ORDER : 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all writ petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. WPS No. 3320 of 2016. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for following relief:- (I) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare the results of the examination conducted pursuant to advertisement dated 02.07.2013 (Annexure P/ 1). (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner WPS No. 2204 of 2016. The petitioner has prayed for following relief:- (I) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to quash the advertisement issued on 28.05.16 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondents for the post of Data Entry Operators, Assistant Grade- 3, Assistant Programmer, Stenographer and Steno-Typist as illegal. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare the results of the examination and interview held pursuant to advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P/2). (iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. WPS No. 2209 of 2016. The petitioner has prayed for following relief:- (I) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to declare the results of the examination conducted pursuant to advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P/1). (ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the respondents No. 2 issued advertisement on 10.07.2013 (which was sent for publication in the news paper on 02.07.2013) for filing regular post of Data Entry Operators, Assistant Grade-3, Assistant Programmer, Stenographer and Steno-Typist. The respondent for conducting the examination for the said posts has divided the State of Chhattisgarh into 31 divisions. The examination was conducted as per advertisement. 3. The petitioner in WPS No. 3320 of 2016 has appeared for appointment on the post Data Entry Operator from Bilaspur Division. The respondent for conducting the examination for the said posts has divided the State of Chhattisgarh into 31 divisions. The examination was conducted as per advertisement. 3. The petitioner in WPS No. 3320 of 2016 has appeared for appointment on the post Data Entry Operator from Bilaspur Division. In WPS No. 2204 of 2016, petitioner No.1 appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Jashpur Division, Petitioner No.2 and 3 have appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Surguja Division. In WPS No. 2209 of 2016, the petitioner No.1 appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Khairagarh Division, Petitioner No. 2 and 3 have appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Bilaspur Divsion and Petitioner No. 4 has appeared for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator from Raipur Division. The respondents have declared the result only for Raipur Division and result of other divisions was withheld by them. The respondent No.2 has issued appointment order for 67 persons for different posts for appointment in the Raipur Division only and out of 67 persons, 38 persons joined on 28.08.2014. Thereafter, the respondents have directed for termination of their services vide order 10.03.2015 and thereafter individual order of termination was issued on 12.03.2015. Against the termination order, the employees have preferred the writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court which was dismissed on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the Government in terminating the appointment of the employees. The employees have preferred Writ appeal No. 484/2015 and other connected Appeals before the Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench has allowed the appeal and passed the following order in paragraph 15,16 and 17 which are as under:- 15. A process of public advertisement and recruitment is cumbersome, time consuming and has financial implications. If there are gross illegalities and blatant violation of law, the entire process will have to be set aside irrespective of all consequences. But if the irregularities alleged are trivial or do not really constitute an irregularity and the process of advertisement and selection does not stand vitiated completely, every infraction will not call for complete setting aside of the selection process. The draft rules have also been finally published on 17.6.2015 without any modifications. 16. But if the irregularities alleged are trivial or do not really constitute an irregularity and the process of advertisement and selection does not stand vitiated completely, every infraction will not call for complete setting aside of the selection process. The draft rules have also been finally published on 17.6.2015 without any modifications. 16. We therefore are unable to sustain the order under appeal by holding that the entire selection process stands vitiated and has to be set at naught with directions for proceeding afresh all over again. The orders of the State Government dated 10.3.2015 and individual orders of termination pursuant thereto alongwith the order under appeal are set aside. The Appellants are directed to be reinstated but without back- wages. 17. Nothing in the present order precludes the Respondents, if they so consider it necessary from identifying an individual illegal appointment and proceeding against the concerned in accordance with law. 4. The respondent No. 2 in pursuance of order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench have issued the appointment order of the petitioners, whose services were terminated on 12.03.2015. The respondents have not declared the result of other divisions therefore, the petitioners have preferred representation for declaring the result which has not been considered, as such the writ petitions have been filed for the relief as stated above. It is further submitted that instead of declaring the result the respondents have cancelled the advertisements and issued fresh advertisement on 28.05.2016 which is being challenged in these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without any rhyme and reason the respondents have withheld the result of the petitioners which is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. She would further submit that though the State can take a policy decision of re-advertisement of the vacancies but without assigning any reason the decision which has been adversely affected the future aspect of the petitioner cannot be taken and it is dehors the Constitutional provisions and would pray for declaration of result as well as quashing of subsequent advertisement dated 28.05.2016. To substantiate her submission, she has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwah & Ors. AIR 1973 SC 2216 . 6. To substantiate her submission, she has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwah & Ors. AIR 1973 SC 2216 . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the action of the respondents in issuing termination order of Raipur Division has been set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench thus there is no justifiable reasons to withhold the result and to substantiate her submission she has referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakshi vs. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 and would refer to paragraph 23 which reads as under:- 23. Stare decisions is a well-known doctrine in legal jurisprudence. The doctrine of stare decisis, meaning to stand by decided cases, rests upon the principle that law by which men are governed should be fixed, definite and known, and that, when the law is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction authorized to construe it, such declaration, in absence of palpable mistake or error, is itself evidence of the law until changed by competent authority. It requires that rules of law when clearly announced and established by a court of last resort should not be lightly disregarded and set aside but should be adhered to and followed. What it precludes is that where a principle of law has become established by a series of decisions, it is binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases. It is a wholesome doctrine which gives certainty to law and guides the people to mould their affairs in future. 7. She would further referred to the judgment in the case of All Assam graduate Hindi Shikshan Parangat (Equivalent B.Ed.) Teachers Association Vs. State of Assam and others, 2014 SCC On line Gau 445, (2014) 5 Gau IR 520 the division bench of Gauhati High Court has held as under:- "9. We do not agree to this submission. In our view, when the controversy in question was already subject-matter of the earlier litigation and attained finality, the same controversy could not be allowed to be racked up subsequently at the instance of other person. The earlier order in our opinion was binding on the parties while prosecuting the subsequent litigation on the same issue because the issue raised in certain litigations had a binding force and thus remained no longer res integra. The earlier order in our opinion was binding on the parties while prosecuting the subsequent litigation on the same issue because the issue raised in certain litigations had a binding force and thus remained no longer res integra. 10. ………….and lastly once the decision on any particular issue was rendered by the competent court then it had a binding force on subsequent litigation because it was in the facts of this case a judgment in rem unless upset by the higher court. It was not done because no appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by the writ petitioner against the order dated 27.6.2011 passed in writ petition and nor against the review order dated 30.6.2013 passed in review petition. 6. That it is a settled principle of law that a candidate to in an recruitment process does not have an indefensible right to claim appointment; however, in the instant writ petition the petitioners have made a prayer that since the division bench of this Hon'ble court in the matter of Writ Appeal no. 484 /2015 and other connected matters have upheld the validity of the selection process and discussed in detail that the issuance of advertisement on the basis of draft rules is not illegal but proper and valid and have quashed the order dated 10.03.2015 whereby the entire selection process was cancelled, it would only mean that the entire selection process is valid and without any justifiable reason the respondents cannot deny to halt the selection process. 8. She would further referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Manoj Manu and another versus Union of India, [ (2013) 12 SCC 171 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "12. It is, thus, manifest that a person whose name is included in the select list, does not acquire any right to be appointed. The Government may decide not to fill up all the vacancies for valid reasons. Such a decision on the part of the Government not to fill up the required /advertised vacancies should not be arbitrary or unreasonable but must be based on sound, rational and conscious application of mind. Once it is found that the decision of the Government is based on some valid reason, the court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies. 15. Once it is found that the decision of the Government is based on some valid reason, the court would not issue any mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies. 15. This Court in Sandeep Singh v. State of Haryana ( (2002) 10 SCC 549 commended that the vacancies available should be filled up unless there is any statutory embargo for the same. In Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana I (1999) 3 SCC 696 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 824 AIR 1999 SC 17011, 12 posts for direct recruitment were available when the advertisement for recruitment was made which was held in the year 1991. Some of the selected candidates did not join in this batch almost similar to the present case, the Court held that the appellant's case ought to have been considered when some of the candidates (sic vacancies arose) for reasons of the non-appointment of some of the candidates and they ought to have been appointed if they come within the range of selection. 17. We are, therefore, of the opinion in the facts of the present case, the decision of UPSC in forwarding three names against requisition of DoPT for six vacancies was inappropriate. We, accordingly, allow the present appeal, set aside the order of the High Court [Manoj Manu v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 3297 of 2011, decided on 16-5-2011 (Del)] as well as the Tribunal [Manoj Manu v. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, OA No. 3511 of 2010, order dated 29-3-2011 (CAT)] and issue a mandamus to UPSC to forward the names of the next three candidates to DoPT for appointment to the post of Section Officer's grade. They shall get the seniority from the date when Rajesh Kumar Yadav was appointed to the said post. Their pay shall notionally be fixed, without any arrears of the pay and other allowances. No costs." 9. She would further referred to the judgment in the case of East Coast Railway and another versus Mahadev Appa Rao and others [ (2010) 7 SCC 678 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 14. Their pay shall notionally be fixed, without any arrears of the pay and other allowances. No costs." 9. She would further referred to the judgment in the case of East Coast Railway and another versus Mahadev Appa Rao and others [ (2010) 7 SCC 678 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent writ Court. IF any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. 16. Applying these principles to the case at hand there is no gainsaying that while the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner. The least which the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment and who had appeared in the examination that constituted a step-in-aid of a possible appointment in their favour, were entitled to is to ensure that the selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner. 17. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness which is an antithesis of the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action, no matter the candidates do not have an indefeasible right to claim an appointment against the advertised posts. 23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. 23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. 24. In the instant case the order passed by the competent authority does not state any reasons whatsoever for the cancellation of the typing test. It 1s nobody's case that any such reasons were set out even in any contemporaneous record or file. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing the order cancelling the test. 10. She would further refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285 where allegations were made that some candidates have been selected which do not deserve to be selected, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the entire selection process cannot be terminated for this reason and held that:- 6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant portions of the report said to have been submitted by the special Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions - which report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the High Court - there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination - either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of the written examination - either by the candidates or by those who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions on a loudspeaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of the written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of evaluation of answer-sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears that the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and reviewed the situation by re-evaluating the answer-sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared successful and selected for appointment there was no infirmity whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. 11. On above factual and legal foundation counsel for the petitioner would pray for issuance of direction to the respondents to declare the result of the examination conducted in pursuance of advertisement dated 10.07.2013. She would further submit that the respondent subsequently cancelled the examination which also suffers from arbitrariness and illegality and thereafter they have issued subsequent advertisement dated 28.05.2016 is illegal and would pray for declaration of result as per the advertisement 10.07.2013. 12. State has filed their return and have denied the submission made in the writ petition. It has been contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State that since appointments was made on the basis of draft rules proposing changes in the existing rules. This is not permissible because the circular dated 01/02/2013 which provides new qualifications for the posts which has been advertised and the circular further provides that all the administrative departments wherein the posts mentioned in the said circular dated 01/02/2013 are included in their set-up, they should take steps for amending their respective recruitment rules to incorporate the amendment suggested by the Department of General Administration. Thereafter notification may be issued after getting approval from the Department of Law and then only steps for filling up the posts should be taken. Thereafter notification may be issued after getting approval from the Department of Law and then only steps for filling up the posts should be taken. However, without there being any amendment in the recruitment rules, the advertisement was issued on 10/07/2013 therefore, the eligibility qualification existed on the said date was contrary to the Recruitment Rules, through the draft rules were mentioned in the advertisement, but, these amendment is not incorporated in the rule, as such issuance of advertisement is illegal. It is further contended that petitioners of this petitions have never challenged cancellation of advertisement on 14.09.2016 in these petitions whereas the petitioners who have challenged their cancellation of appointment order have already been appointed as such the petitioners cannot claim parity with the petitioners who have been granted relief by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the judgment passed in bunch of the writ petitions in WPS No. 973 of 2015 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph-1 has taken note of the fact which reads as under:- 1. The petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the State Government whereby, the State Government, after examining the complaints and receipt of enquiry report, has declared the recruitment process as void and has further directed to cancel the appointments of the petitioners on the post of Data Entry Operator, Stenographer, Steno-typist, Assistant Grade-Ill, Assistant Programmer, as the case may be. Pursuant to the said order, the Engineer-in-Chief (for short the E-in-C'), Public Works Department (for short WD') issued the order dated 12.03.2015, which has also been assailed in sure of the writ petitions, by which, the appointments have been cancelled. In addition to the departmental Data Entry Operators, other candidates have also been granted weightage of experience, which is contrary to the E-in-C's decision dated 02.07.2013. Certificate obtained by one candidate from Sikkim Manipal University has been accepted, but several candidates having same/similar certificates from the same institution have been declared ineligible. There are overwriting /interpolation/ manipulation in the marks awarded to several candidate on the head of experience. In several categories, meritorious candidates have not been selected and favoured candidates have been appointed. Experience marks of several candidates have been reduced deliberately to favour other candidates. There are overwriting /interpolation/ manipulation in the marks awarded to several candidate on the head of experience. In several categories, meritorious candidates have not been selected and favoured candidates have been appointed. Experience marks of several candidates have been reduced deliberately to favour other candidates. Handicapped person has been selected by appointing her in the unreserved category. One candidate namely; Pramod Shukla who appeared in Durg as well as in Raipur has been granted 7 marks for experience in Durg, whereas in Raipur he has been awarded 24 marks for experience. The same candidate has been awarded different marks for experience for different posts. Several candidates have been issued certificate of experience by AG Il of the office of the E-in-C, PWD and not by any responsible officer. The advertisement was not issued in accordance with the recruitment rules namely; Public Works Department (Non Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 (for short "the Rules, 2007). More than the proportionate number i.e. 1:5 were permitted to appear in the skill test for the post of Data Entry Operator. A list of candidates eligible for skill test was issued in random manner without mentioning as to whether the same has been issued merit wise or alphabet wise or category wise. Information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has revealed that the answer sheets of the candidates do not bear the signature of the Center Superintendent or Invigilator/Supervisor of the IT, where the examination was conducted, This fact proves that the anwer sheets have been changed subsequently to select the favoured candidates. 13. He would further submit that the draft rules framed by the Department of General Administration vide circular dated 01/02/2013 can be acted upon where there is no rule for its implementation, however, when the field is already occupied by statutory rules framed, the draft rules cannot be acted upon but ignoring the instructions issued by the Department of General Administration vide circular dated 01/02/2013, the advertisement dated 02/07/2013 was published without waiting for amendment in the recruitment rules and its notification in the Government gazette. 14. He would further submit that advertisement dated 02/07/2013 was published contrary to the circular dated 01.02.2013 is not valid and non-est in the eyes of law and therefore, there is no question to declaring the results of the examinations held in other divisions by the answering respondents. 14. He would further submit that advertisement dated 02/07/2013 was published contrary to the circular dated 01.02.2013 is not valid and non-est in the eyes of law and therefore, there is no question to declaring the results of the examinations held in other divisions by the answering respondents. It is contended that the draft rules have now been notified incorporating the same in the statutory rules and it has not been given retrospective effect to save the advertisement. He would further submit that it is a settled position of law that a retrospective operation of rules have to be made in express terms and in absence of such expression, any act made contrary to the rules is not valid. Therefore, there was no occasion to declare the results of the examination etc. conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 02/07/2013 issued contrary to the circular dated 01/02/2013. There is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents. It is contended that after amendment in the recruitment rules and after obtaining permission from the State Government vide order dated 18/11/2015 wherein the State Government has accorded its permission for recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts only for Bastar and Surguja Divisions through examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur. He would further submit that vide order dated 14.09.2016 and advertisement dated 02.07.2013 in pursuant of which the petitioners applied for various posts has already been cancelled and a paper publication in this regard has already been issued. 15. He would further submit that the issuance of advertisement dated 25.09.2016 (Annexure P/1) has been challenged in WPS No. 2585 of 2016 and the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 04.07.2016 has dismissed the writ petition by observing as under:- “in view of the above ground raised in the petition, it has no merit, particularly when the petitioners have not challenged the legality or validity of the Government Notification. If the petitioners have any grievances with the provisions of Notifications for eligibility on the basis of residence of district, they shall be at liberty to challenge the said notification”. 16. He would further submit that there is no illegality on the part of the respondents after obtaining the permission from the State Government and issued fresh advertisement and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 16. He would further submit that there is no illegality on the part of the respondents after obtaining the permission from the State Government and issued fresh advertisement and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition would submit that since the selection process was for the entire State of Chhattisgarh as such the result should have been declared for the entire State of Chhattisgarh and all the appointments should be made in all the divisions as such cancellation of selection process vide order 10.03.2015 is de-hors the constitutional provisions. She would further submit that on the basis of order dated 10.03.2015 individual termination order was issued on 12.03.2015 that has been set aside by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 484 of 2015 and other connected matters, therefore, the stand taken by the State once the selection process has held to be legal and justified by the Hon’ble Division Bench therefore, the action of the respondent in not issuing the result and subsequent cancellation of the selection processes is contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. She would further submit that the result may kindly be declared and subsequent advertisement dated 28.05.2016 be cancelled. The petitioner to substantiate her submission mainly relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No. 484 of 2015 and would submit that since cancellation of termination order has been set aside by the Hon’ble Court therefore, the action of the respondent in cancelling the result is illegal and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 19. Learned Addl. Advocate General would submit that the petitioners cannot claim the parity with the candidates who have preferred the Writ Appeal No. 484/2015 and seek mandamus from this Court for issuance of result, selection list and appointment order. He would further submit that the petitioners applied for Bilaspur, Bastar and Surguja Division whose results were not declared realising the manifest error in the selection processes and the entire selection processes were cancelled on 14.09.2016 and the said order dated 14.09.2016 has not been challenged by the petitioners despite having the knowledge of the same and thus cancellation of advertisement dated 02.07.2013 has attained finality. He would further submit that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the candidate who has filed writ appeal as they were selected candidates and appointment orders have been issued to them whereas the present petitioners are neither selected nor the selection list was issued and before that the advertisement stood cancelled. He would further submit that the advertisement dated 02.07.2013 issued for various posts in the entire State of Chhattisgarh including the Districts Bastar and Surguja and the Clause-8 of the advertisement specifically provides that for the vacancies in Bastar and Surguja Divisions only the candidates who are the permanent residents of the said division should apply. This particular protection granted to the candidates of Bastar and Surguja Division has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in WPS 1081 of 2020 in the case of Nandkumar Gupta and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others decided on 12.05.2022. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chevrolu Leela Prasad Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2020 SCC Online 383 has also considered the issue and has held that the reservation for Tribals cannot be extended up to 100% as such, this advertisement has been issued contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court, as such petitioners are not entitled to get any relief and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions and also pray for vacating the interim order passed by this Court. 20. From the records it is quite vivid that petitioners have heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 484 of 2015 decided on 08.02.2016 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has quashed the order of canceling the appointment order but the order dated 14.09.2016 by which the entire selection process has been cancelled by State of Chhattisgarh has not been challenged by the petitioners though the writ petition No. 3320 of 2016 was filed on 28.07.2016, writ petition no. 2209 of 2016 was filed on 15.06.2016 and writ petition no. 2209 of 2016 was filed on 15.06.2016 and writ petition no. 2204 of 2016 was filed on 15.06.2016 Even after filing of additional affidavit in compliance of the Court order dated 09.02.2017 filed by the respondents wherein cancellation of appointment order dated 12.03.2015 Annexure D/1, advertisement dated 24.05.2016 Annexure D/3 and notice dated 14.09.2016 regarding cancellation of advertisement dated 02.07.2013 was filed which reads as under:- ^^bl dk;kZy; }kjk dsoy jk;iqj ftys ds fy, 'kh?kzys[kd] LVsuks Vk;fiLV] lgk;d xzsM&3 ,oa MkVk ,UVªh vkWijsVj ds in ij fnukad 28-08-2014 dks fu;qfDr vkns'k tkjh dh xbZ Fkh] ftls 'kklu ds mDr funsZ'k fnukad 10-03-2015 ds ifjikyu esa dk;kZy; izeq[k vfHk;ark] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx jk;iqj ds vkns'k fnukad 12-03-2015 }kjk fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA NRrhlxढ+ 'kklu] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx ea=ky; egkunh Hkou u;k jk;iqj ds i= Øekad ,Q 3&7@2015@19@LFkk&3 fnukad 18-11-2015 }kjk lafo/kku ds ikapoh vuqlwph ds varxZr cLrj rFkk ljxqtk laHkkx ds r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh ds lh/kh Hkjrh ds fjDr inksa dks NRrhlxढ+ O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My jk;iqj ds ek/;e ls p;u izfØ;k dj] Hkjus dh dk;ZokbZ djus gsrq vuqefr iznku dh xbZA O;kie ds ek/;e ls Hkjrh dh dkjZokbZ izfØ;k/khu gSA vr% bl dk;kZy; ds i= Ø- 39021001@LFkk@iz-v-@13 fnukad 02-07-13 }kjk lgk;d izksxzkej] 'kh?kzys[kd] LVsuks Vk;fiLV] MkVk ,UVªh vkWijsVj ,oa lgk;d xzsM&3 ds inksa gsrq 'ks”k ftyksa ¼cykSnkcktkj] egkleqan] /kerjh] xfj;kcan] nqxZ] ckyksn] csesrjk] jktukanxkao] do/kkZ] fcykliqj] eqaxsyh] pkaik] dksjck] jk;xढ+] ljxqtk] jkekuqtxat&cyjkeiqj] lwjtiqj] dksfj;k] t'kiqj] cLrj] lqdek] narsokM+k] chtkiqj] dkadsj] dksaMkxkao ,oa ukjk;iqj½ ls lacaf/kr bl foHkkx ds dk;kZy;ksa ds fy, Hkjrh gsrq tkjh foKkiu dks rRdky izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA izeq[k vfHk;ark yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx jk;iqj ¼NRrhlxढ+½ 21. Thereafter, the respondents have conducted the entire selection process through VYAPAM and filed the order dated 23.02.2017 by which the appointment for Bastar and Surguja divison were conducted and appointment orders were issued. From the records, it is quite vivid that subsequently the respondents have cancelled the advertisement on 14.09.2016 which was not assailed by the petitioners in this petition despite knowing which has already been brought on record. In this peculiar situation, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as the subsequent cancellation of entire selection process was not subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench. In this peculiar situation, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as the subsequent cancellation of entire selection process was not subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The petitioners were aware about cancelation of advertisement dated 14.09.2016 despite knowing this fact by amending the writ petition. It is too well - settled that judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems; they are not to be construed as statutes, and; specific cases are authorities only for that they actually decide. This theory of euclid’s theorems has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chintels India Ltd.vs Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. reproted in 2021(4) SCC 602 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 31. It is well settled that judgments are not to be construed like Euclid’s theorems (see Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 345 ), but all observations made therein must relate to the context in which they were made. In that case, the Court put it thus “10. There is one other significant sentence in Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P.[ (1983) 4 SCC 353 ] with which we must express our agreement, it was said: (SCC p. 377, paras 26-27). ‘26-27......“With utmost respect, these observations of the learned Judge are not to be read as Euclid's theorems, nor as provisions of a statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear”. We consider it proper to say, as we have already said in other cases, that judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [ 1951 AC 737 , 761] Lord MacDermott observed: .........“The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [ 1951 AC 737 , 761] Lord MacDermott observed: .........“The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge.... In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [(1970) 2 All ER 294] Lord Reid said: ............“Lord Atkin's speech [Donoghue v. Stevension, 1932 All ER Rep 1, 11] ... is not to be treated as if it was a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.” Megarry, J. in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: “One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [ 1972 AC 877 (HL)] Lord Morris said: “There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.” 11. There are a few other observations in Kewal Krishan Puri case [ (1980) 1 SCC 416 ] to which apply with the same force all that we have said above. It is needless to repeat the oft-quoted truism of Lord Halsbury that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not for what may seem to follow logically from it.” 22. Even otherwise, the law is well settled that the selected candidates have no indefeasible right to appoint. The right of the employer to cancel the entire selection process has been considered before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sachin Kumar and Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others 2021 (4) SCC 631 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 66 which are as under:- 66. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrongdoing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrongdoing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable. 23. The respondents have taken specific stand that the advertisement consists of draft rules which have not been framed; as such issuance of advertisement on the basis of draft advertisement is illegality. This fact that the advertisement was issued on the basis of draft rule, is not disputed by the petitioners. It is well settled legal position of law that unless and until the rules are framed in exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India it has no statutory value. The rules are made effective only when they fulfil the legal requirement of publication in the official gazatte and on such publication shall have the effect as if enacted in the Act and once they cross these requirements they have force and sanctity of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.K. Bhatnagar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others; reported in (1991) 1 SCC 544 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.K. Bhatnagar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others; reported in (1991) 1 SCC 544 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 13. On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the Union and the State Governments that, once they frame rules, their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation. Very often Government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules. We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the Government both at the center and in the States would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Since the entire selection process has been cancelled and subsequent appointment for Bastar and Surguja division have already been done which was also not challenged by the petitioners. Even the selected candidates of this division have not been impleaded as party to the case. It is pertinent to mention here that cancellation of earlier advisement by the respondent No.2 on 14.09.2016 is not under challenge before this Court. Considering the entire facts and law pressed into service by the petitioners and the respondents, this Court is of view that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petitions being devoid of merit deserves to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 25. The interim order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2204 of 2016 on 08.08.2016 by which this Court has directed for not filling three posts of Data Entry Operator by the respondents stand vacated. Accordingly the writ petitions being devoid of merit deserves to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 25. The interim order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2204 of 2016 on 08.08.2016 by which this Court has directed for not filling three posts of Data Entry Operator by the respondents stand vacated. Similarly, interim order passed by this Court in WPS No. 3320 of 2016 on 08.08.2016, 1 post of Data Entry Operator shall not be filled up by the respondents and in WPS No. 2209 of 2016 on 08.08.2016, 4 posts of Data Entry Operator shall not be filled up by the respondents also stand vacated.