JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018 (Manraj Tamboli), as well as Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the intervenors. 2. W.A. No. 244/2022 and W.A. No. 247/2022 are preferred against an order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018. W.A. No. 322/2022 is preferred against an order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018. 3. The appellants in W.A. Nos. 244/2022 and 247/2022 were not parties to the writ proceedings. The appellants in W.A. No. 322/2022 were writ petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018. 4. W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018 came to be disposed of in the light of the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018. 5. The Dean, Late Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Medical College, Raigarh, had issued an advertisement dated 08.09.2017, which was later modified on 19.09.2017, inviting applications, amongst others, for 42 posts of Ward Boy/Aaya, out of which 6, 7, 11 posts were reserved for Other Backward Class (OBC), Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST), respectively, leaving 18 posts towards general category. 6. The case of the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018, in short, was that as per clause 19 of the advertisement, selection list was to be prepared on the basis of the written examination to be conducted. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and appeared in the examination. Result was declared on 09.01.2018. However, after declaration of the result, a letter dated 24.01.2018 was issued against the condition of the advertisement that an aptitude test would be taken and thereafter, final selection list would be prepared. The petitioner objected holding of the aptitude test. However, the petitioner appeared in the said test held on 04.02.2018. 7. After declaration of provisional result on 09.01.2018, objections had been invited and the petitioner had made an objection with regard to question Nos. 2 and 6. It is stated that the objections were decided by a letter dated 22.02.2018 intimating that question No. 2 has been deleted. However, the petitioner appeared in the said test held on 04.02.2018. 7. After declaration of provisional result on 09.01.2018, objections had been invited and the petitioner had made an objection with regard to question Nos. 2 and 6. It is stated that the objections were decided by a letter dated 22.02.2018 intimating that question No. 2 has been deleted. Regarding question No. 6, it is said that there was a printing mistake and the correct question was announced in the examination hall. The petitioner does not dispute that the correct question was announced in the examination hall, but contends that the same was told about 30 minutes after commencement of the examination, by which time he had chosen the alternative question. 8. The writ petition was filed challenging the letter dated 24.01.2018 alongwith further prayers to direct the respondent authority to declare the result on the basis of written examination and in the alternative, to treat the question Nos. 2 and 6 as correct questions without any alteration and marks be awarded on option D (none of the above). 9. In the return filed by the State, it is stated that the result of the written test published on 22.01.2018 contains the names of all the candidates numbering 5631 including those candidates who secured marks less than 50%, while only 2078 candidates qualified by securing 50% of the marks and above. After declaration of the result, a meeting was convened by the respondent No. 3 on the same date and an unanimous decision was taken to conduct a skill test so that best candidates are selected. The authority to conduct skill test was conferred by Rule 6(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department Non-Ministerial (Related to Directorate Medical Education Department) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2015 (for short, the Rules of 2015). It was also decided that the merit list of the candidates to be selected for the 42 posts would be prepared from the result of marks obtained in the skill test only and the candidates for the skill test were called in the ratio of 01:07 on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test conducted. Accordingly, they were informed through mobile phone messages, newspaper and website of the Medical College. Accordingly, they were informed through mobile phone messages, newspaper and website of the Medical College. It is stated that the skill test consisting of written examination of multiple choice questions of 30 marks and spotting test as a test for skills of 20 marks, were conducted on 04.02.2018 and all the candidates, who were called including the petitioner appeared without any objection and the result was published on 22.02.2018. In the return, the respondents acknowledged that the petitioner had raised objection on 29.01.2018. 10. W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018 was filed by the petitioners contending that petitioners No. 2 and 4 had filed an application for intervention in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018 and petitioners No. 1 and 3 had filed an application for intervention in W.P. (S) No. 2081/2018 and as their names appeared at serial Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 of the final select list, they were called for verification of documents on 08.03.2018. Accordingly, in the writ petition, they had prayed for declaration that they are entitled to be appointed to the post of Ward Boy/Aaya on the basis of the outcome of the verification held on 08.03.2018 and for a direction to issue final list of selected candidates after verification that was held on 08.03.2018 and to complete the selection process by issuing appointment orders to the petitioners. 11. Appellant in W.A. No. 244/2022 is an ST candidate and appellant in W.A. No. 247/2022 is an OBC candidate. 12. As the appellants in W.A. No. 244 of 2022 and 247 of 2022 were not parties to the writ proceedings, they had filed applications seeking leave to file appeal. The appeals were reserved for judgment on 07.12.2022 and while preparing the judgment, it came to the notice of the Court that those applications were not disposed of. Hence, the cases were listed under the heading ‘to be spoken to’ on 13.12.2022, on which date the applications seeking leave to appeal were allowed and the appeals were again reserved for judgment. 13. Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants in all the cases submits that the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018 though had filed an objection, thereafter, he had participated in the selection process and the writ petition came to be filed by him only after declaration of the result, after coming to know that he was unsuccessful. Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants in all the cases submits that the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018 though had filed an objection, thereafter, he had participated in the selection process and the writ petition came to be filed by him only after declaration of the result, after coming to know that he was unsuccessful. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter in proper perspective. He places reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Mannan Travels Transport Contractor and Others vs. Durgapur Projects Ltd. and Others, MAT No. 298/2009, decided on 27.07.2009. 14. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018 (Manraj Tamboli), while relying on the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, has also placed reliance in the cases of Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. 2005 CJ (SC) 1067 and Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Others, 2020 CJ (SC) 373. 15. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for the intervenors, while supporting Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, has placed reliance in the case of Krishna Rai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others vs. Banaras Hindu University, through Registrar and Others, (2022) 8 SCC 713 . 16. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 17. The learned Single Judge had reproduced Rules 6 and 11 of the Rules of 2015 in Hindi. English version of the Rules 6 and 11 are reproduced herein-below: “6. Methods of recruitment: (1) After the commencement of these rules, the recruitment in the service shall be conducted through the following methods, namely: (a) By direct recruitment through competitive examination/selection. (b) By promotion of members of the service. (c) By transfer/deputation of the persons, who hold in a substantive/officiating capacity such posts in such services, as may be specified in this behalf. (b) By promotion of members of the service. (c) By transfer/deputation of the persons, who hold in a substantive/officiating capacity such posts in such services, as may be specified in this behalf. (2) The number of the persons recruited under clause (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage shown in Schedule-II of the number of posts as specified in Schedule-I. (3) Subject to the provisions of these rules the method or methods of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling any particular vacancy or vacancies in the service, as may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment, and the number of persons to be recruited by each method shall be determined on each occasion by the Appointing Authority in consultation with the Government. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, the exigencies of the service so require, then he may, with prior concurrence of the General Administration Department of the Government, adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as it may, by order issued in this behalf prescribe. (5) For the post to be filled up by direct recruitment through selection on the merit basis, the criteria shall be prepared by the Government. However, it shall be mandatory for Appointing Authority to constitute a selection committee for this purpose, which may adopt any appropriate criteria other than these criteria with the consent of the Government. (6) At the time of recruitment to the service, the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Janjatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and the instructions (as amended) issued from time to time by the General Administration Department of the Government shall apply. xxx xxx xxx 11. Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination/Selection/Interview: (1) Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination: (i) Appointing Authority shall constitute a Selection Committee comprising of five members. (ii) The competitive examination for recruitment to the service shall be held at such interval as the Appointing Authority may, in consultation with the Government from time to time, determine. (iii) The examination shall be conducted by the Appointing Authority through Selection Committee in accordance with orders issued, from time to time. (ii) The competitive examination for recruitment to the service shall be held at such interval as the Appointing Authority may, in consultation with the Government from time to time, determine. (iii) The examination shall be conducted by the Appointing Authority through Selection Committee in accordance with orders issued, from time to time. (2) Direct Recruitment by Selection: (i) The selection of the candidates to the service shall be held at such intervals as may be determined by the Appointing Authority. (ii) The selection of candidates shall be done by the Selection Committee based on interview. (iii) Selection Committee shall be constituted by the Appointing Authority at appropriate time intervals. (3) At the time of recruitment in the service the provision of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and the directions issued under this Act by the General Administration Department of the Government, from time to time, shall be applicable. (4) In filling the vacancies so reserved, candidates who are members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall be considered for appointment in the order in which their names appear in the list referred to in rule 12 irrespective of their relative rank as compared with other candidates. (5) Those candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Non-creamy-layer) who are declared eligible for appointment by the Appointing Authority keeping in view of their administrative efficiency, may be appointed to the vacancies reserved for the candidate of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Non-creamy-layer) as per sub-rule (3) as the case may be. (6) There shall be 30% posts reserved for women candidates, in accordance with the provision of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997. The reservation shall be Horizontal and Compartment-wise. (7) In such cases, where certain experience period has been prescribed as an essential condition for the post to be filled by direct recruitment and it is found in the opinion of the Appointing Authority that there is a possibility of candidate belonging to the Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Non-creamy-layer) may not be available in sufficient number, the Appointing Authority may relax the condition of experience in respect of the candidates of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Non-creamy-layer). (8) In addition to the above, posts for persons with disability and ex-servicemen shall be reserved in accordance with the direction issued by the Government, from time to time.” 18. The learned Single Judge held that the advertisement issued was in accordance with the Rules of 2015. With regard to question as to whether the selection committee could have deviated from the conditions stipulated in the advertisement or could have taken a decision contrary to the Rules, observed at paragraphs 17, 18 and 19, as under: “17. It would be relevant to take note of Rules 6.5, which has been relied upon by the State, on the basis of which it is claimed by the State that the Selection Committee had deviated from the procedure which was otherwise prescribed under the advertisement. However, on going through clause 5 of Rules 6, it would clearly reflect that the Selection Committee in-fact has been authorized to lay down on its own eligibility criteria, the conditions and procedures for recruitment. 18. However, the said decision which has been conferred upon by the said Selection Committee, has to be taken before the recruitment process begins. Further requirement of clause 5 of Rule 6 is also that the deviation, if any, must also have the approval of the government before introducing the same. Both these factors are missing in the present facts of the case. In as much as the Selection Committee took a decision to deviate from the procedure otherwise laid down after the procedure in terms of the advertisement was concluded. Secondly, the deviation and the decision to deviate didn’t have the approval of the Government. 19. In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that it is a clear case where the respondents more particularly, the Selection Committee has changed the rules of the game after the game has begun.” 19. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge on paragraphs 32, 33 and 36 in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and on paragraphs 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 in the case of Mohd. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge on paragraphs 32, 33 and 36 in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and on paragraphs 24, 25, 27, 28 and 29 in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 , to hold that when the rules of the game has been prescribed and the recruitment process has also commenced, the respondents cannot be permitted to deviate from the said rules and procedure prescribed. 20. The learned Single Judge distinguished Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357 , which was pressed into service by the intervenors/ appellants herein, holding that the petitioner had raised objection with regard to procedure being changed by the selection committee at the first instance, whereas, in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the candidates had not challenged the selection process at the first instance. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, at paragraph 24 observed as follows: “24. Since this Court finds that the deviation from the conditions stipulated to the advertisement, is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sohrab Khan (supra) and as also in the case of K. Manjusree (supra), the writ petition to that extent deserves to be allowed and is ordered accordingly, the selection process initiated by the respondents so far as holding of the Aptitude Test and the results published thereafter is held to be bad-in-law and is therefore set aside/quashed so far as the recruitment process for the post of Ward Boy/Aaya. The respondents are further directed to proceed further with the recruitment process based upon the results published in the written examination held on 10.12.2017. The result of which was published on 21.01.2018 and the recruitment process be finalized on the basis of the merits from the said results. The writ petition thus stands allowed and the interim order passed earlier would stand merged with the final order passed today i.e. 19.04.2022.” 21. The result of which was published on 21.01.2018 and the recruitment process be finalized on the basis of the merits from the said results. The writ petition thus stands allowed and the interim order passed earlier would stand merged with the final order passed today i.e. 19.04.2022.” 21. In Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had approved the reasoning assigned by the Allahabad High Court while overruling the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions by taking a view that there was no question of estoppel as the candidates had no occasion to protest the change of criterion for the merit list by the State Government from the State level to District level. 22. In Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when no criteria on the basis of which the candidates are going to be subjected for selection process were published and the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the selection criteria, they cannot be shut out from challenging the process of selection when ultimately they came to know that the Commission step-by-step diluted the merit in selection. At paragraph 41, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “41. The Division Bench of the High Court is right in its conclusion that the selection criteria, which saw the light of the day along with declaration of the selection result could be assailed by the unsuccessful candidates only after it was published. Similarly, selection process which was notified was never followed and the selection criteria which was followed was never notified till the declaration of final result, hence, the writ petitioners cannot be estopped from challenging the selection. We, thus, hold that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners could not have been thrown on the ground of estoppel and the writ petitioners could very well challenge the criteria of selection applied by the Commission, which was declared by the Commission only at the time of declaration of the final result. We, thus, answer point Nos. 1 and 2 as follows: (i) The writ petitioners, who had participated in the selection are not estopped from challenging the selection in the facts of the present case. (ii) The writ petitioners could have very well challenged the criteria of selection, which was declared by the Commission only in the final result declared on 10.04.2010.” 23. 1 and 2 as follows: (i) The writ petitioners, who had participated in the selection are not estopped from challenging the selection in the facts of the present case. (ii) The writ petitioners could have very well challenged the criteria of selection, which was declared by the Commission only in the final result declared on 10.04.2010.” 23. In Krishna Rai (supra), an advertisement/notification was issued laying down the eligibility conditions as per Para 6.4 of the Manual, which did not provide for any interview. But later on, in violation of the eligibility conditions laid down in Para 6.4, the Board of Examiners, which did not have any authority or power to amend Para 6.4 laying down the eligibility conditions, introduced interview and also laid down the criteria for preparing the merit list out of total of 100 marks, with certain break-ups. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 observed as follows: “19. In the present case, the Board of Examiners comprising of large number of Members changed the entire procedure and they established a completely new procedure. They awarded 20 marks for the type test treating it to be compulsory, 60 marks for the written departmental test of simple English, Hindi and Arithmetic with 20 marks for each subject and further introduced an interview of 20 marks. Thus, the merit list was to be prepared on the total 100 marks as distributed above. 20. There is neither any provision nor any other indication in the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council for preparing such a merit list based upon the marks awarded under different heads. The promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority subject to passing the departmental written test, once the candidate was eligible having five years’ experience in Class-IV and matriculation certificate or equivalent. The intention and object as culled out from the aforesaid eligibility procedure was that, seniority subject to qualifying the written test would be the criteria for promotion. 21. The Board of Examiners on their own changed the criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview and also preparing the merit list on the basis of marks awarded in the type test, written test and interview. As per the provisions of Clause 6.4 of the Manual, type test was not mandatory. 21. The Board of Examiners on their own changed the criteria and made it purely merit based by introducing an interview and also preparing the merit list on the basis of marks awarded in the type test, written test and interview. As per the provisions of Clause 6.4 of the Manual, type test was not mandatory. Anybody who would fail in the type test, could also be promoted subject to the rider that they would have to qualify the type test within two years from his joining.” 24. The Division Bench of the High Court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge only on the ground that the writ petitioners had appeared in the interview and being unsuccessful, had proceeded to challenge the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Rai (supra) set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the Manual duly approved by the Executive Council will prevail over any such principle of estoppel or acquiescence. 25. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Mannan Travels Transport Contractor and Others (supra), relates to award of contract. An objection was raised by the appellant regarding eligibility of the private respondent (ultimate successful tenderer). As no decision was communicated on the said objection and the private respondent (ultimate successful tender) was also called to participate in the fourth stage of the tender process, in that circumstance the Calcutta High Court had observed that the objection of the appellant must be presumed to have been rejected and that as the appellants had participated at the time of opening of the fourth part i.e. price bid, it was held that the appellant would be presumed to have waived the objection. 26. In the instant case, the objection was raised by the petitioner on 29.01.2018 and the test was conducted on 04.02.2018. Though Mr. Pillai contends that as he had appeared in the test, it could be presumed that he had waived his objection, given the time-gap of 5 days, the contention has no merit. 26. In the instant case, the objection was raised by the petitioner on 29.01.2018 and the test was conducted on 04.02.2018. Though Mr. Pillai contends that as he had appeared in the test, it could be presumed that he had waived his objection, given the time-gap of 5 days, the contention has no merit. Though the writ petition was filed after declaration of result pursuant to skill test conducted, such skill test itself having been conducted without approval of the Government in violation of Rule 6(5) of the Rules of 2015, and that too after declaration of result of written test, which was the mode notified in the advertisement, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 27. Resultantly, the writ appeals are dismissed. 28. No costs.