The Recruitment Notification issued by the second respondent/Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB) in Notification No.01/MRB/2015, dated 12.09.2018 is sought to be quashed and a direction is sought for against the respondents to conduct the recruitment examination afresh for the selection of Nurses in the service of 1st respondent/department and pass further orders.

2. The cause for filing of the present writ petition arose on account of the fact that the respondents have appointed candidates over and above the notified vacancies in the recruitment conducted in the year 2015. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that they are not selected and no opportunity to participate in the process of selection was provided, which is in violation of the equality clause enunciated in the Constitution of India. Without even conducting the process of selection by following the recruitment rules in force, the respondents are going on appointing candidates, from and out of the unsuccessful candidates from the erstwhile list, with reference to the selection conducted by the second respondent, pursuant to the Notification given in the year 2015.

3. In other words, beyond the selected candidates, persons who have participated in the process of selection pursuant to the Notification dated 19.04.2015 were appointed, knowing the fact that those candidates were unsuccessful in the process of selection. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, it is not only an illegal act but also in violation of the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner urged this Court by stating that if such appointments are allowed to continue, then the entire constitutional principles are violated and the respondents may not be correct in appointing the unsuccessful candidates from and out of selection list prepared pursuant to the recruitment notification of the year 2015.

4. It is contended that those unsuccessful candidates in the process of selection in the year 2015 were appointed by granting relaxation to Rule 7 of the Medical Services Recruitment Board Rules. The Rule 7 of the MRB Rules speaks about the reserve list. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that by relaxing Rule 7 of the MRB Rules they have appointed candidates beyond the names listed out in the reserve list and the candidates who were appointed were unsuccessful in the process of selection. Though the rules relating to the reserve list were relaxed, the persons who were not even included in the reserve list were appointed. Thus the action in entirety is perverse and unconstitutional. In fact, the rule restrictions imposed in the reserve list to include 10% of the candidates were violated and excess number of candidates were appointed, over and above the notified vacancies and beyond the permissible limit and the reserve list contemplated under the MRB Rules.

5. At the outset, it is contended that the entire process of selection was made as a mockery and the State, as a model employer, failed in its duty to honour the Constitutional Principles. The constitutional rights of the eligible candidates are infringed and they are deprived of their opportunity to participate in the process of selection for the purpose of securing public employment.

6. Narrating the entire events that excess appointments were made over and above the notified vacancies, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission before this Court that such en masse relaxation of rules is highly unwarranted and the said relaxation led to corrupt activities in the process of selection. When there is no necessity to grant an en masse relaxation of the rules relating to the reserve list, a factual inference could be drawn from and out of such facts and circumstances to the effect that there is a possibility of corrupt activities, which cannot be ruled out.

7. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner urged this Court by