JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura dated 25.08.2020 1 [ W.A. No. 196 of 2019], affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 05.08.2019 2 [ W.P. (C) No. 186 of 2019], whereby cancellation of the ongoing recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boilers (Group-A Gazetted) in Factories and Boilers Organization under the Labour Department, Government of Tripura, (hereinafter referred to as “Inspector of Boilers” ) was set aside. 2. In the instant appeal, the dispute revolves around the appointment and subsequent cancellation of recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boilers. The recruitment to this post is governed by the Boilers Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “Boilers Act” ), wherein Section 2(c) defines a Chief Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector and Inspector as a person appointed to be as Chief Inspector, a Deputy Chief Inspector, and an Inspector under the Act. Section 28 confers power on the Central Boilers Board to make regulations consistent with the provisions of the Boilers Act. Section 28A confers powers on the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Boilers Act, which includes power to make rules with respect to the qualifications and experience of persons to be appointed as Inspector of Boilers. Section 29 confers power on the State Government to make the rules consistent with the provisions of the Boilers Act and regulations thereunder for the purpose as specified in the section. 3. In furtherance to the powers under Section 28A, the Central Government promulgated Chief Inspector, Deputy Chief Inspector and Inspector (Qualification and Experience) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “Central Rules” ) wherein the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Inspector of Boilers have been laid down. Similarly, in exercise of power under Section 29 of the Boilers Act read with proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, State Government in consultation with Tripura State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TPSC” ) enacted the Rules called the ‘Recruitment Rules, 2013’ (hereinafter referred to as “State Rules” ) for the post of Inspector of Boilers under Labour Department (Factories and Boilers Organization) (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Department” ). The State Rules classify the Inspector of Boilers as Group – ‘A’ Gazetted post and regulate its method of recruitment. Rule 4 deals with ‘method of recruitment, age limit, qualification and other matters’ which shall as be as specified in columns 5 to 13 of the Schedule appended to the State Rules. The Schedule specifies that the post of Inspector of Boilers shall be filled by direct recruitment by the State Government through TPSC unless exemption is granted. FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE MATTER: 4. The present case has its inception on 29.12.2016 when the Labour Department sent a requisition to TPSC for selection of candidates on 2 posts of Inspector of Boilers. Consequently, Advertisement No. 01/2017 was notified by the TPSC on 05.01.2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Advertisement” ). As per TPSC, out of 126 applications, 36 candidates were called for written screening test on 21.08.2017, out of which only 30 candidates appeared. Finally, 7 candidates were declared successful including respondent no.1, and were called for personality test/interview on 07.12.2017. Accordingly, the interview took place, however, results were not declared. 5. While the recruitment process was ongoing, State of Tripura was busy with State Assembly elections, wherein a new government was elected on 03.03.2018, changing the political landscape of the State. Thereafter, on 14.03.2018, the State Government issued a memorandum no. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 (hereinafter referred to as “Abeyance Memorandum” ) stating that a decision has been taken by State Government to review the recruitment process of the Government, in furtherance of which, all the ongoing recruitment by all the departments/autonomous bodies under Government were to be kept in abeyance until further orders. Subsequent to this, 3 days later, on 17.03.2018, TPSC wrote to Labour Department seeking its views as to whether the results of personality test/interview conducted in recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boiler ought to be declared by TPSC or deferred in light of the Abeyance Memorandum. The Labour Department on 29.03.2018 reverted with the opinion to keep the results pending. 6. While the results were kept in abeyance, on 05.06.2018, the State Government vide notification no. F-20(1)-GA(P&T)/18, issued a new recruitment policy (hereinafter referred to as “NRP” ) applicable to all the establishments under the administrative control of the State Government. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereunder: “1.4. 6. While the results were kept in abeyance, on 05.06.2018, the State Government vide notification no. F-20(1)-GA(P&T)/18, issued a new recruitment policy (hereinafter referred to as “NRP” ) applicable to all the establishments under the administrative control of the State Government. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereunder: “1.4. The Group A, Group-B and C posts which are at present covered by TPSC will continue to be filled as per the existing practice. However, weightage for the interview should not exceed 10% of total marks. In exceptional case weightage of interview may be increased beyond 10% with the approval of cabinet, if sufficient justification exists.” 7. Consequently, on 20.08.2018, the Government vide memorandum no. F.20(1)-GA(P&T)/18 (hereinafter referred to as “Cancellation Memorandum” ) directed that in the wake of the NRP, the State Government has decided to cancel all ongoing recruitment processes initiated by the respective departments and TPSC, and all new appointments shall be made as per the NRP. 8. Subsequently, on 22.11.2018, TPSC issued a notification cancelling the subject recruitment process for the post of Inspector of Boilers. The respondent no.1, by filing W.P. (C) No. 186 of 2019, challenged the Cancellation Memorandum and the TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018. He further sought a declaration that NRP is not applicable in any manner whatsoever on the present ongoing recruitment process and sought a direction for completing the recruitment process by fixing a defined time limit. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: 9. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 05.08.2019 allowed the writ petition and quashed the Cancellation Memorandum, as well as TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018 to the extent of their applicability to the post of Inspector of Boilers. The Court observed that the factual matrix and legal issues involved herein were squarely covered by its earlier Single Bench judgment dated 14.05.2019 in Samudra Debbarma v. State of Tripura, W.P. (C) No. 831 of 2018 (upheld with modification by Division Bench on 03.12.2019 in W.A. No. 142 of 2019, which is also challenged in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-4468 of 2023 titled as State of Tripura and Anr. vs. Samudra Debbarma and Ors.). It was observed that recruitment rules cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has begun. 4467-4468 of 2023 titled as State of Tripura and Anr. vs. Samudra Debbarma and Ors.). It was observed that recruitment rules cannot be changed midway once the recruitment process has begun. Further, where a recruitment is governed by a subordinate legislation enacted under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, then no executive instructions can override it, unless an amendment is made in that legislation. The Court further observed that once a candidate applies for recruitment pursuant to an advertisement under the then existing rules, he acquires a right to be considered for selection under those rules, unless any amendment is brought to the rules that is retrospective in nature. As the NRP is consciously given prospective effect, hence it is not applicable on the subject recruitment process. The Court directed the State to complete the selection process and publish the results and make recommendations within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed before Division Bench in writ appeal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT: 10. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 25.08.2020 upheld the judgment of the Single Bench on the ground that the issues in the present case are similar to those in Samudra Debbarma’s case (supra), and these have been dealt with accordingly and rightly so. Hence, there is no reason to allow the appeal of the State. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENT: 11. Learned senior counsel for appellants has assiduously urged that the NRP dated 05.06.2018 was introduced to promote transparency and fairness in public appointments in larger public interest. This policy decision, rooted in executive discretion, aimed to address concerns of subjectivity in the selection process and was uniformly applied across all the departments. Such decisions are not open to judicial interference, unless shown to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the process of selection was ongoing as the interview was conducted and no results were declared. It was also contended that here the entire recruitment process was cancelled in pursuance of the NRP, hence, no rules of game have been changed after the game has begun. 12. In the present case, the process of selection was ongoing as the interview was conducted and no results were declared. It was also contended that here the entire recruitment process was cancelled in pursuance of the NRP, hence, no rules of game have been changed after the game has begun. 12. The appellants submitted that in the present case, out of total 200 marks, interview was conducted carrying 100 marks, which constituted 50% weightage, which was excessive and susceptible to subjectivity and manipulation. The NRP was introduced precisely to remedy this issue and bring uniformity in the selection process. Thus, such cancellation cannot be said to be arbitrary. 13. It was further contended that respondent no. 1 does not have any indefeasible right to be appointed as it is open to State Government to not select such candidate even if he makes it in the final merit list. Here, there was no select list in the first place. Furthermore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel will not be applicable. 14. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 contented that pursuant to the advertisement, the respondent no. 1 applied for the post and participated in the recruitment process. He went through a screening test, a written test and then an interview. All of this was done in accordance with the statutory rules framed under the Boilers Act and proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which has not been disputed by the State. Thus, cancellation of such recruitment process by Cancellation Memorandum on pretext of the NRP and further cancellation by TPSC without making any amendment to the statutory rules is invalid, arbitrary and illegal. It was contended that once a recruitment process has begun, its rules cannot be changed midway through executive instructions, i.e., the NRP and Cancellation Memorandum. 15. It was also contended that prior to bringing any change by the State Government, particularly in respect of the post of Inspector of Boilers, TPSC is required to be consulted, which was not done in the present case. Therefore, the NRP is inapplicable in the subject recruitment process. 16. It was also contended that as per clause (2) of the NRP, it is applicable prospectively. Therefore, it cannot be applied to an ongoing recruitment process. There is no express provision in the NRP which indicates its retrospective application on the ongoing recruitment processes. Therefore, the NRP is inapplicable in the subject recruitment process. 16. It was also contended that as per clause (2) of the NRP, it is applicable prospectively. Therefore, it cannot be applied to an ongoing recruitment process. There is no express provision in the NRP which indicates its retrospective application on the ongoing recruitment processes. Therefore, the Division Bench has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by appellants. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 17. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the writ appeal filed by the State had been dismissed relying upon the Division Bench judgment dated 03.12.2019 passed in the case of Samudra Debbarma in W.A. No. 142 of 2019, which is also under challenge in connected Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-4468 of 2023. The said Civil Appeals have been dismissed by a judgment pronounced by us today. In summary, in the said judgment, we have held as follows: i. Once the field is occupied by subordinate legislation, executive instructions cannot override the same. They may only supplement, but not supplant the extant rules. ii. The NRP could not have been applied to the ongoing recruitment process since it would amount to change of rules of the game after the game has begun. iii. State could not discharge its burden to prove that the application of NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was in larger public interest. iv. While candidates do not have any indefeasible right to be appointed merely by participating in the recruitment process, they do have a legitimate expectation of completion of recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. v. As per Clause (2) of the NRP, it is applicable prospectively and would not apply to the ongoing recruitment processes. 18. As the legal issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by Samudra Debbarma’s case (Supra), the reasoning in that case will apply to all the issues involved herein in this case also. The operative part of Samudra Debbarma (Supra) is reproduced herein below: In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we dismiss Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 and 4469 of 2023 and the Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2023 is disposed of in terms of this order. The direction of the Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgments in Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 and 4469 of 2023 and the Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 2023 is disposed of in terms of this order. The direction of the Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgments in Civil Appeal Nos. 4467-68 of 2023 and 4469 of 2023 are maintained. It is further directed that the recruitment for TCS and TPS Grade II shall now be finalized and completed by the State after declaring the results of the main examination and conducting personality test following the provisions of the TCS/TPS Rules and Regulations within a period of four months.” 19. As such, we are not inclined to deal with all the similar issues separately in the present case. The candidates participated in the recruitment process carried out under the Boilers Act read with the Central Rules and State Rules. After issuance of advertisement, a written screening test was conducted on 21.08.2017, pursuant to which selected candidates, including respondent no. 1 were called for interview on 07.12.2017. Thus, only the result of the interview was left to be declared. As such the recruitment process for the post of ‘Inspector of Boilers’ was at a significantly advanced stage when the recruitment process was kept in abeyance, later cancelled by the Cancellation Memorandum and TPSC notification dated 22.11.2018. The application of the NRP to the ongoing recruitment process was arbitrary and unjust and candidates do have a legitimate expectation of completion of the recruitment process in a fair and non-arbitrary manner. It is pointed out by the appellant – State that in the facts of this case, in the Boilers Act, Central Rules or the State Rules or even in the Advertisement, there is no prescription of marks to be obtained in the written test or the interview, but the fact remains that the written test was already conducted out of 100 marks and the interview was also conducted out of 100 marks. As such, the subsequent decision to apply NRP to the said recruitment process cannot be sustained. The recruitment should be completed as per the Boilers Act, Central Rules and State Rules, and the candidates may be appointed, if found to be meritorious, subject to fulfilling all other criteria. 20. As such, the subsequent decision to apply NRP to the said recruitment process cannot be sustained. The recruitment should be completed as per the Boilers Act, Central Rules and State Rules, and the candidates may be appointed, if found to be meritorious, subject to fulfilling all other criteria. 20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present Civil Appeal is dismissed, and the direction of the Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is maintained. It is further directed that the recruitment for ‘Inspector of Boilers’ shall now be finalized and completed by the State within a period of two months. 21. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.