ORDER : 1. The matter was listed in the motion hearing stage for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 18.04.2022. Looking to the fact that the selection process is under challenge, the with the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has cleared General Nursing and Midwifery Examination and got registration with Chhattisgarh Nurses Registration Council, Raipur as such she is qualified candidate for the post of General Nursing and Midwifery. The petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 24.03.2022 and the amended advertisement dated 25.03.2022 issued by respondents No. 3 mainly contending that said advertisement is contrary to the Rules namely the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (For short 'the Rules, 2013'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2013 which provides Mode of Recruitment and Rule 6(1)(A) provides that direct recruitment through competitive examination/selection therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to conduct competitive examination for recruitment on the of staff nurse. Whereas, the respondent No. 3, Divisional Joint Director has issued advertisement by which they have decided not to conduct written examination but the merit list will be prepared as per the direction given by the State Government on 21.03.2022. According to the direction the merit list will be prepared on the basis of 85% marks of educational qualification and maximum 15% will be granted to the candidates who have worked in the health institution of the State Government. The clause further provides that the candidates who have worked in the Government Institution during Covid Pandemic for 6 months continuously will be given 10 marks bonus. The merit list will be prepared after adding three components as provided in Clause 14 of the Advertisement. He would further submit that there is no provision for conducting competitive examination in the advertisement which is contrary to the Rules, 2013. In other divisions at Ambikapur and Jagdalpur advertisements were issued on 17.03.2022 and 31.12.2021 competitive examination have been conducted, thus, the respondents are adopting different mode of selection in the same department which is nothing but arbitrariness suffers from illegality, as such, issuance of advertisement is bad in law and would pray for quashing of advertisements. In other divisions at Ambikapur and Jagdalpur advertisements were issued on 17.03.2022 and 31.12.2021 competitive examination have been conducted, thus, the respondents are adopting different mode of selection in the same department which is nothing but arbitrariness suffers from illegality, as such, issuance of advertisement is bad in law and would pray for quashing of advertisements. The petitioner has also prayed for conducting the competitive examination as it has been conducted in other divisions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is settled position of law that the advertisement should consist of the criteria for appointment which is provided in the recruitment rules, otherwise the advertisement is illegal. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh { 2018 (3) SCC 55 } wherein in paragraph No. 27 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 507 . Paragraph 21 of the judgment lays down above proposition which is to the following effect: 21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 01.07.2001 and 01.07.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisements but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only of permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. The relaxation of age can be granted only of permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.” 5. This Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 has restrained the respondents from initiating further proceeding in relation to the recruitment process of filing of the post of Staff Nurse and Radiographer at Raipur. The interim order is still continued. 6. State has filed their return and has also filed application for vacating stay mainly contending that as per the Rules, 2013 the recruitment can be done in both ways either competitive examination or merit preference. Therefore, it is prerogative of the State to select/appoint the candidates via competitive examination or merit preference. It has been further contended that at Bastar and Surguja Scheduled Division only local applicants participate in recruitment for class III and IV category whereas in general Division like Raipur all the candidates from all over the State participate. During Covid Pandemic cases were increasing and there was 30% shortage of the staff, therefore, the department has issued advertisement for direct recruitment at Raipur and Durg Division. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2013 the selection process can be conducted according to the merit which is more transparent as the examination is conducted by the University and the selection process was to be completed till May, 2021. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that Rules of 2013 were amended with effect from 11.06.2020 and Schedule II was enacted according to which 80% posts of Staff Nurse under the Nursing Service Cadre have to be filled up by direct recruitment and 20% posts are to be filled up by promotion. Out of 80% posts of direct recruitment 75% posts of staff nurse have to be filled up on the basis of open competition and 5% posts have to be filed up by General Nursing Midwife or B.Sc.(Nursing) Trained Mitatins through limited examination. The State in pursuance of amendment in the recruitment rules has issued instruction on 21.03.2022 granting permission to the Director Health Services to conduct direct recruitment on the basis of Educational Qualification and Experience. The State in pursuance of amendment in the recruitment rules has issued instruction on 21.03.2022 granting permission to the Director Health Services to conduct direct recruitment on the basis of Educational Qualification and Experience. The merit list has to be prepared on this basis and as per roster the selection has to be conducted. In pursuance of permission granted by the State Government the advertisement was issued. He would submit that in the recruitment Rule 6(1) (A) provides direct recruitment through competitive examination / selection. He would further submit that the rule nowhere provides that competitive examination means a written examination is the only mode, competition can be done on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying exam also. Thus, it is prerogative of the employer to adopt any procedure for appointment unless it is contrary to the rules. The Rules have already provided that mode has to be used for selection. To substantiate their submission learned Additional Advocate General would refer to judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1291/2021 (Kamal Singh Rajput vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties the issue which is required to be considered by this Court is whether the State was justified in issuing advertisement for appointment on the post of Nurses without conducting examination? 9. To decide the controversy it is expedient for this Court to extract the Rule 6 which provides the mode of recruitment. "Rule 6. Mode of recruitment.- (1) After the commencement of these Rules, the recruitment in service shall be conducted through the following methods, namely:- (a) By direct recruitment through competitive examination/selection; (b) By promotion of member specified in column (2) of Schedule-IV to post specified in column (3) of Schedule-IV; (c) By transfer of such persons who substantively hold such post(s) in service(s) as specified by the Government to this effect. (2) The number of persons recruited, in the duty post specified in Schedule-I, under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage prescribed in Schedule-II of these rules. (2) The number of persons recruited, in the duty post specified in Schedule-I, under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage prescribed in Schedule-II of these rules. (3) Subject to the provisions of these rules, any specific vacancy or vacancies in the service, which are expected to be filled during any particular period, the method(s) of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling and the number of persons to be recruited by such method(s), shall be determined in consultation with the Government. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of Government it is necessary to do so keeping in view the exigency of the service, then the Government, after the approval of General Administration Department, may adopt such method(s) different from those method(s) for the recruitment specified in these rules, as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe. (5) The Government may prescribe criteria for the selection on the basis of merit for the posts to be filled through direct recruitment. However, it shall be necessary that a Selection Committee is to be constituted for this purpose by the Appointing Authority, which may adopt these criteria/other reasonable criteria with the consent of government. (6) The provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Service (for SC, ST and OBC) Reservation.” 10. The said rule was amended on 11.06.2020 and thereafter, State Government has taken a decision looking to the situation prevailing at the relevant time due to Covid pandemic and shortage of manpower in the health services as conscienceouly has taken a decision on 21.03.2022 for permitting the respondent No. 3 to issue merit list as per the marks obtained and accordingly the advertisement provided the said provision for recruitment. It is true that at that time the situation was horrible and health services required immediate manpower, therefore, the procedure they have chosen cannot be said to be unmindful or suffers from arbitrariness, which warrants interference by this Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the recruitment Rule, 2013 provides competitive examination / selection but there is no such provision in the Rule, 2013 that written competitive examination has to be conducted. It can be any mode either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of marks obtained for experience. It is pertinent to mention here that the recruitment Rule, 2013 provides competitive examination / selection but there is no such provision in the Rule, 2013 that written competitive examination has to be conducted. It can be any mode either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of marks obtained for experience. Thus, the decision taken by the State Government to adopt mode of appointment which is its prerogative and the Rule does not put any rider adopting such mode, therefore, the decision of the State Government to adopt mode of selection on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination cannot be found faulty. Even, the petitioner has no where pleaded that the mode adopted by the respondents is discriminative and suffers from malafide which warrants interference by this Court. 11. So far as the judgment referred by the Petitioner in case of Ashish Kumar (Supra) with regard to law is not in dispute but it is not applicable in the present facts of the case as the Rule, 2013 does not provide the manner of competitive examination to be conducted. It can be any mode as per the option with the employer. But, requirement of the mode is that it should be fair, transparent and should not be actuated with the malafides or arbitrariness. 12. The petitioner has not been able to point out how the policy decision of the State Government to adopt mode of selection on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination is biased and suffers from malafide and also considering the well settled parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parisons Agrotech Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 657 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has restrained the High Courts to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in policy matters and held in paragraphs 14 to 19 as under:- 14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the Executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the judicial review. 15. In Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation, this Court delineated the aforesaid principle of judicial review in the following manner: “there is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one case that where the decision of the authority is in regard to the policy matter, this Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. But then this does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. Any decision be it a simple administrative decision or policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 16. The power of the Court under writ jurisdiction has been discussed in Asif Hameed and Others. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others in paras 17 and 19, which read as under: “17. If it is so, then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 16. The power of the Court under writ jurisdiction has been discussed in Asif Hameed and Others. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others in paras 17 and 19, which read as under: “17. Before adverting to the controversy directly involved in these appeals we may have a fresh look on the inter se functioning of the three organs of democracy under our Constitution. Although the doctrine of separation of powers has not been recognised under the Constitution in its absolute rigidity but the Constitution makers have meticulously defined the functions of various organs of the State. Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution. No organ can usurp the functions assigned to another. The Constitution trusts to the judgment of these organs to function and exercise their discretion by strictly following the procedure prescribed therein. The functioning of democracy depends upon the strength and independence of each of its organs. Legislature and executive, the two facets of people's will has no power over sword or the purse nonetheless it has power to ensure that the aforesaid two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. It is the sentinel of democracy. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint. xxx xxx xxx 19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.” 17. The aforesaid doctrine of separation of power and limited scope of judicial review in policy matters is reiterated in State of Orissa and Others v. Gopinath Dash and Others: “5. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the Appellate Authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in the matter of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Asif Hameed v. State of J&K 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 and Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India; (1990) 3 SCC 223 ). The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or its violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court, it cannot interfere. 6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. 7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.” 18. As far as classification based on geographical area is concerned i.e. held to be permissible by this Court in Gopal Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, held as under: “11. Looking at the policy disclosed by Sections 7 and 8 and Section 128 of the Act and applying the liberal view a law of taxation receives in the application of the doctrine of classification, it is not possible to say that the policy so disclosed infringes the rule of equality. This Court in more than one decision held that equality clause does not forbid geographical classification, provided the difference between the geographical units has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. This principle has been applied to a taxation law in Khandige Sham Bhat's Case, AIR 1963 SC 591 . In that case, this Court also accepted the principle that the legislative power to classify is of wide range and flexibility so that it can adjust its system of taxation in all proper and reasonable ways. It is indicated in “Willis on Constitutional Law”, at p. 590, that a State can make a territory within a city a unit for the purpose of taxation. So, the impugned section in permitting in the matter of taxation geographical classification, which has reasonable relation to the object of the statute, namely, for providing special amenities for a particular unit the peculiar circumstances whereof demand them, does not in any way impinge upon the equality clause.” 19. So, the impugned section in permitting in the matter of taxation geographical classification, which has reasonable relation to the object of the statute, namely, for providing special amenities for a particular unit the peculiar circumstances whereof demand them, does not in any way impinge upon the equality clause.” 19. We would also like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Premier Tyres Limited v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, wherein this Court held that when a policy decision is taken in the public interest, Courts need not tinker with the same. 13. In view of the above facts and also considering the fact that the Rule, 2013 which has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and has statutory force does not provide mode of competitive examination and also considering that the State Government looking to the situation exists when the advertisements were issued has taken a decision to appoint on the basis of qualifying marks obtained by the candidates in their qualifying examination cannot be found faulty or suffers from arbitrariness and even petitioner has not produced any material with regard to favouritism, nepotism. This Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction in absence of these basic ingredients for interference. Thus, the writ petition sans merits, accordingly it is dismissed. The interim order earlier passed by this Court stands vacated.