1. In the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the quashing and setting aside of the final merit-list of the candidates for the posts of Supervisor Instructor Class-III (Computer) published by the respondent authorities on 16.11.2011, pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.08.2011.

2. Petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent authorities to include their names in the final merit-list of the candidates for the posts of Supervisor Instructor Class-III (Computer) published by the respondent authorities on 16.11.2011. Further directions are sought to direct the respondents to prepare afresh the final merit list of the candidates for the post of Supervisor Instructor Class III published by the respondents dated 16.11.2011 pursuant to the Advertisement dated 03.08.2011 on the basis of the prescribed norms of selection as referred in the first advertisement.

3. Though, a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.17313 of 2011 raising identical issue and prayers has been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2018, I deem it necessary to decide the present writ petition by a separate judgment as some of the facts and contention differ.

4. The brief factual matrix of the case that emanates from the record is as follows:

4.1. The petitioners were working as Supervisor Instructor Class-III on contractual basis for more than one year. An advertisement came to be issued on 03.08.2011 for the recruitment of the same posts on permanent basis for filling up about 2639 vacancies.

4.3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid advertisement the selection process determined was on the basis of the merit of the candidates and it was further stated that the selection will be on the basis of the norms of selection to be placed on the website. Though, it was stated that norms for the selection shall be placed on the website, no such detail was reflected on the website.

4.4. Accordingly, the petitioners applied for the aforesaid posts in time. Subsequently, a new advertisement/clarification came to be published with reference to the earlier advertisement dated 03.08.2011 where in it was stated that Optical Mark Reading (O.M.R. In short) Test shall be conducted for selection, and the candidates are required to appear in the O.M.R. Test. The O.M.R. Test was scheduled on 25.09.2011. Subsequently, the OMR test was re-scheduled on 08.10.2011 with another advertisement. The petitioners had taken part in this O.M.R. Test and they were assessed in this test. The result of OMR test came to be published on 16.11.2011 which did not include their names as they were unsuccessful.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Jigar G Gadhvi for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the respondent authorities have not declared that in the recruitment process the OMR Test would be the sole criteria for the final selection. It was submitted that on the contrary, the advertisement specifically referred to some norms of selection, which would be displaced on the website of the respondents and, therefore, it was submitted that if the result of the OMR Test is considered as the sole basis for the final selection then it tantamount to changing the criteria in the middle of the Recruitment process, which itself is an illegality. Moreover, it was submitted that such an action clearly smacks of arbitrariness and lacking bona fides as the criteria was changed because of grading system adopted by some institutes.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Gadhvi has contended that the Recruitment Rules of Supervisor Instructors, Class-III issued vide Notification dt.29.09.2008 had set the criteria like work experience, marks in degree examination, post graduation, etc. and, therefore, it was submitted that the norms of selection are required to be laid down by the respondent authorities before initiating the Recruitment process and such norms of selection are required to be strictly adhered to in the s