examination in future and, thus, they have no right to challenge the gazette notifications and executive instructions issued by the State Government. They would submit that as at no point of time full salary was granted to the petitioners, therefore, the principle of doctrine of legitimate expectation would not apply. Thus, they would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. With regard to contention of Mr. They would submit that as at no point of time full salary was granted to the petitioners, therefore, the principle of doctrine of legitimate expectation would not apply. Thus, they would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 9. With regard to contention of Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the State would submit that the candidates who were appointed prior to the date of notification were given full basic salary, whereas, the candidates who were appointed after the date of notification have been given stipend as per amended Rules. 10. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Howrah Municipal Corpn. and Others vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Others, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 663 and J.S. Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 570 . 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12. The State Government brought amendment under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 1961 and extended the period of probation for a person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment from two years to three years. Likewise, Rule 22 C of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, grants stipend to the government servants selected through the process of direct recruitment during the probation period of three years. In the first year 70%, in the second year 80% and in the third year 90% of the minimum of the pay-scale attached to the post is payable. It is also provided that during the probation period, other allowances along with stipend shall be receivable as a Government Servant. The candidates selected through the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission are also included under the purview of this Rule. These amendments were brought by the State Government exercising the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In pursuance of both the gazette notifications, the Finance Department, the General Administration Department and the School Education Department issued notifications for implementation of the amendment. According to the circular dated 29.07.2020 issued by the Finance Department, the amendment would come into force from 14.09.2020. 13. In pursuance of both the gazette notifications, the Finance Department, the General Administration Department and the School Education Department issued notifications for implementation of the amendment. According to the circular dated 29.07.2020 issued by the Finance Department, the amendment would come into force from 14.09.2020. 13. It is not in dispute that the appointment orders of petitioners (Government Servants) were issued after 28.07.2020, though the advertisements were issued much prior to the date of the gazette notification, but their right accrued only after issuance of the appointment orders. In the appointment orders, they have been given stipend for a period of three years in accordance with the amended Rules and they accepted it without any protest. 14. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1961 deals with scope of application and it says the rule shall apply to every person who holds a post or is a member of a service in the State, except- (a) person whose appointment and conditions of employment are regulated by the special provisions of any law for the time being in force; (b) persons in respect of whose appointment and conditions of service special provisions have been made, or may be made hereafter by agreement; (c) persons appointed to the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service: Provided that in respect of any matter not covered by the special provisions relating to them, their services or their posts, these rules shall apply to the persons mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above. 15. It is not in dispute that the petitioners who have joined the services after issuance of impugned gazette notifications are being governed by certain statutory rules. The terms and conditions of the service of persons, appointed to the civil posts under the State Government, are also governed by the rules. When the field is occupied by the statutory rules, the question of any promise and the government going back on the promise would not arise. The power to enact and amend the rules emanates from the proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution. Till a person is actually appointed to the service, he cannot acquire any status and no promise is held out to such person. The power to enact and amend the rules emanates from the proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution. Till a person is actually appointed to the service, he cannot acquire any status and no promise is held out to such person. As a matter of fact, on the date of their actual appointment, the only promise held out by the government to the writ petitioners is reflected in their appointment orders and the rules which were in existence at the relevant time. In the amendment, the Government has used the term “a person appointed” in the Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 1961, whereas in the Fundamental Rule 22 C (1) the phrase “government servants selected to a post” has been used. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to the benefit of the rules which were in existence prior to amendment as they were enlisted/selected/recruited before 01.04.2003, but the Government had used the word “appointment or selected to a post”, and therefore, prior to the date of appointment, no right accrued in favour of the petitioners. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while making distinction between the terms 'recruitment' and 'appointment' in the matter of Prafulla Kumar Swain vs. Prakash Chandra Misra and Others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 181 held that “the term ‘recruitment’ connotes and signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction, the word ‘appointment’ means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.” 17. The word 'appointment' has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which includes 'direct recruitment' as well as 'promotion'. In the matter of Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 193 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that appointment means initial entry into service. 18. Therefore, it is clear that ‘recruitment’ is nothing more than a mere selection or enlistment while ‘appointment’ is an actual act of offering a post to an individual. In so far as the civil post and the civil services under the State are concerned, it is well settled that they are not merely based on the contract, but are governed by statutory rules issued in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In so far as the civil post and the civil services under the State are concerned, it is well settled that they are not merely based on the contract, but are governed by statutory rules issued in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a vested right is created in favour of a person only after he is appointed to a service or post. Till a person is actually appointed, he is merely a selectee for the post and his selection or enlistment does not confer any right. The Government is entitled even to cancel a selection and conduct the recruitment afresh. Therefore, on the ground that the writ petitioners were recruited for appointment, they cannot claim a right that they are entitled to get benefits prior to amendment of the impugned rules. In the aforesaid contextual setting, plea of legitimate expectation is wholly misconceived. 19. Most of judgments cited by the learned Counsels for petitioners deal with issue of grant of old and new pension scheme. Principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of the cases is as under:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Chairman, Railway Board and Others (supra) while dealing with the issues held in para 20, 24, 25 and 33 as under:- 20. It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. 24. In many of these decisions the expressions “vested rights” or “accrued rights” have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon [ AIR 1967 SC 1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185 : (1968) 1 LLJ 576 ] , B.S. Vedera [ AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1968) 3 SCR 575 : (1970) 1 LLJ 499 ] and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni [ (1983) 2 SCC 33 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 231 : (1983) 2 SCR 287 ] . 25. In these cases we are concerned with the pension payable to the employees after their retirement. The respondents were no longer in service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications. The amendments in the rules are not restricted in their application in futuro. The amendments apply to employees who had already retired and were no longer in service on the date the impugned notifications were issued. 33. Apart from being violative of the rights then available under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f), the impugned amendments, insofar as they have been given retrospective operation, are also violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they are unreasonable and arbitrary since the said amendments in Rule 2544 have the effect of reducing the amount of pension that had become payable to employees who had already retired from service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications, as per the provisions contained in Rule 2544 that were in force at the time of their retirement. 20. The matter of C.R. Rangadhamaiah (Supra) deals with issue of retrospective amendment affecting vested and accrued rights of government employees. It will be worthy to take note that till 28.7.2020, appointment orders were not issued in favor of the selected candidates; therefore, they had no vested right. 20. The matter of C.R. Rangadhamaiah (Supra) deals with issue of retrospective amendment affecting vested and accrued rights of government employees. It will be worthy to take note that till 28.7.2020, appointment orders were not issued in favor of the selected candidates; therefore, they had no vested right. Further the amendment has been given effect from 14.9.2020, whereas, notification was published on 28.7.2020, therefore facts of this case are distinguishable from present batch of petitions. 21. The Case of Subramanian Swamy (Supra) deals with Article 14 and object of classification. It is held that if the object of classification itself is discriminatory, then an explanation that the classification is reasonable having a rational relation to object sought to be achieved is immaterial. In the present batch of petitions, there is no classification of employees but State Government has amended service rules and made it applicable prospectively. The employees, who have been appointed after date of notification, would be governed by existing rules. 22. The decisions of High Court of Delhi and Gauhati cited by the learned counsels for petitioners pertain to grant of old pension scheme (OPS). The advertisement in question was issued in the year 2003 and candidates were appointed in the year 2005. In the meantime new pension scheme came into force from 01.01.2004. When selection process was initiated, all the employees were covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, they claimed pension according to old pension scheme. The High Courts in those petitions allowed the prayer of the employees. 23. The petitioners have argued that right has accrued in their favor, as except issuance of the appointment orders, entire selection process was completed prior to the date of notification. With regard to accrued right, it would be advantageous to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Howrah Municipal Corpn. and Others, (supra), wherein in paragraph - 34 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “34. We do not find that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the Corporation. We have found that the stand of the Corporation, on the basis of the Building Rules, cannot be held to be erroneous that for seeking three additional floors, the Company was required to file a fresh application for sanction with necessary particulars, documents, plans, and enclosures. We have found that the stand of the Corporation, on the basis of the Building Rules, cannot be held to be erroneous that for seeking three additional floors, the Company was required to file a fresh application for sanction with necessary particulars, documents, plans, and enclosures. The Company complied with the necessary requirements but thereafter, the Building Rules were amended and restrictions have been imposed on the height of buildings on G.T. Road. It cannot, therefore, be held that the action of the Corporation is malicious. The Building Rules were amended by the State and the Corporation can have no bona fide or mala fide hand in it. After the amended Building Rules were notified, the Corporation on relevant ground of limited resources for civic amenities in a congested city like Howrah, with the approval of the Mayor-in-Council, could legally impose legitimate restrictions on the height of buildings, in specified wards, roads and localities. It is to be noted from the relevant resolution of the Corporation that restrictions with regard to the height of buildings are not only imposed on G.T. Road but there are several specified wards and areas in which such restriction are applied. This Court cannot accepts that such a legislative change and consequent resolution came to be passed and got approved only to frustrate the pending application of the Company.” 24. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Howrah Municipal Corpn. (supra) has been considered and relied upon in the case of J.S. Yadav (supra), wherein in paragraph-21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “21. The word “vest” is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the long usage the said word “vest” has also acquired a meaning as “an absolute or indefeasible right”. It had a “legitimate” or “settled expectation” to obtain right to enjoy the property, etc. Such “settled expectation” can be rendered impossible of fulfillment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a “settled expectation” or the so-called “vested right” cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law. (Vide Howrah Municipal Corpn. v. Ganges Rope Co. Such “settled expectation” can be rendered impossible of fulfillment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a “settled expectation” or the so-called “vested right” cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law. (Vide Howrah Municipal Corpn. v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.)” In light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited cases it is crystal clear that ‘recruitment’ and ‘appointment’ are distinct words. Until and unless a person is appointed, he has no lien over the post and no right gets accrued in his favor. 25. In the case of High Court of Rajasthan, cited by learned Counsels for petitioners, issue involved was with regard to equal pay for equal work. Prior to appointment of an employee, he is not entitled to get any salary; therefore, he cannot claim parity and equal pay for equal work before appointment. The judgment cited by the petitioners with regard to application of old pension scheme cannot be applied in the present case because pension becomes payable after retirement and that stage has not come yet. 26. While it is correct as contended by Mr. Rohit Sharma that some of the persons selected were appointed prior to issuance of Notification dated 28.07.2020 and thus, are enjoying the benefit of salary as well as probation period of two years, the same cannot be a ground to extend such benefit to the persons who were appointed after issuance of the Notification dated 28.07.2020. Applicability of the amendment would depend on the date of appointment. So far as grant of relaxation to Doctors are concerned, it is the stand taken by the State that there was overwhelming necessity for recruitment of Doctors in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and as there was reluctance to join government service with changed conditions due to the amendment, to meet the exigency of the situation, recourse was taken to relax the rules for the Doctors. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Doctors had a pivotal role to play during the Covid-19 pandemic and they were aptly called as Covid-19 warriors. In view of the extraordinary situation created by Covid-10 pandemic, no fault can be found in granting relaxation to the Doctors in large public interest for combating the situation and the petitioners, in the circumstances, cannot claim parity with the Doctors. In view of the extraordinary situation created by Covid-10 pandemic, no fault can be found in granting relaxation to the Doctors in large public interest for combating the situation and the petitioners, in the circumstances, cannot claim parity with the Doctors. 27. Now we will deal with the writ appeal. A notification dated 29.07.2020 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur was challenged before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2090/2021 and the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have not challenged the validity of amendment brought in Rule 8 (1) of the Rules of 1961 and Rule 22 C (1) of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. As the appellants in the writ appeal have not challenged the notification, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 28. The petition filed by the aspirants is not maintainable as the same has been filed on a contingent condition that if petitioners get appointed in future against any Government Post, they will get stipend for three years. In our opinion no cause of action had arisen for petitioners aspiring for recruitment to government service. 29. In the light of the above discussion and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India or any unreasonableness, arbitrariness in the decision making process whereby the impugned amendments have been brought and executive instructions for implementation of the amended Rules had been issued. Therefore, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.