JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018 (Manraj Tamboli), as well as Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the intervenors.

2. W.A. No. 244/2022 and W.A. No. 247/2022 are preferred against an order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018. W.A. No. 322/2022 is preferred against an order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018.

3. The appellants in W.A. Nos. 244/2022 and 247/2022 were not parties to the writ proceedings. The appellants in W.A. No. 322/2022 were writ petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018.

4. W.P. (S) No. 7341/2018 came to be disposed of in the light of the order dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018.

5. The Dean, Late Lakhiram Agrawal Memorial Medical College, Raigarh, had issued an advertisement dated 08.09.2017, which was later modified on 19.09.2017, inviting applications, amongst others, for 42 posts of Ward Boy/Aaya, out of which 6, 7, 11 posts were reserved for Other Backward Class (OBC), Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST), respectively, leaving 18 posts towards general category.

6. The case of the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2683/2018, in short, was that as per clause 19 of the advertisement, selection list was to be prepared on the basis of the written examination to be conducted. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and appeared in the examination. Result was declared on 09.01.2018. However, after declaration of the result, a letter dated 24.01.2018 was issued against the condition of the advertisement that an aptitude test would be taken and thereafter, final selection list would be prepared. The petitioner objected holding of the aptitude test. However, the petitioner appeared in the said test held on 04.02.2018.

7. After declaration of provisional result on 09.01.2018, objections had been invited and the petitioner had made an objection with regard to question Nos. 2 and 6. It is stated that the objections were decided by a letter dated 22.02.2018 intimating that question No. 2 has been deleted. Regarding question No. 6, it is said that there was a printing mistake and the correct question was announced in the examination hall. The petitioner does not dispute that the correct question was announced in the examination hall, but contends that the same was told about 30 minutes after commencement of the examination, by which time he had chosen the alternative question.

8. The writ petition was filed challenging the letter dated 24.01.2018 alongwith further prayers to direct the respondent authority to declare the result on the basis of written examination and in the alternative, to treat the question Nos. 2 and 6 as correct questions without any alteration and marks be awarded on option D (none of the above).

9. In the return filed by the State, it is stated that the result of the written test published on 22.01.2018 contains the names of all the candidates numbering 5631 including those candidates who secured marks less than 50%, while only 2078 candidates qualified by securing 50% of the marks and above. After declaration of the result, a meeting was convened by the respondent No. 3 on the same date and an unanimous decision was taken to conduct a skill test so that best candidates are selected. The authority to conduct skill test was conferred by Rule 6(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department Non-Ministerial (Related to Directorate Medical Education Department) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2015 (for short, the