JUDGMENT : 1. Since an identical issue, common facts of law are involved and common grounds of challenge have been raised in the bunch of these writ petitions they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners in the bunch of petitions have challenged the recruitment procedure initiated by the State for appointment in various posts in the Police Department. WP(S) No. 4378/2023 in case of Roopesh Kumar and others vs. State of CG has been taken up as lead case. The grounds of the challenges made by the petitioners and relief sought by them, in brief are as under:- 3. WP(S) No. 4378/2023, WP(S) No. 3343/2023, WP(S) No. 3384/2023, WP(S) No. 3395/2023, WP(S) No. 3750/2023, WP(S) No. 4142/2023, WP(S) No. 4149/2023, WP(S) No. 4229/2023, WP(S) No. 4232/2023, WP(S) No. 4296/2023, WP(S) No. 4302/2023, WP(S) No. 4305/2023, WP(S) No. 4307/2023, WP(S) No. 4309/2023, WP(S) No. 4310/2023, WP(S) No. 4312/2023, WP(S) No. 4318/2023, WP(S) No. 4333/2023, WP(S) No. 4400/2023, WP(S) No. 4404/2023, WP(S) No. 4414/2023, WP(S) No. 4418/2023, WP(S) No. 4433/2023, WP(S) No. 4471/2023, WP(S) No. 4480/2023, WP(S) No. 4519/2023, WP(S) No. 4554/2023, WP(S) No. 4560/2023, WP(S) No. 4564/2023 WP(S) No. 4572/2023, WP(S) No. 4573/2023, WP(S) No. 4583/2023, WP(S) No. 4636/2023, WP(S) No. 4644/2023, WP(S) No. 4711/2023, WP(S) No. 4721/2023, WP(S) No. 4726/2023, WP(S) No. 4743/2023, WP(S) No. 4749/2023, WP(S) No. 4752/2023, WP(S) No. 4754/2023, WP(S) No. 4755/2023, WP(S) No. 4756/2023, WP(S) No. 4763/2023, WP(S) No. 4765/2023, WP(S) No. 4778/2023, WP(S) No. 4808/2023, WP(S) No. 4815/2023, WP(S) No. 4818/2023, WP(S) No. 4825/2023, WP(S) No. 4958/2023, WP(S) No. 4968/2023, WP(S) No. 4993/2023, WP(S) No. 5018/2023, WP(S) No. 5055/2023, WP(S) No. 5059/2023, WP(S) No. 5157/2023, WP(S) No. 5164/2023, WP(S) No. 5200/2023, WP(S) No. 5285/2023, WP(S) No. 5343/2023, WP(S) No. 5361/2023, WP(S) No. 5363/2023, WP(S) No. 5460/2023, WP(S) No. 5692/2023, WP(S) No. 5956/2023, WP(S) No. 5970/2023, WP(S) No. 6141/2023, WP(S) No. 7056/2023 4. In these bunch of petitions the contention of the petitioners, in brief is that the respondent Department has issued an advertisement on 17.09.2021 for recruitment of 975 posts of Subedar, Platoon Commander and Sub-Inspector (special Branch) /(Fingerprints)/(questioned documents) and Sub-Inspector (Computer and Radio). Out of these, 247 posts were earmarked for platoon commanders. In these bunch of petitions the contention of the petitioners, in brief is that the respondent Department has issued an advertisement on 17.09.2021 for recruitment of 975 posts of Subedar, Platoon Commander and Sub-Inspector (special Branch) /(Fingerprints)/(questioned documents) and Sub-Inspector (Computer and Radio). Out of these, 247 posts were earmarked for platoon commanders. In the advertisement as well as in the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazatted) Service Recruitment Ruels, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as (“The 2021 Rules”) it has been clearly mentioned that women candidates are not entitled to be appointed on the post of Plantoon Commnader. As per the advertisement and Rules of 2021 the candidates have to undergo four stages of examination i.e. prelims, mains, physical test and interview. The Rule 13 of the Rules 2021 provides that final list for direct recruitment shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in mains written examination, physical proficiency test, interview and bonus marks. The advertisement further provides that the candidates working on the post of constable in the Police Department and those having requisite educational qualifications could also apply for these posts. The preliminary examination was conducted on 29.01.2023. 5. It has been contended that the recruitment process is governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021 and Rule 6(8) provided that female candidates shall be eligible for recruitment for the posts of Subedar, Sub-Inspector (Special Branch, Radio, Fingerprint, Questioned Documents, Computer and Cyber-crime), but not for the post of Platoon Commander. The rule further provides that a merit list should be prepared on the basis of mains examination, and list of 5-times candidates for the post advertised should be issued admission letters to appear in the mains written examination. It is imperative to highlight that this number can be exceeded if several candidates have scored similar cut off marks as provided in Rule 6(10)(iv) of the Rules. 6. In the present case, the total number of vacancies were 975, out of which 247 posts were reserved for platoon commander, which means 1235 male candidates would have cleared the mains examination for platoon commander. Therefore, for the women other posts, 975-247 = 728 seats were available. 6. In the present case, the total number of vacancies were 975, out of which 247 posts were reserved for platoon commander, which means 1235 male candidates would have cleared the mains examination for platoon commander. Therefore, for the women other posts, 975-247 = 728 seats were available. It has been further submitted that as per Rule 6(10)(iv) of the Rules of 2021, after the written examination, there had to be a separate merit list for the post of platoon commander, as women candidates were not eligible for appointment on the said post. As such, the select list ought to have consisted of 728 x 5 = 3640 candidates (including female candidates) + 247 x 5 = 1235 Male candidates for the post advertised. Thus, list of 4755 candidates should have been prepared. It has been further submitted that in the first set of the list (3640 candidates) the respondent department was required to apply 30% horizontal reservation for women, so 1092 female candidates ought to have been called by the respondent department for the purpose of physical examination, but they have called the women candidates in excess and committed illegality in not excluding the post of Platoon Commander where no post was reserved for women. The State has prepared the merit list by calling 5 times candidates of all 951 posts, which is “arbitrary and illegal”, as a result of which 1496 female candidates have been selected for the next round. If the correct procedure could have been applied, the petitioners’ names might have found place in the merit list of eligible candidates for physical examinations. The authorities declared a selection list of 4755 candidates on 21.06.2023 for the physical examination, including 1496 female candidates which is illegality. as such, 404 male candidates could have been called for the Physical Proficiency Test. It has been further contended that the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, have made a significant error by neglecting to exclude the post of Platoon Commanders from the calculation of horizontal reservation for women candidates. This mistake directly contradicts the explicit provisions stated in both the advertisement for the vacancy and the relevant recruitment rule, which clearly states that women candidates are eligible for all other posts except for the post of Platoon Commanders. This mistake directly contradicts the explicit provisions stated in both the advertisement for the vacancy and the relevant recruitment rule, which clearly states that women candidates are eligible for all other posts except for the post of Platoon Commanders. The petitioners have also made an attempt to clarify the alleged mistake committed by the respondent in taking into consideration for 30% horizontal reservation for all the posts including the post of Platoon Commanders and have shown the alleged discrepency in calculating the post for various posts advertised by the respondent for example for the post of Sub- inspector (Radio)/(Fingerprint)/(Documents), Sub-inspector (Computer/ Cybercrime), Sub-inspector (Special Branch). It has been further contended that the respondent board has acted in direct contradiction to the established procedures and it is in violation of the rule as well as constitutional provisions. 7. It has also been contended that the rules provide 10% horizontal reservation to the ex-servicemen and 10% of 975 posts would come to 97, therefore, as per rule 20 times candidates should have been called for mains examination which comes to 1940, but in the selection process 517 ex-servicemen have applied therefore, the respondents have considered only 517 candidates for mains examination, as such rest of 1423 candidates, the respondents ought to have considered the maritorious candidates from other categories. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that some of the petitioners are working in the police department and the respondents have not given 5% horizontal reservation to those candidates. It has also been contended that the respondent No. 3 published the result of mains examination without transparency, without preparing the list merit wise and category wise, without showing the cut off marks of the candidates of all the categories. It has also been contended that there are serious irregularities and scam has been done to defraud the future aspect of the candidates therefore, CBI inquiry is required to be conducted in the matter. It has also been contended that the professional Board which has conducted the examination has issued notice on 21.06.2023 by stating that the result of written test has already been handed over to the Police Headquarter as per the request and further information will be given with regard to selection process done by the Police Headquarter and the candidates who have found to be eligible for next round will be informed by the police headqaurter. Thus, the manner in which process of publication of result by respondent No. 2 has been done, it creates doubt that selection process has been conducted in fair and transparent manner. 9. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the select list dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No 2 and all other consequences action taken by them and related thereto . The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board to reissue/ reframe the select list for mains / written examination as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement as well as in adherence to the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non- Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules 2021. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction to respondents No. 5 and 6 to issue amended model answer of main examination and thereafter issue final result of the main examination with proper merit list, category wise marks obtained by the candidates, cut off marks candidates of all categories with their names, fathers’ name and age. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction to conduct enquiry against the DGP and respondent No. 7 member selection committee and to remove them from selection committee as well as initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them. It has also been prayed for initiation of CBI inquiry as there is serious irregularity and illegality in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in case of State of West Bengal vs. Soman Nandy in MAT No. 909/2023. 10. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent to prepare a fresh merit list of eligible candidates for physical proficiency test by applying Rule 6(8)(ii) and Rule 6(10)(iv) of Rules 2021. 11. WP(S) No. 3389/2023, WP(S) No. 3546/2023, WP(S) No. 2549/2023, WP(S) No. 4166/2023, WP(S) No. 4314/2023, WP(S) No. 4523/2023, WP(S) No. 4762/2023, WP(S) No. 4791/2023, WP(S) No. 5663/2023 12. In these bunch of petitions the contention of the petitioners in brief is that in the merit list of Police Department people scoring less marks than present petitioners have been allowed to participate in the mains examination and if 5% reservation is granted then 1000 candidates should have been selected irrespective of their caste and category. In these bunch of petitions the contention of the petitioners in brief is that in the merit list of Police Department people scoring less marks than present petitioners have been allowed to participate in the mains examination and if 5% reservation is granted then 1000 candidates should have been selected irrespective of their caste and category. It has also been alleged that in the selection list category wise rank of the candidates have not been declared which creates doubt over the genuineness of the list and on the above factual matrix it has been prayed that the respondent authority to extend the benefits of 5% reservation exclusive for employees of the police department and 10% reservation awarded to the ex-servicemen be quashed. It has also been prayed that the respondent authority be directed to delete the name of excessive female candidates selected against the post of Platoon Commander and revive the list. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent authority to release the cut off marks obtained by the last candidate and marks obtained by the petitioner. 13. WP(S) No. 3336/2023, WP(S) No. 3342/2023, WP(S) No. 3349/2023, WP(S) No. 3353/2023, WP(S) No. 3355/2023, WP(S) No. 3377/2023, WP(S) No. 3392/2023, WP(S) No. 3393/2023, WP(S) No. 3394/2023, WP(S) No. 3409/2023, WP(S) No. 3428/2023, WP(S) No. 3434/2023, WP(S) No. 3461/2023, WP(S) No. 3547/2023, WP(S) No. 3549/2023, WP(S) No. 3629/2023, WP(S) No. 3657/2023, WP(S) No. 4311/2023, WP(S) No. 4341/2023, WP(S) No. 4389/2023, WP(S) No. 4410/2023, WP(S) No. 4438/2023, WP(S) No. 4483/2023, WP(S) No. 4638/2023, WP(S) No. 4672/2023, WP(S) No. 4706/2023. WP(S) No. 4753/2023, WP(S) No. 4762/2023, WP(S) No. 4829/2023, WP(S) No. 5147/2023, WP(S) No. 5864/2023, WP(S) No. 5866/2023, WP(S) 4527/2023 14. In these bunch of petitions the contention of the petitioners in brief is that the 5% posts shall be reserved for departmental candidates and it is a horizontal reservation which shall not be carry forwarded in case of non-availability of eligible candidates therefore, the respondent No. 3 should have calculated 5% of the posts from total vacany of 975 which come to 48.7 and therefore, 20 times of 48.7 candidates should have been called for the main examination and would pray for allowing them to participate in the mains written examination as per Rule 11(6) of Rules 2021 and also prayed for grant of 5% reservation exclusively meant for employees of the Police Department 15. In WP(S) No. 4532/2023 the petitioner has prayed for keeping one post vacant as he was not found place in the list issued on 21.06.2023 without challenging the selection process initiated by the respondents. 16. In WP(S) No. 5051/2023 the contention of the petitioner is that presently the petitioner is carrrying pregnancy of 16 weeks, therefore, it is not possible for her to participate in the physical proficiency test. It has also been contended that a special provision has been provided for pregnant women and would pray for postponement of the physical proficiency test and also prayed for considering the representation dated 05.07.2023. 17. In WP(S) No. 3381/2023 the contention of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner has contended that he belongs to OBC but inadvertently due to mistake of the person in computer center his category mention as General category and this mistake has been came into knowledge of the petitioner when downloaded the admit card. Thus, he has prayed for treating him as OBC candidate not as General candidate. 18. WP(S) No. 8515/2023, WP(S) No. 8722/2023, WP(S) No. 8723/2023, WP(S) No. 8724/2023, WP(S) No. 8725/2023, WP(S) No. 8733/2023, WP(S) No. 8735/2023, WP(S) No. 8755/2023, WP(S) No. 8757/2023, WP(S) No. 8758/2023, WP(S) No. 8761/2023, WP(S) No. 8782/2023, WP(S) No. 273/2024, 19. In the bunch of the petitions the petitioners who have cleared the prelims, mains, and interview for the recruitment of the vacant post of Subedar, Sub Inspector Cadre and Platoon Commander in the recruitment procedure conducted by the respondents, but neither the final result nor appointment order as per Rule 13 has been issued causing adversely to the future aspect of the petitioners. As such, they have prayed that the respondents be kindly directed to declare the final result and appointment order as per Rules of 2021. 20. The State has filed their return wherein they have raised objection about maintainability of the writ petitions mainly contending that the Director General of Police, Raipur has issued an advertisement on 17.09.2021 for recruitment & appointment to the various posts of Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector (Special Branch), Platoon Commander, Sub Inspector (Finger Print), Sub-Inspector (Questioned Documents), Sub-Inspector (Computer) and Sub- Inspector (Radio) and a total of 975 vacancies were advertised out of which 247 advertised for Platoon Commander. The clause 4 of the advertisement specifically provides that female candidates are not eligible for the post of Platoon Commander and the recruitment process is governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazatted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules of 2021”). It has been further contended that the rule 6(8)(1) of Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-Gazatted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021 provides that female candidates shall be eligible for recruitment only for the posts of Subedar, Sub- Inspector. Sub-Inspector (Special Branch), Sub-Inspector (Radio)/(Finger Print)/ (Questioned Documents)/(Computer)/Cyber Crime. Female candidate shall not be eligible for recruitment for the post of Platoon Commander. It has also been contended that the recruitment process as provided in the Rules of 2021, the candidate who has applied for the examination has to undergo 4 stages of selection process, i.e. Preliminary Examination, Mains Examination, Physical Test and lastly interview. The different stages have been allotted different marks. The record of the case would demonstrate that the petitioners appeared in preliminary examination held on 29.01.2023 and were found eligible for mains exam and appeared in main exam, but have not been found eligible for second stage ie Physical test, thereafter, the impugned list of eligible candidates for physical test was published in which petitioners have not been selected. It has been further contended that the petitioners have prayed for quashing the list of eligible candidates of mains examination of Police Recruitment Preliminary Examination (PRPE-2022) and if the prayer is considered by this Court the right of the selected eligible candidates who have cleared/passed the mains examination their right will be adversely affected, as such it is incumbent upon the petitioners to implead all those eligible candidates as a party respondents in the instant writ petitions as they are necessary party. It has also been contended that in absence of necessary party, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the count of non-joinder of necessary party. 21. It has also been contended that the writ petitions are premature at this stage as the selection process is in the midway and no final select list or appointment order has been issued, therefore, the petitioners if aggrieved with the final selected list/appointment of selected candidates are at liberty to challenge the same. Thus, the writ petitions are premature and deserve to be dismissed on this count alone. Thus, the writ petitions are premature and deserve to be dismissed on this count alone. It has also been contended that the petitioners have failed to point out any glaring irregularity in the selection process, but only harping upon the technical points for which no prejudice has been caused to them, therefore, the writ petition quashing the entire selection process deserves to be dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. 22. On merits it has been contended that the petitioner's challenge to the lack of proper 5% horizontal reservation for in-service employees of the police department is incorrect submission of facts as according to the petitioners 5% horizontal reservation would be available in the unreserved category, without further bifurcation, because in the police recruitment rules the word "compartment wise" was omitted when mentioning 5% horizontal reservation. for police department candidates. It has been submitted that the Rules 2021 clearly state that as per Rule 6(6) that the provisions of the Reservation Act of 1994 would be applicable in the recruitment. The reservation Act, 1994 provides that there will be vertical reservation in favour of unreserved candidates, scheduled tribe candidates, scheduled caste candidates, and other backward class candidates. This vertical reservation would automatically be applicable due to the applicability of the Reservation Act, 1994 in the current recruitment process. Therefore, 5% reservation for in service candidates of the police department would automatically mean that the 5% reservation would be available in each category. This has been clearly made applicable and provided by the answering respondent in the preliminary examination. Further, the advertisement for filling up of the vacancies dated 17.09.2021 mentions 5% reservation for departmental candidates as "horizontal and compartment wise". It has been further contended that if no compartment wise reservation is provided then it will amount to violation of framework or reservation. Thus, the submission made by the petitioners regarding 5% horizontal reservation deserves to be rejected. 23. It has been further contended that result of mains examination has been declared roll number wise and list of eligible candidates has been declared/uploaded as per the Recruitment Rule. It has also been contended that 3 separate lists of eligible candidates have been issued where 5% horizontal reservation has been provided to in service candidates. 23. It has been further contended that result of mains examination has been declared roll number wise and list of eligible candidates has been declared/uploaded as per the Recruitment Rule. It has also been contended that 3 separate lists of eligible candidates have been issued where 5% horizontal reservation has been provided to in service candidates. It has been further contended that the petitioners have not challenged the advertisement, without any protest they participated in the selection process, thereafter when they declared unsuccessful they have challenged the recruitment procedure which is not permissible under the law and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this count also. 24. It is further submitted that, in order to ensure impartiality, transparency, and confidentiality, the police headquarters and VYAPAM have decided that the selection list for the next stage of the examination based upon the main written examination would be published only with the roll number and name of the candidate, without disclosing their marks in the main written examination. The list of all candidates who appeared in the written examination with their marks would be prepared in hard copy and soft copy by VYAPAM and would be kept in a sealed cover under the joint signature of the Controller, VYAPAM, and members of the recruitment committee. In the event of any question arising about the correctness of the list, this result with marks sealed in the above-mentioned process can only be opened on the written order of the Additional Director General (Administration) in the police headquarters, in the presence of the Controller, VYAPAM, and four senior officers. The process of the next stage of examination for the selected candidates would be completed by the Police Department, and after completion of the next stage, the marks of the candidates who have appeared in the interview would be obtained from the sealed envelope of the mains examination, which will be opened in the presence of the Controller, VYAPAM, and the recruitment committee. The marks of the mains written examination, the Physical Efficiency Test, the interview, and bonus marks would be added to prepare the final selection list. Therefore, it is very clear that the objective of not disclosing the marks is only to maintain impartiality. It has been further contended that no one, including the candidates, members of the selection committee, or the general public, knows the individual marks of the candidates. Therefore, it is very clear that the objective of not disclosing the marks is only to maintain impartiality. It has been further contended that no one, including the candidates, members of the selection committee, or the general public, knows the individual marks of the candidates. This will help to bring more transparency to the next stage of the examination. It is pertinent to mention that the other examinations where the mains examination is only considered for preparation of final selection list after auditing marks obtained in the interview, the marks of the main examination are only disclosed after the final selection list is released. The same system is being followed in other competitive examinations, such as UPSC, PSC, and other civil service examinations. It has been further contended that by hiding the marks of the mains written examination it would help to ensure that the interview board is objective in their assessment of the candidates and disclosing the marks of the mains written examination could give the candidates an unfair advantage, as they would know how the candidates have performed in the written examination and could use this information to influence the fair selection process. To substantiate the submission the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harkirtat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1111 25. It has been further contended that the allegations made by the petitioners regarding non supply of the marks to the candidates under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is concerned, it has been contended that the law has been well settled by this Court that as long as the process is not complete, the marks of the written examination are not to be uploaded or made available to the candidates and if it is being permitted, that will not be in the interest of the applicants. The disclosure of the marks in the main examination before it is finalised and the viva-voce is conducted, would be against the principles of transparency, rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritizm or nepotism, as such the petitioners are not entitled to get marks of mains written examination before completioin of final selection/issuance of appointment order. 26. The disclosure of the marks in the main examination before it is finalised and the viva-voce is conducted, would be against the principles of transparency, rather it will invite criticism of bias or favouritizm or nepotism, as such the petitioners are not entitled to get marks of mains written examination before completioin of final selection/issuance of appointment order. 26. It has been further contended that the recruitment procedures have been conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2021 and the substantiate the submissions various rules of Rules of 2021 have been pressed into service. The Rule 6 of Rules of 2021 provides method of recruitment and provides stage to be followed for appointment to be made under the Rules of 2021. The Rule 6 is reproduced below:- “6. Method of Recruitment:- (1) Recruitment to the service, after the commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods, namely:- (a) by direct recruitment, through competitive examination or selection; (b) by promotion of such member of service, as are specified in column (2) of Schedule-IV; (c) by transfer of persons, who hold in a substantive capacity such posts in such services, as may be specified in this behalf, (d) according to the State of Chhattisgarh Distinguished Players in the Government Service Recruitment Rules, 2010, limited recruitment process by selection of distinguished players who participated in Olympic, Asind. Commonwealth, Asian Championship; those players, whose game included in All India Police Games, shall be given priority and these type of appointment shall be maximum of 2% of the total number of sanctioned related cadre posts available for direct recruitment. (2) The number of persons recruited under clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub- rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage in shown in Scheduled-11 of the number of duty posts as specified in Schedule-1. (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. (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 the 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 prescribed by the Government. However, it shall be mandatory for Appointing Authority to constitute a selection committee for this purpose, which may adopt any other 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 Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, (No. 21 of 1994) and instructions (as amended) issued from time to time by the General Administration Department of the Government shall apply. (7) Online application forms for recruitment process shall be invited for which the examination fee shall be determined by the department. (8) (i) The candidates must specifically mention, in the application form for recruitment, the name of the posts for which the candidate desires to be recruited. The name of only such candidates who have specifically expressed their consent for recruitment to posts to the (Radio)/(Finger Print)/(Questioned Document)/(Computer)/(Cyber Crime) and who possess qualification mentioned in Scheduled-III shall be considered. (ii) Female candidates shall be eligible for recruitment only for the posts of Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector (Special Branch), Sub Inspector (Radio)/(Finger Print)/(Questioned Documents) /(Computer)/ (Cyber Crime). Female candidate shall not be eligible for recruitment for the post of Platoon Commander. (9) Giving wrong information or hiding of any factual information in the application form by the applicant shall be deemed to be disqualification. On such act the candidates shall have no right of appointment or continue in service under the Government and his service shall be terminated forthwith by the Appointing Authority without giving any notice. (10) The procedure of selection by competitive examination under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) shall be as follow i.e.:- (1) Measurement of Physical Standard: The physical test of the candidate shall be conducted according minimum qualification as specified sub-rule (3) of rule 8. (10) The procedure of selection by competitive examination under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) shall be as follow i.e.:- (1) Measurement of Physical Standard: The physical test of the candidate shall be conducted according minimum qualification as specified sub-rule (3) of rule 8. Note: In case any dispute with regard to physical measurement, the decision of the Chief Medical Officer of the District shall be final. (2) Preliminary Written Examination: A computerized objective type preliminary written examination of 300 marks and duration 2 hours, will be conducted, for the candidates, found fit as above. This examination will consist of Questions, mainly relating to general knowledge. On basis this preliminary written test, a merit list will prepared out of which only 20 times candidates against the number of vacant post advertised, shall be issued the admission letters to appear in main written examination. Last candidate, on whom 20 times number is completed, and all those candidates who obtained marks more than or equal to this candidate, shall be permitted for the main examination irrespective of the number exceeding the stipulated 20 times number. (3) Main Written Examination:- (a) Proficiency in Hindi and English Language:- This examination shall be of 200 marks and duration will be 2 hours. This examination shall be compulsory for all candidates. Hindi shall be of 125 marks and English of 75 marks. (b) General Knowledge and General Studies:- This examination shall be of 200 marks and its duration will be 3 hours. This examination shall be compulsory for all candidates. (c) Aptitude Test:- This examination shall be of 200 marks and its duration will be 2 hours. This examination shall be complusory for all candidates. (d) Science (Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry) Examination:- This examination shall be of 200 marks and its duration will be 2 hours. This examination shall be compulsory only for such candidates who have applied for recruitment for the posts of Sub-Inspector (Radio)/(Finger Print)/(Questioned Document) as specified in Scheduled-III. (e) Computer Science Examination:- This examination shall be of 200 marks and its duration will be 2 hours. This examination shall be compulsory for only such candidates who have applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Computer), Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) as specified in Schedule-III. (e) Computer Science Examination:- This examination shall be of 200 marks and its duration will be 2 hours. This examination shall be compulsory for only such candidates who have applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Computer), Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) as specified in Schedule-III. (4) Separate Selection Lists:- By adding the marks obtained in the main written examination of the first stage, three separate merit lists one for Subedar, Sub- Inspector/Sub- Inspector (Special Branch) and Platoon Commander, one for Sub-Inspector (Radio)/(Finger Print) (Questioned Documents) and one for Sub- Inspector (Computer)/Sub- Inspector (Cyber Crime) shall be prepared in which the candidates numbering five times the number of vacant posts advertised shall be called for examination of second stage. Last candidates, on whom five times number is completed and all those candidates who obtained marks more than or equal to this candidates shall be admitted to the second stage of examination irrespective of the number exceeding the stipulated five times number. (5) Physical Proficiency Test:- Physical measurement shall be conducted during Physical Proficiency Test as per clause (a) to (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 8 (Except of vision test of eyes and other tests relating to eyes.). Only those candidates, who success in physical measurement test, shall be given permission letter to attend for next procedure. If any question arises relating to this matter, the decision of the District Medical Board shall be final. Physical Proficiency Test is compulsory for all candidates. This test shall be of 300 marks and shall include following events: (a) Long Jump 60 marks (b) High Jump 60 marks (c) Shot put 60 marks (d) 100 Meter Race 60 marks (e) 1500 Meter Race 60 marks Details of statement of marks to be awarded in each event are specified in Schedule-V. But for the post of Sub- Inspector (Computer), Sub-Inspector (Cyber Crime) events mentioned above shall only be qualifying in nature and no marks will be awarded. Only those candidates shall be interviewed who have obtained minimum 30% marks in physical proficiency test, i.e. those candidates who obtain less than 30% marks in physical proficiency test shall be declared disqualified at this stage and their interview shall not be conducted. (6) Interview:- Personal Interview shall be of 100 marks. Only those candidates shall be interviewed who have obtained minimum 30% marks in physical proficiency test, i.e. those candidates who obtain less than 30% marks in physical proficiency test shall be declared disqualified at this stage and their interview shall not be conducted. (6) Interview:- Personal Interview shall be of 100 marks. (7) Bonus Marks:-10 Proficiency in sports at National/International level (only the players participating in the competition of national level shall be eligible, which are conducted directly by the All India Federation of that concerned sports event.)” 27. The Rule 8 of Rules of 2021 provides conditions of eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment and as per the sub rule(1) the candidates must be a local resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, sub rule (2) provides for age and other relaxation which has been provided to the other candidates, who holding the post of Government of Chhattisgarh, SC, ST, permanent Government servants holding the post temporarily, who is as retrenched Government servant candidate, Ex-service men also provided age relaxation to the respective widow, destitute or divorced women candidate also given age relaxation to the awarded superior caste partner of a couple under Inter-Caste Marriage Promotional Scheme under the Untouchability Eradication Rules, 1984 and relaxation has been provided, in sub rule (3) of Rule 8 provides for physical qualification, sub rule 4 provides for educational qualifications, rule 9 provides for disqualification, rule 10 provides of decision of committee, rule 11 provides for direct recruitment by competitive examination which reads as under:- “11. Direct Examination. Recruitment by Competitive Examination:- (1) 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, (2) By Selection (i) The selection of the candidates to the service as shown in Schedule-II shall be held at such intervals as may be determined by the Appointing Authority (ii) The selection of the candidates for the posts included in the service shall be made by interviewing thein by the selection committee. (3) At the time of recruitment to the service the provision of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusurhit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon. Ke Liye Arakshani Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and the directions issued under the said Act by the State Government, from time to time, shall be applicable. (3) At the time of recruitment to the service the provision of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusurhit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon. Ke Liye Arakshani Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 21 of 1994) and the directions issued under the said Act by the State 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- creamylayer) 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 candidates of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Non-creamy-layer) as per sub-rule (3) as the case may be. (6) Five percent of the total posts shall be reserved for the departmental candidates. This is a Horizontal Reservation and shall not be carried forward in case of non-availability of eligible candidates. (7) 30 percent compartment-wise and horizontal reservation shall be made for female candidates as per Government's instructions: Provided that the Department may, after prior permission of the Cabinet reduce the Percentage of appointment up to 10 percent.” 28. That, rule 12 provides for list of candidates recommended by the committee which reads as under:- “12. List of candidates recommended by the Committee (1) The Committee shall prepare and forward a list to the Appointing Authority, arranged in order of merit of the candidates who have qualified by such standards as may be determined by the Selection Committee and a list of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Non-creamy-layerj, who, though not qualified by such standard but declared by the Committee to be suitable for appointment to the service with due regard to the maintenance of efficiency in the administration. Lists so prepared shall also be published for information to the general public. (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, candidates shall be considered for appointment to the available vacancies in the order in which their names appear in the list. Lists so prepared shall also be published for information to the general public. (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules and the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, candidates shall be considered for appointment to the available vacancies in the order in which their names appear in the list. A waiting List of 25% of total posts shall also be prepared apart from the real vacancies by following the Rules of Reservation. (3) The inclusion of a candidate's name in the list confers no right to appointment unless the Appointing Authority is satisfied, after such enquiry as may be considered necessary, that the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to the Service.” 29. It has been further contended that the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2021 provides that the final merit list for direct recruitment, shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained on mains written examination, physical proficiency test, interview and bonus marks. It would be clear from perusal of Rule 13 that the marks of mains written examination, physical proficiency test, bonus marks would be the basis for final select list. The candidate cannot claim for disclosure of marks of mains written examination or physical proficiency test of interview in a mid way. The same shall be declared/disclosed after the final select list is issued. The Rule 13 is quoted below:- “13. Appointment to the Service from the Select List:- (1) Final List for direct recruitment shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the main written examination, physical proficiency test, interview and bonus marks. Appointment shall be made as per the Merit List subject to the availability of posts. But only those candidates shall be considered for appointment, who have obtained at least 30% marks in physical proficiency test. Merit List for the post of Sub Inspector (Computer), Sub Inspector (Cyber Crime) shall be prepared for the candidates who have passed the physical proficiency test as per clause (5) of sub rule 98) of rule 6 on the basis of marks obtained in all the other examinations including main written examination, interview and bonus marks. (2) Comparative seniority of candidates who have obtained equal total marks shall be determined on the basis of their date of birth. Candidates of higher age shall be considered senior. (2) Comparative seniority of candidates who have obtained equal total marks shall be determined on the basis of their date of birth. Candidates of higher age shall be considered senior. (3) The Select List issued by the Appointing Authority shall remain valid for a period of one year from the date of its issue.” 30. That, Rule 14 provides for probation and training, rule 15 provides for appointment by promotion, rule 16 provides for conditions of eligibility for promotion, rule 17 provides for preparation of list of suitable candidate, rule 18 provides for select list, rule 19 provides for appointment to the service from the select list, rule 20 provides for interpretation, rule 21 provides for relaxation of Rules 2021. 31. It has been contended that the respondents have conducted the selection process strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2021 even in the petition they have not put specific allegations which rule has been violated to nullify the entire selection process initiated by the respondents. It has been submitted that the respondents intend to recruit the female candidate on the post of Platoon Commander which is incorrect because the objective of mains written examination is to select 5 times of the vacancies and all the candidates (4755) selected are competing for the post of Sub Inspector/Sub Inspector (Computer/Cyber Crime)/ Subedar Sub- Inspector (Special Branch), Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Platoon Commander (P.C.), Sub-Inspector (Finger Print), Sub Inspector (Questioned Document), Sub- Inspector (Radio). 32. It is submitted that the selection list for the next stage of the selection process, ie, the Physical Proficiency Test (PPT), has been declared based on the provisions of the rules. As per the rules of 2021, the results are declared in three separate groups/posts. One group is for the combined vacancies of SI/SI(SB)/Subedar/PC, for which a total of 951 posts have been advertised. The second group is for the combined vacancies of Sl (Radio)/(Finger Print)/ (Questioned Documents), for which 18 vacancies exist. The third group is for the post of Sl(Computer/Cyber crime), for which 6 vacancies exist. As per the rules, 5 times the number of vacancies are to be called for the PPT. The second group is for the combined vacancies of Sl (Radio)/(Finger Print)/ (Questioned Documents), for which 18 vacancies exist. The third group is for the post of Sl(Computer/Cyber crime), for which 6 vacancies exist. As per the rules, 5 times the number of vacancies are to be called for the PPT. Based on the main written exam conducted on May 26, 27, and 29, 2023, one list of 4755 (951 posts x 5 times) candidates for SI/SI(SB)/Subedar/Platoon Commander, a second list of 90 (18 posts x 5 times) for SI (Radio)/(Questioned Documents)/(Finger Print), and a third list of 30 (6 posts x 5 times) for SI (Computer) have been declared. 33. So far as it relates to 5% reservation for police Department candidate, it is submitted that, in the list of 4755 candidates 1975 candidates come under Unreserved category, 565 under SC, 1550 of ST and 665 OBC. 5% of the aforesaid selection number is reserved for in service candidate which are 98, 28, 77, 33 respectively in calculation of the vacancies, the fractions have been taken as the whole number on lower side. It is submitted that the quota available for in service candidates have been duly filled. 34. It is submitted that, for the calculation, there are 951 vacancies for the posts of SI/SI (SB)/Subedar/Platoon Commander, out of which 247 are for Platoon Commanders and 704 for the other posts. The total selection for 951 posts is 5 times the number of vacancies, which is 4755. Of these, 30% are women, which mean 1425 women candidates. All these 4755 candidates have opted for the posts of SI/Subedar, even though most of the male candidates may have given Platoon Commander as one of their service preferences. If Platoon Commander vacancies are counted separately, there would be 704 posts Subedar/Rub Inspector (Crime Branch) x 3 times 3520 selections, with 30% female i.e. 1006 candidates and balance 70% i.e. 2464 males. For 247 Platoon Commander posts, 100% male candidates will be considered, as such for 951 posts of SI/SI(SB)/Subedar/Platoon Commander, there would be 1056 females and 3099 males of a total of 4755. All these numbers would be competing for the posts of SI/Subedar as well. Hence, for SI/Subedar, there would be 1030/4755 22% females and 78% males, thus violating the provision of 30% female reservation. 35. All these numbers would be competing for the posts of SI/Subedar as well. Hence, for SI/Subedar, there would be 1030/4755 22% females and 78% males, thus violating the provision of 30% female reservation. 35. It is respectfully submitted that the preliminary examination and mains written examinations were conducted by VYAPAM. The result of the preliminary examination was declared by VYAPAM, and the result of the mains written examination was issued by VYAPAM after considering objections to the model answer key. The final result of the mains examination was published by the Selection Committee on the official website of the police department. The only information that was published was the roll numbers/names and category of eligible candidates, as received from VYAPAM. There have been no changes or modifications to the result of the mains examination by the Selection Committee. The details of the candidates marks have not been disclosed by VYAPAM, as they are kept in a sealed envelope. Even the Selection Committee does not have any knowledge of the marks that the candidates have obtained in the examination. 36. It is further submitted that, with regard to the petitioners contention that candidates who have scored equal cut-off marks were not selected, the answering respondent would categorically submit that there is no tie in the marks of the candidate who is selected at the last position of the 5 times the number of vacancies of different categories. Thus the contention made by the petitioners had no merit and same is liable to be rejected. 37. So far as the ground of challenge of the petitioner regarding 10% quota of Ex-Servicemen have not been provided, it is submitted that the number of vacancies in Group-1 (SI/SI(SB)/Subedar /Platoon Commander) are 951. The answering respondent is allowing the 5 times of the vacancy reserved for Ex-Servicemen in their prescribed quota of 10%. The details are given as under:- UR SC ST OBC Total 197 56 155 66 47 According to the aforesaid chart, total 474 Ex- Servicemen candidates should be in the eligible list for PPT, but only 321 candidates are found eligible for Physical Proficiency Test. The details are given as under; UR SC ST OBC Total 197 19 39 66 321 38. It has been further contended that the final selection result/selection list has yet to be issued, as such the petitions are liable to be dismissed as premature. The details are given as under; UR SC ST OBC Total 197 19 39 66 321 38. It has been further contended that the final selection result/selection list has yet to be issued, as such the petitions are liable to be dismissed as premature. It has been further contended that the Rules of 2021 also provide that the last candidate on whom 20 times number is completed, and if all those candidates who have obtained marks more than or equal to the last candidate, will also be permitted to appear in the mains examination, regardless of the number exceeding the stipulated 20 times of numbers. A perusal of the above would clarify that the preliminary examination is only for short listing of candidates, to select candidates who are eligible to appear in the mains examination. The actual merit list for selection will be prepared on the basis of the marks of mains written examination, the physical proficiency test and the interview will be relevant factor for issuing final selection list. 39. It has been further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that the selection process suffers from arbitrariness, as such the entire process should be cancelled and a fresh list of selected candidates be issued, is misconceived on the facts as detailed above. It has been further submitted that the preliminary examination is a screening test, and first phase of selection process and the cut-off marks for this examination have been declared. 40. The submission with respect to fact that the Home Guard and Jail Warder are not being treated as police personnel and therefore they are not being considered under 5% quota available in service police personnel. It is respectfully submitted that the services of Home Guards are constituted under the Chhattisgarh Home Guards Act, 1947 and service of the Jail Warden would govern under the Jail Manual, whereas the services of police personnel govern as per the Police Act, 1961, as such the Home Guard and Jail Warden cannot be claimed parity or equivalence with the member of Police force. In view of the submissions made in the preceding paragraphs, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The instant petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed. 41. In view of the submissions made in the preceding paragraphs, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The instant petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed. 41. The respondents State filed their return in WP(S) No. 3381/2023 in case of Chandan Kumar Yadav vs. State of CG & Others mainly contending that if the petitioner belongs to OBC category and due to submission of wrong application form he was deprived for participating in the selection process, the respondent cannot be held responsible for the mistake committed by the petitioner. It has also been contended that the petitioner has filed a writ petition on 22.05.2023 whereas schedule for examination on 26, 27 & 29 May, 2023, as such he has not raised the issue within the reasonable time therefore, he cannot get any relief because of the delay and latches and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 42. The respondents State filed their return in WP(S) No. 5051/2023 in case of Shahana Parveen vs. State of CG & Others mainly contending that petitioner’s prayer for postponement of the recruitment process due to pregnancy cannot be considered as it is well settled position of law that once the recruitment process undertaken by the competent authority it would be meaningless without timeline, as such it is incumbent upon the authority to complete the selection process as per the time scheduled mentioned in the advertisement, thus, the payer made by the petitioner to consider the representation dated 05.07.2023 for postponement of the examination or deferment of the entire selection process and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. To substantiate the submission the respondents have referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. Vs. Pankaj Kumar reported in 2022 (1) SCC 335 . 43. This Court while hearing the matter on 16.08.2023 has passed the following order:- “Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that woman candidates have also considered for the post of Platoon Commander whereas the rules as well as the advertisement do not allow them to participate, which is objected by learned State counsel. 43. This Court while hearing the matter on 16.08.2023 has passed the following order:- “Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that woman candidates have also considered for the post of Platoon Commander whereas the rules as well as the advertisement do not allow them to participate, which is objected by learned State counsel. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that there is mis-calculation of candidates for calling for interview as less number candidates have been called for interview which is against the advertisement and violation of the rules, which is also objected by learned State counsel. Considering the controversy raised in this petition, it is desirable for this Court to call for complete record from initial stage of selection process and how the calculation has been arrived by the department while calling the candidates for interview can be easily explained by the person who is well acquainted with the selection proceeding not by the learned State counsel. As such, learned State counsel is directed to call for the complete record of selection process from initial stage and the person who is well acquainted with the selection proceeding” 44. The matter was taken up on 18.08.2023 wherein this Court has passed the following order:- “In the bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the selection process initiated by the respondents/State for appointment of Subedar, Sub-Inspector, Sub-Inspector (Special Branch), Platoon Commander, Sub-Inspector (handwriting expert), Sub-Inspector (Question documents), Sub-Inspector (Computer) and Sub-Inspector (Radio), total 975 vacancies in all the categories were advertised. The advertisement was issued on 13.09.2021, all the vacancies are governed by Chhattisgarh Police Executive(Non-Gazatted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2021. The Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rules 2021 which provide that the female candidates are not allowed to participate for appointment on the post of platoon commanders. Rules further provide that for one post five candidates are required to be called for physical and for main examination. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Rules mandate the State to call five candidates for one posts after clearing the preliminary examination but they have not called candidates as per the Rules, therefore, the whole selection procession is in violation of Rules. Mr. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Rules mandate the State to call five candidates for one posts after clearing the preliminary examination but they have not called candidates as per the Rules, therefore, the whole selection procession is in violation of Rules. Mr. Om Prakash Pal, Inspector General of Police, Raipur appear and would submit that they have rightly calculated the number of proportionate candidates as per Rule 6(10) 4 of the Rules, 2021 and separate selection list has been prepared thus they have conducted the procedure inconformity with the Rules. On the last date of hearing, this Court posed a specific question to the counsel for the State and the Officers who are present before this Court today also whether they have called the candidates from 1:5 ratio. They tried to explain by saying that as per Rules, 975 X 20=19,500 candidates have to be called, out of which 30% seats are reserved for women candidates, therefore, 15,132 candidates were included in the category of selection list for male candidates. When this Court put a specific question as to when the posts are not reserved for women then how the vacancies for the post of platoon commanders can be considered and the numbers can be counted so that the male numbers is reduced. They would further submit that for other categories like Subedar and other sub inspectors they have considered the proportionate and have rightly called the candidates, as such the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is far from truth and would pray for rejection of interim relief. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the Officer concerned. Considering the fact that there is clear cut non-compliance of the Rules once the post are not reserved for women how the candidates can be calculated by reducing the number of male candidates, there is apparent mistake on the face of the record and also considering this aspect of the matter, it is directed that the State shall re examine this issue and will remove anomaly created while conducting the selection process itself before the next date of hearing.” 45. The State in compliance of the order has submitted its report in a closed envelope on 21.09.2023 which has been opened by this Court at the time of hearing and the report :- 46. The State in compliance of the order has submitted its report in a closed envelope on 21.09.2023 which has been opened by this Court at the time of hearing and the report :- 46. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the writ petitions. 47. From the above factual matrix the points to be determined by this Court are:- (i) Whether the State is justified in granting 30% of reservation for women for appointment in Platoon Commander and when this post as per the rule is not provided any appointment of women candidates on the said post reducing the 5 times number for mains examination of male candidates, adversely affecting the right of the male candidates? (ii) Whether on the alleged shortcomings pointed by the petitioners the entire selection process deserves to be set aside by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? (iii) Whether the petitioners after participating in the selection process without any objection are estopped from challenging the selection process initiated by the respondents? 48. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kishore Bahduri with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri would submit that when the posts are not reserved for women then how the vacancies for the post of platoon commanders can be considered and the numbers can be counted so that the male numbers are reduced, as such it is apparent mistake on the face of the record in calculating the 5 times number for allowing them to participate in subsequent stage of selection process i.e. mains examination. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the advertisement item No. 4 for the post of Platoon Commander 247 posts were advertised and no female candidates are permitted, only male candidates were allowed to participate still reserving the 30% of post including the post of Platoon Commander is illegal. They would further submit that for appointment other categories like Subedar and other sub inspectors the State has considered the proportionate correctly, but for other posts they are not applied the Rules of 2021 in correct aspect. They would further submit that for appointment other categories like Subedar and other sub inspectors the State has considered the proportionate correctly, but for other posts they are not applied the Rules of 2021 in correct aspect. He would further submit that on 18.08.2023 the then Advocate General has made statement before this Court that he will make an effort to rectify the anamaly with regard to the calculation for calling the numbers 5 times and through its report placed on record it has been informed that the matter was sent to the State Government for rectification of anamaly but nothing has been done, as such he would submit that direction be issued to the State to call the 5 times candidates of male members after deducting the post Platoon Commander wherein 30% women have also been considered de-hors the rules. 49. Mr. Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate would further submit that the respondents have stated that after model answers of mains examination were published, objections were called and all questions in which objections were raised and placed before the expert committee. They say that they have complied with each and everything but in their return they have not filed anything, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against them. It has also been contended that after receipt of report of the Expert Committee the CGVYAPAM prepared a final answer key as well as merit list on the basis of final answer key and on the request of the Police Department result of mains examination was handed over to the Police Department and role of the CGVYAPAM has ended here which definitely vitiate the entire selection process initiated by the respondents. It has been further submitted that the result of mains examination conducted on 26, 27 and 29 May, 2023 have not been disclosed and it has been decided by the respondent that final score card, cut off marks will be published after final selection list is published which shows the highhandedness of the Police Department as the examination was conducted by the CGVYAPAM then why the Police Department is interfering in the conduction of the examination, as such it creates doubt over the transparency and fairness of the examination conducted by the respondents and would pray for allowing the petition and quashing of the entire selection process initiated by the respondents as the entire selection process has been conducted in violation of Rules of 2021 and no transparent procedure has been followed. 50. Mr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samarth Singh Marhas, counsel for the petitioners reiterating the submissions made by other senior counsel would submit that the entire selection process being governed by the CG Police Executive Non-gazatted Service Rules, 2021 is bound to be conducted as per the statutory rules, but the entire process is vitiated for significant breach of the statutory rules framed by them which adversely affect the future aspect of the petitioners. He would further submit that the Rule 11 has not been followed in its letter and spirit which vitiates the entire selection process. He would further submit that for appointment on the post of Platoon Commander as per Rule 8(2) female candidates shall not be eligible for recruitment, but while calculating 5 times of posts after adding the post of Platoon Commander on a higher side women candidates have been called as per the women reservation Rules, which is not applicable for the post of Platoon Commander as no appointment for women candidates has been done, thus it is apparent mistake. It has been further contended that as per sub-Rule 4 of Rule 6 separate merit list was required to be published of respective posts which admittedly has not done, thus, it is illegality. It has been further contended that candidates who applied only for one post of Sub Inspector Computer, but his candidature has been considered and he has been shown as selected candidate in other post for which he has not applied, thus, it is illegality. It has been further contended that candidates who applied only for one post of Sub Inspector Computer, but his candidature has been considered and he has been shown as selected candidate in other post for which he has not applied, thus, it is illegality. He would further submit that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any, deviation from the rules allow entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competent for the post and to substantiate the submission he would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Yogesh Kumar and others vs. Government of NCT reported in 2003 (3) SCC 548 . 51. Learned counsel for the other petitioners while adopting the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsels would submit that the respondent has committed illegality in granting reservation category wise for ex-servicemen of police as the ex-serviceman itself a class which cannot be compartment wise divided and cannot be kept reserved for ST, SC, OBC or other classes, thus, sub-categorization is per se illegal and thus he would pray for quashing the list so far as ex-servicemen is concerned. 52. Mr. Jha, Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5% posts are reserved for police persons it should not be further sub-categories like ST/SC or OBC or other categories. Thus, he would submit that there is a violation of rules and would pray for quashing the entire selection proceedings. 53. Mr. Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners would submit that one of the petitioners has obtained equal number, but his name has not been included in the list for subsequent selection process. The State has filed reply to this point and would submit that because of the reservation they have included the other candidates for subsequent selection process. It is an illegality as in the prelims examination no reservation can be allowed, as this examination is only for shortlisting of the candidates due to huge number of candidates as 67,393 have submitted form. He would further submit that as per the rules the respondent should have called 19,500 candidates, but they have called less candidates, as such it is illegality and he further adopts rest of the arguments made by the other counsels and would pray for allowing the petition. 54. Mr. He would further submit that as per the rules the respondent should have called 19,500 candidates, but they have called less candidates, as such it is illegality and he further adopts rest of the arguments made by the other counsels and would pray for allowing the petition. 54. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui would submit that the respondent authority without deciding objections have declared the final list. He would further adopt the submissions made by the learned senior counsels and would submit that for calculating the number of women candidates inclusion of post of Platoon Commander is de-hors the rules, as such he would pray for quashing of the entire selection process. He would further submit that since 120 candidates are common in list 1, 2 and 3, they are common if one list could have been prepared then these candidates are repeated so that additional 120 candidates can be allowed to participate in the further round of selection process. He would further submit that he has filed additional document on 28.02.2024 and would submit that 11 persons have been included in the list wrongly as they have only submitted form for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Computer), but their names have been reflected in the category of Subedar, Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector (Special Branch), Platoon Commander. Item No. 1 Sub Inspector Radio. He would further submit that the State has granted 30% reservation for the Platoon Commander whereas there is no requirement as per the advertisement as the post is not to be filled up by the women candidates in all the examination, prelims and mains examination. He would further submit that so far as 10% reservation for ex-servicemen the total which will be reserved would be 97 and since the candidate of ex-servicemen is not available this post can be given to General category. He would submit that horizontal and vertical reservation has come up for consideration in case of Rajesh K. Jhariya vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785 and would submit that since for ex-servicemen no compartment wise reservation can be granted, as such the State has committed illegality in granting compartment wise reservation therefore, the entire selection process deserves to be quashed by this Court. 55. Mr. 55. Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the advertisement was issued, 10% reservation has been given to the ex-servicemen and nowhere in the advertisement it was specified that so many seats were filled by the ST/SC/OBC, it was not divided like that. He would further submit that in the State of Chhattisgarh 42% posts are unreserved, 12% is reserved for SC, 32% for ST and 14% for OBC. He would submit that total 975 posts were advertised and 10% will come to 97 and since no candidates are available, these posts remained vacant, as such it should be filled up from other eligible candidates. He would further submit that the Chhattisgarh Ex-servicemen Reservation on Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Post (Clause III and Clause IV) Rules, 1985 nowhere provides that compartment wise reservation will be given, but in other rules such as the reservation given to female, the word compartment wise is specifically explained which talks about ST/SC/OBC and Unreserved in case of horizontal reservation provided by the State, but in the case of ex-serviceman there is no such provision. This is a special reservation given under Article 16(1) and with an object to rehabilitate ex-serviceman and to recongnize their contribution towards defense of the nation and to support the contribution made by the veteran, as such compartment wise reservation for other category is illegal. To substantiate this submission he would refer to the judgment of writ petition (s) No. 4166/2023 in case of Shivsagar Singh vs. P.S.C. Uttarpradesh and would pray for quashing of the 10% compartment wise reservation granted to the ex-servicemen. He would further submit that the candidates belonging to the category of ex-servicemen may be selected under a relaxed standard of selection to make a deficiency in the reserved quota, subject to the condition that such relaxation will not affect the performance of such candidates and would submit that 154 posts of ex-servicemen are lying vacant, this also comes in Hon’ble Court’s order that 154 posts are lying vacant and the State has not clarified what will be the future of 154 posts lying vacant. 56. Mr. 56. Mr. Wankhede would submit that because of the pendency of the matter before this Court the respondents are not issuing final appointment order/final select list which would adversely affect the future service career therefore, the respondent State be kindly directed to issue final select list/appointment order as per the Rule 7 and Rule 13 of Rules of 2021. 57. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Advocate General would submit that in the year 2021 the advertisement was issued for 951 posts total 8 different posts i.e. Subedar, Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector Special Branch, Platoon Commander, Sub Inspector Finger Point, Sub Inspector Question Documents, Sub Inspector Computer, Sub Inspector Radio. As per the clause of the advertisement there is provision for reservation of 10% for the ex-servicemen, 5% for the departmental employees and 30% for the females candidates. He would further submit that females are not eligible for the post of Platoon Commander. Reservation according to the rules and regulation of the State Government has been done by them. The basic dispute is that for the post of Platoon Commander the women are called for the interview which is not correct submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. He would refer to the Rules of 2021 and would submit that the recruitment procedure has been conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and in a transparent manner. He would further submit that the bald allegations regarding conduction of the selection process has been made by the petitioners without any foundation. He would further submit that since the selection process has been conducted in a transparent manner following the rules and also considering the well settled position of law that normally the High Court should not interfere in the selection process unless actuated with proved malafide, nepotism or favouritism which the petitioners have miserably failed to prove the same. Thus, the writ petitions sans merit and liable to be dismissed by this Court. 58. They would further submit that excepting Manjeet Singh all the candidates have not cleared the Physical Proficiency Test. The petitioners are below in the rank, therefore, still if this Court finds that women reservation has wrongly been applied for Platoon Commander the petitioners are not entitled to get any benefits and the bunch of petitions are liable to be dismissed with cost. The petitioners are below in the rank, therefore, still if this Court finds that women reservation has wrongly been applied for Platoon Commander the petitioners are not entitled to get any benefits and the bunch of petitions are liable to be dismissed with cost. He would further submit that because of the alleged small mistake which is not fatal the entire selection process cannot be held to be bad-in-law and cannot be vitiated by this Court at this juncture. 59. The learned Advocate General would further submit that as per Rule 6(10)(4) the selection list will be prepared by adding marks obtained in the mains written examination, thereafter, Physical Proficiency Test, interview and bonus marks which is not the stage at the moment. He would further submit that physical measurement has been conducted during physical proficiency Test as per Clause 8(b) of Sub-Rule relating to only those candidates who have successful in physical measurement test can be granted permission to attend next procedure, if any question arises relating to the matter refer to the District Medical Board which is final. He would further submit that Physical Proficiency Test is compulsory for all the candidates. He would further submit that only those candidates shall be interviewed who have obtained minimum 30% marks in the physical proficiency test, otherwise shall be declared disqualified at this stage and their interview shall not be conducted. On above factual foundation he would pray for dismissal of bunch of these petitions. Findings on point No. 1:- 60. The State of Chhattisgarh in exercise of its power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India makes the rules relating to reservation of the post in direct recruitment for women in public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. The Rule 2 of the said rule provides that this rule shall apply to all the persons to public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State. The Rule 3 of the said rule provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any service rule there shall be reserved 30% of all the posts in the service under the State in favour of the women at the stage of direct recruitment and the said reservation is horizontal and compartment wise. The Rule 3 of the said rule provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any service rule there shall be reserved 30% of all the posts in the service under the State in favour of the women at the stage of direct recruitment and the said reservation is horizontal and compartment wise. The explanation of the Rule 3 provides that horizontal and compartment wise reservation means reservation in each category namely Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes, Other Backward Classes and General. The Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 11 of Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Non-gazatted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2021 provides that 30% compartment wise and horizontal reservation shall be made for the female candidates as per government instructions. The proviso of said Rules also provides that the Department after prior permission from the Cabinet may reduce the percentage of the appointment upto 10%. The Rules of 2021 schedule-I provides various posts on which the Rules of 2021 is applicable. Item No. 16 of Schedule-I provides Platoon Commander and as per the schedule 692 are the total number of duty posts. As per the Clause 3 of the advertisement in item No. 4 the 247 posts have been advertised and Clause 4 of the advertisement provides that for Platoon Commander women are not allowed to be recruited. The Recruitment Rule 6(8)(ii) provides that female candidates shall be eligible for recruitment only for the post of Subedar, Sub Inspector (Special Branch), Sub Inspector (Radio)/(Fingerprint)/(Question Documents)/ (Computer)/(Cyber crime). The Rules further provide that female candidates shall not be eligible for recruitment for the post Platoon Commander. Thus from the advertisement and recruitment Rules it is quite vivid that the female candidates are not allowed to participate in the recruitment process for appointment in the post of Platoon Commander. The advertisement was issued for 951 posts and as per Rule 6 which provides Method of Recruitment and the Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 6 provides procedure for selection by competitive examination under Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (1) and Sub Rule (4) provides that 3 separate merit list one for Subedar, Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector (special Branch) and Platoon Commander, one for Sub Inspector (Radio)/(Fingerprint)/ (Question Documents)/(Computer)/(Cyber crime) shall be prepared in which the candidates numbering five times the number of vacant posts advertised shall be called for examination of second stage. The respondents have advertised 951 posts and as per Rule five times the candidates should be called out of which 30% is reserved for women. The respondents have called 4755 out of which they have called 1426 women candidates by providing reservation for women’s as per the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 including the post of Platoon Commander for which no appointment of female has to be done as per the advertisement as well as Recruitment Rules 2021, thus, it is apparent mistake on the face of the record. This factual matrix can very well be visualised from the list (Annexure P/1). The list would clearly demonstrate that in the list the respondents have included 370 additional women candidates which is against the advertisement as well as rules, therefore, the State is directed to call the 370 male candidates for second round of examination who are next below in the list declared by the respondent vide Annexure P/1. It is made clear that the petitioners have claimed that they are eligible to be called for the second stage examination if the number of 370 women are reduced, these facts have been disputed by the respondents. Since the list is available with the respondents it is directed that the respondent State shall allow the 370 candidates below the list dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) published by them for second stage of examination and further stage of examination if these candidates cleared the second stage of examination. . Findings on Point No. 2:- 61. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made submissions that the respondent has committed illegality in granting reservation category wise for ex-servicemen of police as the ex-serviceman itself a class which cannot be compartment wise divided and cannot be kept reserved for ST, SC, OBC or other classes, thus, sub categorization is per se illegal. It has also been submitted that as per the Chhattisgarh Ex-serviceman (Reservation on Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1985 nowhere provides that compartment wise reservation should be given as it is a special reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that as per the Chhattisgarh Ex-serviceman (Reservation on Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1985 nowhere provides that compartment wise reservation should be given as it is a special reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. This submission made by the counsel for the petitioners deserves to be rejected by this Court in view of Rule 4 of Rules of 1985 which clearly provides that the post which is to be filled up through direct recruitment in any year shall be reserved horizontally and compartment wise for ex-servicemen. The Rule 4 reads as under:- “4. Reservation of vacancies.- (1) Ten per cent of the vacancies in each of the categories of Class III posts and of such posts in each Class III service, and fourteen per cent of the vacancies in each of the categories of Class IV posts and of such posts in each Class IV service including permanent vacancies filled initially on temporary basis and temporary vacancies which are likely to be made permanent and/or are likely to continue for three months and more, to be filled by direct recruitment in any year shall be reserved horizontally and compartment wise for ex-service men. (2) 2[x x x] (3) (3) No vacancy reserved for Ex-servicemen in a post to be filled otherwise than on the results of an open competitive examination, shall be filled by the appointing authority by any general candidate, until and unless the said authority :- (i) has obtained a "Non-availability Certificate" from the Employment Exchange (Where a requisition is placed on an Employment Exchange); (ii) has verified the non-availability of a suitable candidate by reference to the Director General, Resettlement and recorded a certificate to that effect; and (iii) has obtained approval of the State Government.” From bare perusal of the rules it is quite vivid that the post reserved for ex-serviceman has to be reserved horizontal and compartment wise the respondent State has mentioned this factual matrix in their return that they have reserved the post for ex-servicemen for various categories like Unreserved, SC, ST and OBC which is inconformity with the Rules of 1985, as such there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of the respondent in reserving the post of ex-servicemen for category wise. The issue with regard to Horizontal and Vertical reservation has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Saurav Yadav and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 (4) SCC 542 “57. As is apparent from a plain reading of the above government order, the only stipulation with respect to treatment of horizontal reservation for women, is that in case a woman candidate is selected, she would be adjusted against the appropriate social category she belongs to (SC/ST/OBC/OC). However, there is no rule, or direction which prohibits the adjustment of socially reserved categories of women in the general category or “open category”. The first indication of this is in Indira Sawhney 16 where B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J stated as follows: “8.12 “Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations - what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16 (1). The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure." 58. This rule was affirmed and applied in Anil Kumar Gupta v State of UP, Swati Gupta v State of UP and Jitendra Kumar Singh v State of UP and Rajesh Kumar Daria v Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The manner of filling the horizontal reservation category and the vertical, social categories, was explained in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) in the following terms: “Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16 (4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 766, @ para 812 (SCC Reports)] 1995 (5) SCC 173 1995 (2) SCC 560 2010 (3) SCC 119 2007 (8) SCC 785 are 'horizontal reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 766, @ para 812 (SCC Reports)] 1995 (5) SCC 173 1995 (2) SCC 560 2010 (3) SCC 119 2007 (8) SCC 785 are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16 (4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide Indira Sawhney, R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab, Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauvan and Ritesh R. Shah v Dr. Y.L Yamul. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes- Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women.” 59. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women.” 59. The features of vertical reservations are: 59.1 They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the concerned social category only (SC/ST/OBC); 59.2 Mobility (‘migration’) from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance; 59.3 In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank, 59.4 If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be ‘carried forward’ or dealt with appropriately by rules. 60. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are premised on their overlaps and are ‘interlocking’ reservations 21. As a sequel, they are to be calculated concurrently and along with the inviolate ‘vertical’ (or “social”) reservation quotas, by application of the various steps laid out with clarity in paragraph 11 of Justice Lalit’s judgement. They cannot be carried forward. The first rule that applies to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment, i.e. examining whether on merit any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified/social reservation.” 62. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that whilc calculating 5% reservation for the police personnel the State has not considered the candidate from Home Guards and Jail Warder, thus, committed illegality. The submission is contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2021 as the Rule 11(6) provides that 5% of the total posts shall be reserved for the departmental candidates. The department means Police Department whereas the Home Guard and Jail Warder belongs to different department and their service conditions are governed by different set of rules. The services of the Police Department are governed by the Police Regulation 1961 where the services of the Home Guards are governed by Chhattisgarh Home Guard Act, 1947. The department means Police Department whereas the Home Guard and Jail Warder belongs to different department and their service conditions are governed by different set of rules. The services of the Police Department are governed by the Police Regulation 1961 where the services of the Home Guards are governed by Chhattisgarh Home Guard Act, 1947. From bare persual of preamble of this Act it is clear that Home Guard is a body of volunteer to supplement the police force and to assist general measures of public welfare and he is a public servant within the definition of public servant as defined in Section 21 of the IPC, but not a police. Similarly, Jail Warders are appointed through different set of rules. The Chhattisgarh/Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation defines police which means person who has appointed under the Police Act, 1861 and definitely the Home Guard and jail Waders are not appointed under the Police Act, 1861, therefore, they are not police, as such the petitioners who are working as Home Guards and Jail warders are not entitled to claim reservation of 5% as departmental candidates, thus, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent State in not granting reservation of 5% to these petitioners. 63. The petitioners submission that 5% horizontal reservation should be available for Unreserved category, without further bifurcation, because in the police recruitment rules the word "compartmentwise" was omitted for police department candidates. This submission is deserves to be rejected as per Rule 6(6) of Rules of 2021 provides that the provisions of the Reservation Act of 1994 would be applicable in the recruitment and the Reservation Act, 1994 provides that there will be vertical reservation in favour of unreserved candidates, scheduled tribe candidates, scheduled caste candidates, and other backward class candidates, as such vertical reservation would automatically be applicable due to the applicability of the Reservation Act, 1994 in the current recruitment process. Therefore, 5% reservation for in-service candidates of the police department would automatically cover each category. 64. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after conducting of the examination the list was handed over to the Police Department for declaration of result which creates doubt regarding manipulation in the list. This submission was vehemently objected by the counsel for the State. Now this issue has been examined by this Court. 64. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after conducting of the examination the list was handed over to the Police Department for declaration of result which creates doubt regarding manipulation in the list. This submission was vehemently objected by the counsel for the State. Now this issue has been examined by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners are unable to point out the specific illegality of manipulation committed by the selection committee which has declared the result on 21.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) on the bald statements were made and it is well settled position of law that on a bald statement without any foundation laid to demonstrate that the selection process was conducted in a tented manner or manipulations were made in the answer sheets, this Court cannot do the roaming/fishing inquiry, as such the submission that after conducting the examinations the result declared by the Police Department, as such the selection process is tented one and deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. The further contention of the petitioners that inquiry against the erring officer should be initiated or matter should be referred to the CBI as directed by the Division Bench of Calcutta also deserves to be rejected, as no foundation to substantiate the submission has been placed on record. Even otherwise, the facts of the Calcutta High Court are distinguishable on the fact itself. 65. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the final result of the mains examination was published by the Selection Committee on the official website of the police department. The only information that was published was the roll numbers/names and category of eligible candidates, as received from VYAPAM which is illegality is being considered. The Rules 13 of Recruitment Rules, 2021 Rule 13 provides that final merit list for direct recruitment shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in mains written examination, physical proficiency test, interview and bonus. Thus even after main written examination two further tests have to be conducted and as per Rule 6 sub rule 8 Clause (v) the marks obtained in all other examinations including mains written examination, interview and bonus marks have to be added for preparation of final merit list. Thus even after main written examination two further tests have to be conducted and as per Rule 6 sub rule 8 Clause (v) the marks obtained in all other examinations including mains written examination, interview and bonus marks have to be added for preparation of final merit list. If the marks of the final merit list are declared it may be influenced the further two authorities who have to conduct physical proficiency test and interview to avoid the chance of manipulations the safeguard has been provided which cannot be found faulty, as it has been applied for all the candidates uniformly. The said procedure was followed by the respondent as per Rule 13 of the said rules and the petitioners have not challenged the validity of the said rule, as such also the submission that the respondents have committed illegality in declaring the marks of the mains written examination deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 66. From the above discussion it is quite vivid that the petitioners have not been able to point out any foundation illegality which impressed upon this Court to quash the entire selection process, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power to quash the entire selection process has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2164/2172 of 2023 in case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 344 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 65 to 70 has held as under:- “Selection Process for Public Employment: Interference by Courts: 65. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law: i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 , this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words: "9...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc…..” ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282 , this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with: "9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation…….” iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Servic Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119 , in the following words: “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion... xxx 30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions…..” iv) Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117 , was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court challenging the selection of members to the Delhi Stock Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured some candidates and was thus, against Article 14. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under: “5. …the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under: “5. …the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that certain percentage of marks were allocated for each of these factors, namely, educational qualifications, experience, financial background and knowledge of the relevant laws and procedures pertaining to public issues etc. Of the total marks allocated only 20 per cent were reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of selection by the Expert Committee was not left entirely to the sweet-will of the members of the Committee. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion…...” 12.1. 66. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene. 67. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the vivavoce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the selection board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their post-graduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water. 68. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law: i) In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 , this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under: “24. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under: “24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents." iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357 , a process was initiated for promotion to Class-III posts from amongst Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90:10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks - 90 and qualifying marks - 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class-III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under: "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 , this Court held that: "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724 )". 69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence. 70. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present case, we are unable to find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection process and therefore the said exception cannot be invoked.” 67. Thus from the above stated factual and legal position no ground for quashing of the entire selection process is made out by the petitioners. Thus prayer for quashing of the selection process deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. Thus, point No. 2 is answered against the petitioners. Findings on point No. 3:- 68. The petitioners have participated in the selection process without any demour or cannot challenge the same after having being declared unsuccessful. The petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time, in other words simply because the selection process is no palpable to the petitioner they cannot alleged that the process of selection was unfair or there was some lacuna in the selection process. Thus the point No. 3 is answered that the petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection process initiated by the respondent No. 3. 69. Consequently the writ petitions except challenging the action of the respondent calling 30% additional women candidates for second stage of recruitment process for appointment on the post of Platoon Commander where appointment of women candidates has been prohibited under the Recruitment Rules of 2021 as well as in the advertisement all the grounds raised by the petitioners in the bunch of petitions deserve to be rejected and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. Since this Court in foregoing paragraphs has held that the State has committed illegality in calling 30% excess women candidates by adding post of Platoon Commander where no appointment for women candidates has been made for second stage selection process, therefore, the action of the respondents in calling of 30% excess women candidates is quashed and the State is directed to call 370 male candidates who will find place next below the list of candidates who have been called for second stage of selection process within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The State is also directed that the entire selection process which was initiated by them as per the advertisement dated 17.09.2021 shall be concluded within three months from the date of calling the 370 male candidates for second stage of selection process. 70. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed with the abovestated directions given by this Court and Writ Petitions wherein petitioners have prayed for issuance of appointment orders are disposed of as per directions issued in paragraph 69 of the judgment. No order as to cost.