ORDER

1. On 7 October 2016, there was a difference of opinion in the two Judge Bench which was hearing Writ Petition (Civil) No 294 of 2015 differed. The petition was placed before a three-Judge Bench on 10 August 2017, when the following order was passed:

“We have been apprised at the Bar by learned senior counsel appearing for both the sides that similar question of law has been referred to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court [(2013) 4 SCC 540].

In view of the above, let this matter be tagged with the same.”

2 The direction to place the case for hearing together with the reference to the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court, (2013) 4 SCC 540 was in view of the submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties that a similar question of law has been referred.

3 During the course of the hearing, Mr Rana Mukherjee, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the following three questions would arise in the case:

1. Can executive instructions in the form of a resolution of the Full Court override statutory rules made under Article 234/309?

2. Can the criteria of cut off marks be introduce