ORDER : 1. The petitioners in the present petition have challenged the selection list dated 06.05.2022 by which the petitioners who were in the merit list have been placed in waiting list and the private respondents No. 3 and 4, who did not find place in the merit list, have been declared to be selected candidates. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Bastar Jagdalpur issued an advertisement for appointment to the Class IV posts of Ward Boy and Ward Aaya on 20.10.2021. Last date of submission of the application form was 15.11.2021 and date of examination was scheduled to 19.12.2021. As per the advertisement candidates should have qualification as on last date of submission of form. The petitioners as well the private respondents have applied for the posts. The verification of the credential of the candidates were ascertained as per the Schedule given in the Annexure P/3 dated 08.03.2022. For the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Female) the date given was 14.02.2022. 3. The lists of eligible and ineligible candidates after verification of the original certificates were prepared. The petitioner No. 1 Radhi Netam was placed at Serial No. 6 and the Petitioner No. 2 Tilotama Kashyap found place a serial No. 7 and she was eligible for consideration whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 found place at 11 and 13 respectively. It is worthwhile to mention that against the name of respondents No. 3 and 4 it has been specifically mentioned that experience certificate has been issued after submission of last date, therefore, rejected. The respondents No. 2 has called objection with regard to the list prepared by them on 17.04.2022 and the date was given for raising objection from 19.04.2022 to 23.04.2022. After considering the objections final merit list was prepared. The petitioner No. 1 was at serial No. 6 who secured 65 marks and petitioner No. 2 was at serial No. 7 and has secured 64 marks. The respondents No. 3 was at serial No. 8 and secured 61 marks and respondents No. 4 did not find place in merit list. 4. The petitioner No. 1 was at serial No. 6 who secured 65 marks and petitioner No. 2 was at serial No. 7 and has secured 64 marks. The respondents No. 3 was at serial No. 8 and secured 61 marks and respondents No. 4 did not find place in merit list. 4. Thereafter, final selection list was declared in which respondent No. 3 Sushil Baghel was placed at serial No. 5 securing 70 Marks and respondent No. 4 Ratna Kashyap found place at serial No. 7 securing 69 marks and the petitioners who were earlier placed in merit list were placed in waiting list. This list has been challenged in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without rhyme and reason and without giving opportunity of hearing their position has been changed from selected candidates to wait listed candidates, therefore, the selection process suffers from nepotism and favoritism. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that when the advertisement was issued no clause in the advertisement was mentioned providing that the persons who have deployed in government health institution for 6 months during Covid period, these temporary employees will be given 10 bonus marks for appointment in Class III and IV posts. Though the State has issued circular on 07.12.2021 as such after reaching of the selection process to final stage the allotment of bonus marks to respondents No. 3 and 4 with the aid of circular dated 07.12.2021 is nothing but amounting to change of rule of game which is illegal and against the well settled position of law. To substantiate his submission he would draw attention of this Court towards the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Another { (2008) 3 SCC 512 } and Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others { (2009) 4 SCC 555 } 6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that total 122 applications were received for the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Female). All the candidates were issued admit cards. The written examination was conducted by the Special Junior Employee Selection Board, Bastar Division. The result was declared on 31.01.2022. Based on the result, tentative merit list for the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Female) was prepared. All the candidates were issued admit cards. The written examination was conducted by the Special Junior Employee Selection Board, Bastar Division. The result was declared on 31.01.2022. Based on the result, tentative merit list for the post of Rural Health Coordinator (Female) was prepared. Based on the said tentative merit list, candidates in the ratio of 1:3 i.e. total 27 candidates were called for verification of the documents on 14.02.2022. As per the memo dated 14.01.2022 it was directed to all the Chief Medical Officers of Bastar/Kanker/Dantewada/Bijapur/Sukma/Narayanpur/ Kondagaon to verify the certificates of the candidates who have been given bonus marks on account of their temporary employment in the government institutions for more than 6 months as per circular dated 07.12.2021. He would further submit that the said merit list was placed before the Officer-in- Charge who pointed out that certificate provided to the candidates appointed during the course of Covid-19 was not submitted, therefore, it was directed to re-invite objections by issuing the merit list. Total 10 objections were received in which the objections raised by respondents No. 3 and 4 were placed before the selection committee and experience certificate submitted by the private respondents No. 3 and 4 were considered and granting them 10 bonus marks the revised merit list was published. He would further submit that fair selection process has been adopted by them, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that favoritism has been committed by the answering respondents is far from truth and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. He would further submit that since the petitioners have participated in the selection process without any objection therefore, they are estoppal from challenging the selection process. To substantiate this submission, he would rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others { (2016) 1 SCC 454 }. 7. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have also filed their return and would submit that they have worked more than 6 months continuously, therefore, they have been granted 10 bonus marks and would support the stand taken by the State and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. This Court while hearing the writ petition has issued various directions on 30.05.2022 and directed the respondents to bring on record the selection process in a sealed cover envelope. 8. This Court while hearing the writ petition has issued various directions on 30.05.2022 and directed the respondents to bring on record the selection process in a sealed cover envelope. Thereafter, this Court directed the member of the committee to appear before this Court who participated in the selection process. 9. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bastar at Jagdalpur-Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi appeared before this Court and informed that in pursuance of the circular issued by State of Chhattisgarh on 07.12.2021, 10 marks has been granted to the persons who have worked in Covid pandemic for six months. This marking pattern was not provided in the advertisement and after issuance of advertisement, and after issuance of final merit list after calling of the objections, they have changed the rules of game at the time of issuance of final selection list. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 11. From the above factual matrix, the issue which is to be determined by this Court is whether grant of 10 bonus marks during midst of selection process will amount to change of Rule and whether it is permissible under law ? 12. From the record, it is not in dispute that the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 22.10.2021 for appointment to the various posts. In that advertisement, there was no such provisions for grant of bonus marks because of the working in the Covid Pandemic. The State Government issued circular granting 10 marks bonus on 07.12.2021 to those candidates who have worked more than 6 months during the Covid Pandemic time. The circular does not provide that it has to be given retrospective effect as the advertisement in the present case was issued on 20.10.2021. 13. When this Court put a specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents whether the circular dated 07.12.2021 can be given retrospective effect to the advertisement which has been issued by the State prior to the issuance of circular. Learned counsel for the State would submit that circular does not deal with the retrospective application of the circular. 14. From the bare perusal of the circular dated 07.12.2021, it is quite vivid that it has not been given retrospective effect whereas the advertisement was issued on 20.10.2021. Learned counsel for the State would submit that circular does not deal with the retrospective application of the circular. 14. From the bare perusal of the circular dated 07.12.2021, it is quite vivid that it has not been given retrospective effect whereas the advertisement was issued on 20.10.2021. Therefore, it is quite vivid that the circular unless specifically stated by the Government that it will be given retrospective effect it cannot be applied retrospectively. 15. Hon'ble Supreme has examined this issue in BSNL vs M/s Tata Communication Ltd. {CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).16991723 OF 2015 dated 22.09.2022} held in para 30 as under :- 30. The power to make retrospective legislations enables the Legislature to obliterate an amending Act completely and restore the law as it existed before the amending Act, but at the same time, administrative/executive orders or circulars, as the case may be, in the absence of any legislative competence cannot be made 22 applicable with retrospective effect. Only law could be made retrospectively if it was expressly provided by the Legislature in the Statute. Keeping in mind the aforestated principles of law on the subject, we are of the view that applicability of the circular dated 12th June, 2012 to be effective retrospectively from 1st April 2009, in revising the infrastructure charges, is not legally sustainable and to this extent, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal under the impugned judgment. 16. In view of the above stated legal position, it is quite vivid that the circular 07.12.2021 cannot be given retrospective effect and cannot be applied to the advertisement which has been issued prior to 07.12.2021. In this case the advertisement was issued on 20.10.2021 as such, the grant of 10 marks bonus to the respondents No. 3 and 4 is illegal and suffers from perversity, illegality. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by granting 10 bonus marks the State has changed the rule of game, therefore, it is not permissible and against the well settled position of law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Another { (2008) 3 SCC 512 } has held in paragraph 27 as under :- 27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Another { (2008) 3 SCC 512 } has held in paragraph 27 as under :- 27. But what could not have been done was the second change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous procedure as stated above was to apply minimum m arks only for written examination and not for the oral examination. We have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier resolutions dated 24.7.2001 and 21.2.2002 and held that what was adopted on 30.11.2004 was only minimum marks for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to three of them P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India 1984 (2) SCC 141 , Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India 1985 (3) SCC 721 , and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa 1987 (4) SCC 646 . 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others { (2009) 4 SCC 555 } has held as under:- 24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post. 25. 25. We are not disputing the fact that in the matter of selection of candidates, opinion of the Selection Committee should be final, but at the same time, the Selection Committee cannot act arbitrarily and cannot change the criteria/qualification in the selection process during its midstream. Merajuddin Ahmad did not possess a degree in pure Chemistry and therefore, it was rightly held by the High Court that he did not possess the minimum qualification required for filling up the post of Lecturer Chemistry, for pure Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry are two different subjects. 26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Masters Degree holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post. 27. The Selection Committee during the stage of selection, which is midway could not have changed the essential qualification laid down in the advertisement and at that stage held that a Masters Degree Holder in Industrial Chemistry would be better suited for manning the said post without there being any specific advertisement in that regard. The very fact that the University is now manning the said post by having a person from the discipline of pure Chemistry also leads to the conclusion that the said post at that stage when it was advertised was meant to be filled up by a person belonging to pure Chemistry stream...... 33. We, therefore, uphold the order passed by the High Court giving liberty to the University to lay down the qualification necessary for filling up the aforesaid post. The University shall now advertise the said post by laying down exact essential qualification indicating the particular subject and subjects-stream which is required to be possessed for making an application to fill up the said post and therefore proceed to appoint a Lecturer suitable for the aforesaid post. 19. The University shall now advertise the said post by laying down exact essential qualification indicating the particular subject and subjects-stream which is required to be possessed for making an application to fill up the said post and therefore proceed to appoint a Lecturer suitable for the aforesaid post. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Biswas and others Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 774 ) has considered the employer’s changing the criteria of selection in the midst of selection process. In this case an advertisement was published calling applications for appointment to the post of Group D staff. The Recruitment Rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks. After holding written examination notice was issued calling the successful candidates for interview. Although such interview was not part of the recruitment process, a select list was published which was challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal returned a finding that the manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following in paragraphs 19 and 20: “19. In the instant case, the rules of the game had been changed after conducting the written test and admittedly not at the stage of initiation of the selection process. The marks allocated for the oral interview had been the same as for written test i.e. 50% for each. The manner in which marks have been awarded in the interview to the candidates indicated lack of transparency. The candidate who secured 47 marks out of 50 in the written test had been given only 20 marks in the interview while a large number of candidates got equal marks in the interview as in the written examination. Candidate who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. The fact that today the so-called selected candidates are not in employment, is also a relevant factor to decide the case finally. Candidate who secured 34 marks in the written examination was given 45 marks in the interview. Similarly, another candidate who secured 36 marks in the written examination was awarded 45 marks in the interview. The fact that today the so-called selected candidates are not in employment, is also a relevant factor to decide the case finally. If the whole selection is scrapped most of the candidates would be ineligible at least in respect of age as the advertisement was issued more than six years ago. 20. Thus, in the facts of this case the direction of the High Court to continue with the selection process from the point it stood vitiated does not require interference. In view of the above, the appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 20. It is thus quite vivid that the grant of bonus marks to the respondents No. 3 and 4 is nothing but amounting to change of rule of game which is not permissible, in view of the above settled position of law. Thus, action of the respondent State in granting 10 bonus marks and placing them above the petitioners is illegal and deserves to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently submit that once petitioners have participated in selection process, then they cannot say that selection process is bad-in-law. To substantiate their submission they refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others { (2016) 1 SCC 454 }. This judgment is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as the change of rule of game has been done at the time of completion of selection process which is contrary to the well settled position of law. 22. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is quite vivid that initially when the advertisement was issued there was no such provision of grant of bonus marks. After reaching of the selection process to it’s logical end during issuance of final list only the respondents without rhyme and reason has granted 10 marks to respondents No. 3 and 4 depriving the petitioners to be appointed on the said posts. After reaching of the selection process to it’s logical end during issuance of final list only the respondents without rhyme and reason has granted 10 marks to respondents No. 3 and 4 depriving the petitioners to be appointed on the said posts. This amounts to illegality and contrary to the law, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. 23. Now this Court while allowing the writ petition can mould the relief is being considered. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that respondents No. 3 and 4 are working in pursuance of final selection list since 06.05.2022 and more than one year has already been lapsed. The respondents No. 3 and 4 must have been settled in their life and also considering the fact that the respondents No. 3 and 4 also belong to Schedule Tribe Community and resident of Bastar District, therefore, it will not be justifiable to interfere in their selection. Considering this aspect of the matter, it is directed that without disturbing the employment of respondents No. 3 and 4, the petitioners shall be appointed on the said posts with 50% of the consequential benefits including salary, seniority and other service benefits from the date respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed. The petitioners shall also be provided seniority over respondents No. 3 and 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to appoint the petitioners on the posts of Rural Health Coordinator (Female). It is also directed that in case, there is no vacancy of the said post, the respondent-State shall create the vacancy or will appoint the petitioners in nearby district where vacancy is available. The above exercise shall be carried out by the respondents State within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 24. With the aforesaid observation and direction the Writ Petitions is allowed.