Chattisgarh High Court
Achinta Bhowmik vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 April, 2026
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.02
17:46:14
+0530 1
2026:CGHC:15337
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on 19.02.2026
Order delivered on 02.04.2026
WPS No. 7387 of 2022
1 - Achinta Bhowmik S/o Shri Ashutosh Bhowmik Aged About 42 Years
Occupation - Service, Assistant Grande Iii (Clerk) In The Office Of The
Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Raigarh,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2 - Uttam Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Dhani Ram Yadav Aged About 38
Years Occupation - Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of
The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure),
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Ku. Poonam Kerketta D/o Shri Remis Kerketta Aged About 33 Years
Occupation - Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The
Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Jashpur, District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Sanjay Kumar Manwani @ Sanjay Manwani S/o Premchand
Manwani Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Service, Assistant Grade
Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And
Measure), Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Sandeep Kumar Markam @ Sandeep Markam S/o Shri Ayatu Ram
Markam Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Service, Assistant Grade Iii
(Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And
Measure), Kondagaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
6 - Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Ramprasad Chandrakar Aged
About 32 Years Occupation - Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The
2
Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Durg,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
7 - Kishor Kumar Bandhekar @ Kishor Bandhekar S/o Shri Kanwal
Singh Bandhekar Aged About 36 Years Occupation - Service, Assistant
Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology
(Weight And Measure), Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
8 - Ku. Kirti Kiran Bara D/o Shri Juwakim Bara Aged About 31 Years
Occupation - Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The
Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Baikunthpur,
District : Korea, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
Versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Food And Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Food And Civil Supply,
New Delhi.
3 - The Controller Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Indrawati
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
WPS No. 8782 of 2022
Smt. Rubi Sharma W/o Yogesh Sharma Aged About 38 Years Presently
Posted As Assistant Grade I I I In Office Of Inspector Legal Metrology
(Weight And Measure) Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Department Of Food And Civil Suplies And Consumer Affairs
Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3
2 – The Controller Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure) Indrawati
Bhawan, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
WPS No. 1193 of 2023
1 – Achinta Bhowmik S/o Shri Ashutosh Bhowmik Aged About 43 Years
Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk) In The Office Of The
Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Raigarh,
Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
2 – Uttam Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Dhani Ram Yadav Aged About 39
Years Occupation Service Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of
The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure),
Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
3 – Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Ramprasad Chandrakar Aged
About 33 Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The
Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Durg
Distt. Durg (C.G.)
4 – Kishore Kumar Bandhekar @ Kishor Bandhekar S/o Shri Kanwal
Singh Bandhekar Aged About 37 Years Occupation Service, Assistant
Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology
(Weight And Measure), Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.)
—Petitioners
Versus
1 – The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Food And Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2 – The Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Food And Civil Supply,
New Delhi.
3 – The Controller Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Indrawati
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
4
4 – The Deputy Controller (In-Charge Deputy Controller) Legal
Metrology (Weight And Measure), Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
5 – The Assistant Controller Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure)
Jagdalpur, Distt. Jagdalpur (C.G.)
— Respondents
WPS No. 5996 of 2023
1 – Achinta Bhowmik S/o. Shri Ashutosh Bhowmik, Aged About 42
Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk) In The Office Of
The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure),
Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
2 – Uttam Kumar Yadav, S/o. Shri Dhani Ram Yadav, Aged About 38
Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of
The Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure),
Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3 – Ku. Poonam Kerketta, D/o. Shri Remis Kerketta, Aged About 33
Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of
The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Jashpur, Distt.
Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
4 – Sanjay Kumar Manwani @ Sanjay Manwani, S/o. Premchand
Manwani, Aged About 39 Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii
(Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And
Measure), Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur (Chhattisgarh)
5 – Sandeep Kumar Markam @ Sandeep Markam, S/o. Shri Ayatu Ram
Markam, Aged About 32 Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii
(Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And
Measure), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)
6 – Mukesh Kumar Chandrakar, S/o. Shri Ramprasad Chandrakar,
Aged About 32 Years Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In
The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure),
Durg, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh)
5
7 – Kishor Kumar Bandhekar @ Kishor Bandhekar, S/o. Shri Kanwal
Singh Bandhekar, Aged About 36 Years Occupation Service, Assistant
Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The Inspector, Legal Metrology
(Weight And Measure), Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)
8 – Ku. Kirti Kiran Bara, D/o. Shri Juwakim Bara, Aged About 31 Years
Occupation Service, Assistant Grade Iii (Clerk), In The Office Of The
Inspector, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Baikunthpur, District
Korea (Chhattisgarh)
—Petitioners
Versus
1 – The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Food And Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, New Mantralay, Atal
Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2 – The Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Food And Civil Supply,
New Delhi.
3 – The Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 – The Controller, Legal Metrology (Weight And Measure), Indrawati
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5 – The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
— Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta,
Advocates
For State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional
Advocate General
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
CAV Order
1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel
appearing for the respective petitioners as well as Mr. Yashwant
6
Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State.
2. Since a common question of law and fact is involved in all these
writ petitions, they were clubbed together, heard analogously with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, and are being
decided by this common order.
3. The grievances raised by all the petitioners in the present batch of
writ petitions are essentially common in nature. A Departmental
Promotion Competitive Examination was conducted by the
Department of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs,
State of Chhattisgarh, for promotion to the post of Inspector
(Legal Metrology). The petitioners, who were working as Assistant
Grade-III in the offices of the Assistant Controller, Legal Metrology
(Weight and Measure) in different districts, participated in the said
departmental examination pursuant to the advertisement/
recruitment process initiated by the Department for filling up the
promotional posts.
4. According to the petitioners, their candidature was duly scrutinized
and verified by the respondent authorities and, upon such
verification, they were permitted to participate in the departmental
promotion examination for advancement to the post of Inspector.
The petitioners accordingly appeared in the examination
conducted on 17.12.2022. However, subsequently and without
declaring the results, the entire recruitment/promotion process
7
was cancelled by the respondent authorities. In certain cases,
some of the petitioners were also declared ineligible to participate
in the said departmental examination, which action has also been
called in question in the respective writ petitions.
5. Thus, in sum and substance, the core grievance of all the
petitioners is directed against the cancellation of the Departmental
Promotion Competitive Examination to the post of Inspector
(Legal Metrology).
6. By way of the present batch of petitions, the petitioners have
essentially challenged the respective impugned
orders/advertisements issued by the respondent authorities
whereby they have either been declared ineligible to participate in
the Departmental Promotion Competitive Examination, the
examination conducted on 17.12.2022 has been cancelled, or a
fresh advertisement dated 10.08.2023 has been issued allegedly
to their prejudice. The petitioners have, therefore, sought
quashment of the said impugned actions and consequential
directions permitting them to participate in the departmental
promotion examination and/or for declaration of the result of the
examination already conducted, as the case may be.
7. In WPS No.7387/2022, the petitioners have prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the
8case from the authorities concerned for its kind
perusal.
10.2 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to set-aside the Impugned order
dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure P-1 – with respect
to petitioners are concerned), Issued by the
Respondent No.03, whereby the petitioners
have been declared in-eligible (अपात्र) to
participate in the Departmental Promotion
Competitive Examination, which is going to be
held very soon, in the interest of justice.
10.3 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to direct the Respondent
authorities to allow the petitioners to participate
in coming Departmental Promotion
Examination, in the interest of justice.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble High
Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.”
8. In WPS No.8782/2022, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire record of the case
from the authorities concerned for its kind
perusal.
2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set aside the impugned order dated
29.9.2022 Annexure P-1 with respect to the
petitioner concerned issued by the Respondent
No.2 where by the petitioner has been
declared as in-eligible to participate in the
9departmental promotion competitive
examination going to conduct in near future.
3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
allow the petitioner to participate in the
upcoming departmental promotion examination
in the interest of Justice.
4 any other relief which this Hon’ble court
deems fit and proper be also awarded to the
petitioner.”
9. In WPS No.1193/2023, the petitioners have prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the
case from the authorities concerned for its kind
perusal.
10.2 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to set-aside the Impugned order
dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure P-1), Issued by
the Respondent No.03, whereby cancelled the
whole examination conducted by them on
17.12.2022.
10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to direct the Respondent
authorities to declare the result of the
examination conducted on 17.12.2022 for the
post of Inspector under the supervision of
Hon’ble High Court within stipulated period.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble High
10
Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.”
10. In WPS No.5996/2023, the petitioners have prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the
case from the authorities concerned for its kind
perusal.
10.2 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to set aside the advertisement
dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), issued by
the Resp No.04.
10.3 That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to alternatively direct the
Respondent No.04 to allow the petitioners for
participating in the examination to be
conducted in pursuance to advertisement
dated 10.08.2023 (Ann P-1).
10.4. That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly
be pleased to also direct the Respondent
No.05 to look into the matter.
10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble High
Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.”
11. Brief consolidated facts of this batch of writ petitions are that: The
State Government from time to time framed and amended the
recruitment rules governing the post of Inspector (Legal
Metrology), namely the Chhattisgarh Legal Metrology Class III
(Non-Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2009 (for short, “Rules of
2009′) thereafter the Rules of 2011, and subsequently the
11
Chhattisgarh Legal Metrology Class III (Non-Ministerial)
Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short, “Rules of 2013”). Under the
Rules of 2013, one of the essential eligibility criteria for promotion
to the post of Inspector was possession of a Graduation Degree
from a recognized University.
12. Pursuant thereto, the Controller, Food & Civil Supplies, State of
Chhattisgarh, issued a memo dated 20.10.2021 inviting
applications from eligible Class-II employees for participating in
the Departmental Promotion Competitive Examination for the next
higher post of Inspector (Legal Metrology). The petitioners, being
graduates and otherwise fulfilling the prescribed criteria under the
Rules of 2013, submitted their applications. Upon scrutiny, the
respondents issued a list dated 20.04.2022 declaring the
petitioners eligible to participate in the examination. However,
subsequently, an amended list dated 29.09.2022 was issued
whereby the petitioners were declared ineligible (अपात्र) on the
ground that they did not possess a Graduation Degree with
Physics as one of the subjects. This additional condition was not
part of the original eligibility criteria under the Rules of 2013.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred WPS No. 7387/2022,
in which this Court, by order dated 25.11.2022, permitted the
petitioners to participate in the Departmental Promotion
Examination. In compliance of the said order, the examination
was conducted on 17.12.2022 and the petitioners appeared
therein.
12
13. Thereafter, without declaration of the result and without assigning
any cogent reason, the respondents cancelled the entire
examination by order dated 20.01.2023 merely stating “due to
unavoidable reasons”. In the interregnum, the respondents
amended the Rules on 26.06.2023 by inserting a specific clause
in Schedule-IV mandating that only those employees having
Graduation Degree with Physics as one of the subjects would be
eligible to participate in the promotional examination.
14. Challenging the cancellation of the examination conducted on
17.12.2022, the petitioners filed WPS No.1193/2023 seeking
declaration of the result. Meanwhile, on the basis of the amended
Rules dated 26.06.2023, the respondents issued a fresh
advertisement dated 10.08.2023 for conducting Departmental
Promotion Examination to fill up the posts of Inspector (Legal
Metrology), superseding the earlier process initiated pursuant to
notification dated 20.10.2021. The said advertisement was
challenged by the petitioners in WPS No.5996/2023, wherein this
Court, by order dated 29.08.2023, stayed the effect and operation
of the advertisement observing, inter alia, that the amended Rules
could not be applied retrospectively when the earlier examination
process had already been completed.
15. Thus, the core grievance in this batch of petitions pertains to (i)
the declaration of the petitioners as ineligible by introducing the
requirement of Physics at a belated stage, (ii) cancellation of the
13
examination conducted pursuant to judicial directions without
assigning reasons, and (iii) initiation of a fresh recruitment
process on the basis of amended Rules allegedly sought to be
applied retrospectively.
16. Mr. A.N. Bhakta along with Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel
appearing for the respective petitioners, submit that the impugned
actions of the respondent authorities are wholly arbitrary, illegal
and contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules governing the
field. It is contended that under the Rules of 2013, the essential
qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Inspector
(Legal Metrology) was merely a Graduation Degree from a
recognized University. There was no stipulation whatsoever that
the candidate must have studied Physics as one of the subjects.
The petitioners, admittedly being graduates and fulfilling all the
eligibility conditions as per the unamended Rules of 2013, were
initially declared eligible by the respondents themselves vide list
dated 20.04.2022. Having once scrutinized and accepted their
eligibility, the respondents could not have subsequently altered
the criteria to the prejudice of the petitioners.
17. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhakta that the subsequent action of
declaring the petitioners ineligible by amended list dated
29.09.2022 on the ground that they did not possess Graduation
with Physics amounts to changing the “rules of the game” after
the game had begun. The recruitment process had already been
14
set in motion pursuant to notification dated 20.10.2021 and
applications were invited strictly in terms of the Rules of 2013.
The introduction of an additional qualification at a later stage,
without any statutory amendment in force at the relevant point of
time, is ex facie arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel emphasize that
administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules and, in
the absence of amendment as on the date of advertisement, the
respondents had no authority to impose a new condition.
18. Mr. Bhakta would further argue, in a vehement manner, that the
action on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelling the
entire recruitment process for promotion of the petitioners from
the post of Assistant Grade-III to the post of Inspector (Legal
Metrology) is in disregard of the constitutional mandate governing
public employment. Once the respondents had advertised the
vacancies and invited candidature of eligible employees, and
thereafter conducted the Departmental Promotion Competitive
Examination on 17.12.2022 pursuant to the interim protection
granted by this Court, the wholesale cancellation of the entire
recruitment process midway is per se illegal. It is dehors the
framework of the recruitment process, inasmuch as no reasons
whatsoever have been assigned for cancellation, even after the
examination was duly conducted. According to learned counsel,
the State was under an obligation to declare the results and
proceed further with the selection process once the written
15
examination had been held in accordance with law.
19. It is contended by Mr. Bhakta that cancellation of the entire
recruitment process at an advanced stage, without disclosing any
cogent grounds such as irregularity, malpractice or fraud, reflects
non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of power. Public
authorities cannot act on whims and caprice, particularly when the
matter relates to promotional avenues of in-service employees.
Once a recruitment process has been initiated in accordance with
the applicable Rules, it must be carried to its logical conclusion
and cannot be abandoned without lawful justification. Such action,
according to the petitioners, defeats the legitimate expectation of
the candidates and undermines fairness in public employment.
20. Mr. Bhakta would further submit that the subsequent amendment
to the Rules on 26.06.2023 inserting an additional eligibility
criterion requiring Graduation with Physics as one of the subjects
cannot be applied retrospectively to a selection process already
initiated under the unamended Rules. Due to the said
amendment, most of the petitioners have been rendered
ineligible. It is argued that an amendment to the statutory Rules is
always prospective in operation unless specifically made
retrospective, and in the present case there is no such express
provision. Therefore, the amended qualification cannot be
pressed into service to nullify an ongoing or completed
recruitment process.
16
21. Mr. Bhakta placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Partha Das and Others v. State of
Tripura and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844, to contend that
once a recruitment process has commenced on the basis of
existing rules, the eligibility criteria cannot be altered to the
detriment of candidates who had applied pursuant to the
advertisement. Reliance has also been placed on Shashi
Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and others, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2698, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated that amendments in service rules cannot be applied
retrospectively so as to unsettle an ongoing selection process
unless the statute expressly provides so. Further reliance has
been placed on the decision in K. Manjushree Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512, to buttress the
submission that “rules of the game” cannot be changed after the
game has begun and that introduction of new eligibility conditions
midstream is impermissible in law.
22. Mr. Bhakta also drawn attention to the relevant statutory
provisions governing the field, namely, Schedule IV 2(ii) of the
Rules of 2013, which originally prescribed that for departmental
candidates to be appointed by promotion to the post of Inspector,
Legal Metrology, the minimum educational qualification would be
Graduation from a recognized University. It is submitted that the
said provision did not require Graduation with Physics as one of
the subjects. However, by amendment dated 26.06.2023,
17
Schedule IV 2(ii) was substituted to provide that the Graduation
Degree must include Physics as one of the subjects. According to
learned counsel, the respondents have sought to apply this
amended provision retrospectively to a recruitment process
initiated under the unamended Rules of 2013, which action is
contrary to the settled legal principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
23. On the other hand, Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State, vehemently opposed
the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and
submitted that no illegality, as canvassed, has been committed by
the respondent authorities. It is contended that the petitioners
were appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III in the
Department of Food and Civil Supplies and merely by virtue of
holding the said post, they do not acquire any vested or
indefeasible right to claim promotion to the post of Inspector
(Legal Metrology). The advertisement dated 20.10.2021 was
issued inviting applications for a Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination, but the entire selection process was
always subject to compliance with the statutory Recruitment Rules
and the parent legislation governing the field.
24. Mr. Thakur would further submit that the post of Inspector (Legal
Metrology) is governed by the Rules of 2013, which are
subordinate legislation. However, the parent framework is
18
traceable to the Rules of 2011 framed by the Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of
India. Rule 28 of the said Rules prescribes that the qualification
for appointment as Legal Metrology Officer, whether by way of
direct recruitment or promotion, shall be B.Sc. with Physics or a
Degree in Engineering/Technology or Diploma with three years’
experience. It is thus contended that once the qualifications have
been prescribed by the Union Government under the statutory
Rules of 2011, the same are binding upon the State and any
recruitment or promotion made contrary thereto would be in
violation of the parent statutory framework.
25. It is argued by Mr. Thakur that upon scrutiny, the authorities
noticed that the eligibility condition mentioned in the
advertisement dated 20.10.2021, which provided merely for
graduation from a recognized University, was inconsistent with the
qualification prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules of 2011. Since
the State cannot frame or operate rules contrary to the Central
Rules framed under the parent enactment, it became necessary
to correct the anomaly. According to the learned Additional
Advocate General, had the appointments been finalized without
adhering to the qualifications prescribed by the Union
Government, the entire recruitment process would have been
rendered illegal. In that backdrop, the examination conducted on
17.12.2022 was cancelled vide order dated 20.01.2023 prior to
declaration of result, so as to avoid perpetuating an illegality.
19
26. Mr. Thakur would emphasize that mere participation in the
examination does not confer any enforceable right, either to
appointment or even to declaration of result. Since no select list
had been published and no appointment orders had been issued,
the petitioners did not acquire any vested right. The State, being
the employer, has the power and authority to cancel a recruitment
process before its culmination, particularly when it is found to be
inconsistent with statutory provisions. The cancellation, therefore,
cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal but is in consonance with
the mandate of law and the directives of the Central Government.
27. It is further submitted by Mr. Thakur that the judgments relied
upon by the petitioners, including the decision in Partha Das
(supra) are clearly distinguishable both on facts and in law. In the
said case, the candidates had already been selected and were
denied appointment without justification. In the present case, the
recruitment process itself was cancelled before declaration of
results. Even selected candidates do not acquire an indefeasible
right to appointment; much less can the present petitioners, who
were only participants in the examination, claim a writ of
mandamus to proceed with a selection process allegedly contrary
to statutory rules. The Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot
direct the State to act in violation of binding statutory provisions.
28. It is lastly submitted by Mr. Thakur that the Government of India,
Department of Consumer Affairs, vide memo dated 28.08.2024,
20
rejected the proposal sent by certain States seeking relaxation of
educational qualifications under Rule 28(4) of the Rules of 2011
for promotion to the post of Inspector. Though subsequently, by
memo dated 12.11.2025, a one-time relaxation was granted, the
same was expressly made applicable only to vacancies for which
the recruitment process had not been initiated. In the present
case, the earlier process had already been initiated and thereafter
cancelled on account of inconsistency with statutory qualifications,
and fresh recruitment has been undertaken strictly in accordance
with the amended Rules. Therefore, according to the State, the
petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the said relaxation. On all
these grounds, it is prayed that the writ petitions, being devoid of
merit and substance, deserve to be dismissed.
29. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
considerable length and have bestowed my thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions advanced across the Bar.
I have also carefully perused the pleadings filed in all the
connected writ petitions, the annexures appended thereto, the
original records made available by the learned State counsel, as
well as the statutory provisions and notifications governing the
field.
30. The chronology of events, beginning from issuance of
advertisement dated 20.10.2021, declaration of eligibility and
subsequent ineligibility of the petitioners, conduct of examination
21
on 17.12.2022 pursuant to interim orders of this Court,
cancellation of the examination vide order dated 20.01.2023,
amendment of the Recruitment Rules on 26.06.2023 and
issuance of fresh advertisement dated 10.08.2023, has been
examined in detail in the backdrop of the relevant Recruitment
Rules and the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011 framed by
the Central Government.
31. The judgments cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the submissions advanced by the learned
Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State have also
been considered in their proper perspective. Upon such
consideration of the entire material available on record, the issues
arising for determination in the present batch of writ petitions are
being dealt with hereinafter.
32. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the post of Inspector
(Legal Metrology) is not an isolated creation under the State
service rules, but is integrally governed by the statutory scheme
flowing from the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (for short, ‘Act of
2009’) and the Rules of 2011 framed by the Central Government
in exercise of delegated legislative power. Rule 28 of the Rules of
2011 prescribes the minimum educational qualification for
appointment as Legal Metrology Officer, whether by direct
recruitment or by promotion, to be B.Sc. with Physics or Degree in
Engineering/Technology or Diploma with requisite experience.
22
The Rules of 2013 are necessarily subordinate to the said parent
framework and cannot travel beyond or dilute the qualification
prescribed therein. It is trite that in the event of any inconsistency,
the parent statutory Rules framed under a Central enactment
would prevail.
33. In the present case, though the advertisement dated 20.10.2021
mentioned graduation from a recognized University as the
minimum qualification for departmental candidates, it
subsequently came to the notice of the authorities that such
prescription was not in consonance with the qualification
mandated under the Rules of 2011. The respondents, therefore,
before declaration of result and before culmination of the selection
process, cancelled the examination vide order dated 20.01.2023.
The cancellation, though brief in expression, cannot be viewed in
isolation; it must be examined in the backdrop of statutory
compliance. If the authorities had proceeded to declare the result
and effect promotions in derogation of the parent Rules, such
appointments would have been rendered void ab initio and
vulnerable to challenge at a later stage, thereby unsettling the
entire cadre structure.
34. From a bare perusal of the record, it appears that under the earlier
Recruitment Rules, there was no specific requirement that the
candidate must possess a Graduation Degree with Physics or a
Degree/Diploma in Engineering, as has subsequently been
23
prescribed after the amendment in the Rules of 2011 and its
incorporation into the State Rules. The amendment in qualification
criteria was necessitated in view of the guidelines/directions
issued by the Central Government/Union of India, whereby it was
clarified that the essential qualification for appointment to the post
of Legal Metrology Officer (Inspector) shall be B.Sc. with Physics
or a Degree in Engineering/Technology or a Diploma in
Engineering with requisite experience.
35. It further appears from the material on record that once the State
authorities took note of the said binding Central Government
guidelines and the statutory prescription under the Rules of 2011,
they found that the eligibility condition mentioned in the earlier
advertisement requiring merely a Graduation Degree was not in
consonance with the parent statutory framework. Since the State
Rules, being subordinate legislation, are required to conform to
the Rules framed by the Central Government under the parent
enactment, the necessary amendment was required to be
incorporated in the State Recruitment Rules so as to bring them in
harmony with the Central Rules.
36. In that backdrop, as the petitioners did not possess the
qualification of B.Sc. with Physics or Degree/Diploma in
Engineering as mandated under the amended framework, they
were found ineligible under the revised criteria. Upon realizing that
the recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated
24
20.10.2021 was not in consonance with the statutory
qualifications prescribed by the Central Government, the
authorities formed an opinion that continuation of the said process
would culminate in appointments contrary to law. Consequently,
the entire recruitment process was cancelled before declaration of
result.
37. It is trite that a recruitment process cannot be said to have
attained finality unless and until it culminates in a valid select list
and appointments made strictly in accordance with the governing
statutory provisions. If, during the pendency of the process, the
authorities discover that the eligibility criteria applied are
inconsistent with binding statutory rules, they are not only
empowered but duty-bound to rectify the error and ensure that
appointments are made strictly in accordance with law. Once it
came to the notice of the authorities that the requisite
qualifications for promotion to the post of Inspector (Legal
Metrology), as mandated under the parent Rules, were not being
adhered to, it was within their competence to halt and cancel the
process so as to prevent an illegality from being perpetuated.
38. The submission of the petitioners that they had acquired a vested
right upon participation in the examination is devoid of substance.
It is a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that mere
participation in a recruitment process does not confer any
indefeasible right to appointment or even to insist upon
25
declaration of result. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi
Bhushan Prasad Singh (supra) has reiterated that until the
selection process culminates in a valid select list and
appointment, no enforceable right accrues in favour of a
candidate, and the State is competent to rectify an illegality at any
stage prior to finalization. Similarly, in Partha Das (supra), while
safeguarding candidates from arbitrary denial of appointment after
selection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has simultaneously
underscored that appointments must strictly adhere to statutory
prescriptions and cannot be sustained if contrary to governing
rules. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable
inasmuch as the petitioners were not selected candidates and the
process had not culminated in declaration of results.
39. The argument founded on the principle that “rules of the game
cannot be changed after the game has begun” also does not
advance the case of the petitioners. The amendment dated
26.06.2023 to the Rules of 2013, incorporating the requirement of
Physics as one of the subjects at the graduation level, was not an
arbitrary innovation but a harmonizing measure to bring the State
Rules in conformity with the parent Central Rules of 2011. The
State cannot be compelled to perpetuate an error in the
advertisement which was inconsistent with binding statutory
provisions. It is equally well settled that no writ of mandamus can
be issued directing the authorities to act in contravention of law.
Courts do not enforce illegality nor do they compel the State to
26
complete a selection process which is fundamentally flawed for
want of statutory compliance.
40. Further, the communications placed on record reveal that the
Government of India had, vide memo dated 28.08.2024, declined
the proposal of various States seeking relaxation of educational
qualification under Rule 28(4) of the Rules of 2011 for promotion
to the post of Inspector. Though a subsequent one-time relaxation
was granted on 12.11.2025, the same was expressly
circumscribed and made applicable only to those vacancies
where the recruitment process had not been initiated. The
petitioners cannot, therefore, claim benefit of such relaxation in
respect of a process which had already been initiated and
thereafter cancelled for statutory non-compliance. The relaxation
order cannot be stretched to revive or validate an otherwise
untenable claim.
41. The law is well settled that the candidate included in merit list has
no indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists, but
the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment.
42. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan
Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 has held in no
uncertain terms that the selectees have no indefeasible right to
appointment even if vacancy exists and held in paragraph seven
as under: –
27
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and
adequate number of candidates are found fit,
the successful candidates acquire an
indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot
be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the
notification merely amounts to an invitation to
qualified candidates to apply for recruitment
and on their selection they do not acquire any
right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under
no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the
State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or
any of them are filled up, the State is bound to
respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test,
and no discrimination can be permitted. This
correct position has been consistently followed
by this Court, and we do not find any
discordant note in the decisions in State of
Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha ,
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or
Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.”
43. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board
and others v. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22 has held that
mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not
confer on him any vested right to get an appointment. Similarly, in
the matter of Union of India and others v. Kali Dass Batish and
28
another, (2006) 1 SCC 779 the decision of Shankarsan Dash
(supra) was followed.
44. Further, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Rajkishore
Nanda, (2010) 6 SCC 777, observed as under :
14. A person whose name appears in the
select list does not acquire any indefeasible
right of appointment. Empanelment at the best
is a condition of eligibility for purpose of
appointment and by itself does not amount to
selection or create a vested right to be
appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up
as per the statutory rules and in conformity with
the constitutional mandate.
15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, AIR 1991
SC 1612, held that appearance of the name of
a candidate in the select list does not give him
a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of
candidate’s name in the select list does not
confer any right to be selected, even if some of
the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate
concerned cannot claim that he has been given
a hostile discrimination……….
16. A Select list cannot be treated as a
reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that
vacancy can be filled up taking the names from
that list as and when it is so required.
45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director, SCTI for Medical
Science & Technology and another v. M. Pushkaran, (2008) 1
29
SCC 448, has been held that the selectees do not have any legal
right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the
part of the State, by observing as under in para 11: –
“11. The law operating in the field in this behalf
is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Only because
the name of a person appears in the select list,
the same by itself may not be a ground for
offering him an appointment. A person in the
select list does not have any legal right in this
behalf. The selectees do not have any legal
right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona
fide action on the part of the State. We may
notice some of the precedents operating in the
field.”
46. Reverting to the facts of the present batch of writ petitions in the
light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it becomes vividly clear that the petitioners, at no
point of time, acquired any indefeasible or vested right either to
insist upon declaration of the result of the examination conducted
on 17.12.2022 or to seek promotion under the unamended
Recruitment Rules. The selection process had not culminated in a
final select list and, therefore, the petitioners’ claim remains at the
stage of mere participation in a recruitment exercise. The
consistent line of decisions, beginning from Shankarsan Dash
(supra) and followed in Malkiat Singh (supra), Kali Dass Batish
(supra) and M. Pushkaran (supra), unequivocally establishes that
even inclusion in a select list does not confer an enforceable right
30
to appointment; a fortiori, mere appearance in an examination
pursuant to interim orders of the Court cannot create a legally
protectable entitlement. The respondents, therefore, were well
within their authority to rectify the selection process before its
culmination so as to ensure conformity with the binding statutory
framework, and such action cannot be construed as arbitrary or
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
47. This Court is also mindful of the limited scope of judicial review in
matters relating to recruitment and promotion. Interference is
warranted only when the action of the authorities is tainted by
mala fides, patent arbitrariness, or is in direct contravention of
statutory provisions. In the present case, the decision to cancel
the examination and to proceed afresh in accordance with
amended Rules is rooted in the necessity to ensure conformity
with the parent statutory framework. No material has been placed
on record to demonstrate malice in fact or colourable exercise of
power. On the contrary, the record indicates that the respondents
sought to align the recruitment process with binding statutory
norms to obviate future legal infirmities.
48. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the substratum of the petitioners’ challenge is
misconceived. The entire edifice of their claim rests upon the
premise that once the advertisement dated 20.10.2021 was
issued and they were permitted to participate in the examination
31
pursuant to interim protection, the respondents were bound to
carry the process to its logical end under the unamended Rules of
2013. Such a contention, however attractive at first blush, cannot
withstand scrutiny in light of the statutory hierarchy governing the
field.
49. As noticed hereinabove, the post of Inspector (Legal Metrology) is
integrally governed by the scheme of the Act of 2009 read with the
Rules of 2011. Rule 28 of the 2011 Rules prescribes the minimum
educational qualification for appointment as Legal Metrology
Officer, whether by direct recruitment or promotion. The State
Recruitment Rules are subordinate legislation and must operate
within the four corners of the parent statutory framework. In case
of inconsistency, the Central Rules framed under the Act would
prevail. It is trite that delegated legislation cannot dilute or
override the mandate of the parent enactment.
50. The material placed before this Court unmistakably demonstrates
that the prescription of “simple graduation” in the advertisement
dated 20.10.2021 was inconsistent with the qualification
mandated under Rule 28 of the Rules of 2011. Once such
inconsistency came to light, the authorities were under a statutory
obligation to rectify the error. The cancellation of the examination
dated 17.12.2022, though succinctly worded, was clearly aimed at
preventing appointments in derogation of binding statutory
provisions. It is better to arrest an illegality at an intermediate
32
stage than to allow it to fructify and thereafter unsettle settled
positions by protracted litigation.
51. The petitioners’ reliance on the doctrine that “rules of the game
cannot be changed after the game has begun” is misplaced in the
peculiar facts of the present case. The amendment dated
26.06.2023 inserting the requirement of Graduation with Physics
was not an arbitrary or whimsical alteration designed to oust the
petitioners. Rather, it was a harmonizing amendment intended to
bring the State Rules in conformity with the Rules of 2011. The
doctrine cannot be invoked to compel the State to perpetuate an
error which is demonstrably inconsistent with binding statutory
provisions. Courts cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, issue a
mandamus directing the authorities to proceed contrary to law.
52. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are
clearly distinguishable. In Partha Das (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dealt with a situation where duly selected
candidates were denied appointment without valid justification
despite culmination of the selection process. In the present case,
the process had not culminated; neither was any select list
declared nor had any right crystallized in favour of these
petitioners.
53. Likewise, in Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh (supra), the principle
enunciated was that amendments to service rules ordinarily
operate prospectively and cannot unsettle an ongoing selection
33
process unless expressly provided. However, in the case at hand,
the cancellation preceded the amendment and was premised
upon statutory non-compliance. The amendment dated
26.06.2023 merely aligned the State Rules with the already
existing qualification under the Rules of 2011. The respondents
did not retrospectively apply a new qualification; rather, they
ensured adherence to the qualification that was always embedded
in the parent framework.
54. Similarly, the decision in K. Manjushree (supra), turned on
introduction of minimum marks in interview after the selection
process had concluded, thereby altering the evaluation criteria
midstream. The present controversy stands on an entirely
different footing. There was no alteration in the method of
evaluation or criteria of assessment during the process. The issue
here pertains to statutory eligibility itself, which must conform to
the parent Rules. Ensuring statutory compliance cannot be
equated with arbitrary change of selection criteria.
55. On the contrary, the authorities relied upon by the learned
Additional Advocate General, including the Constitution Bench
decision in Shankarsan Dash (supra), as reiterated in Malkiat
Singh (supra), Kali Dass Batish (supra) and M. Pushkaran
(supra), unequivocally affirm that mere participation in a selection
process or even inclusion in a select list does not confer an
indefeasible right to appointment. In the present case, the
34
petitioners were not even selectees; they were only participants in
a process which stood cancelled prior to declaration of results.
Their claim, therefore, falls on an even weaker footing.
56. The subsequent one-time relaxation granted by the Government
of India on 12.11.2025 also does not enure to the benefit of the
petitioners. The relaxation was expressly confined to vacancies
where the recruitment process had not been initiated. The earlier
process stood cancelled and a fresh advertisement was issued in
terms of amended Rules. The petitioners cannot invoke the
relaxation order to revive a cancelled process or to claim
consideration dehors the statutory mandate.
57. This Court is conscious that fairness in public employment is a
constitutional imperative under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. However, fairness operates within the
framework of law. It cannot be stretched to legitimize an
appointment process contrary to binding statutory provisions. The
record does not disclose mala fides, colourable exercise of power,
or arbitrariness of such magnitude as would warrant interference
in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The action of the respondents is
traceable to statutory compliance and cannot be termed irrational
or capricious.
58. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out
any ground for interference. The impugned actions declaring the
35
petitioners ineligible by the order dated 29.09.2022 rejecting their
applications, cancelling the examination dated 17.12.2022, and
issuing fresh advertisement dated 10.08.2023 in accordance with
amended Rules do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
59. Accordingly, all the aforesaid writ petitions, being WPS
Nos.7387/2022, 8782/2022, 1193/2023 and 5996/2023, are found
to be devoid of merit and are, therefore, dismissed.
60. There shall be no order as to costs.
61. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is
judgment is judgment is uploaded on the website
reserved pronounced
Operative Full
19.02.2026 02.04.2026 —— 02.04.2026
36
Head Note
Mere participation in the examination does not confer any vested or
indefeasible right to appointment or even to declaration of result. The
State is competent to cancel a recruitment process prior to its
culmination if found inconsistent with statutory provisions, in order to
prevent perpetuation of illegality. The doctrine that “rules of the game
cannot be changed after commencement” is inapplicable where the
change is necessitated to ensure conformity with binding statutory
rules.
