JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

While praying for the various reliefs including a writ of certiorari to quash the corrigendum issued on 22.06.2022, the merit list Annexure P-7 to the limited extent that respondent no.3 to 5 have been illegally declared eligible for appointment, the writ petition was filed.

2. The petitioners, have not been selected for the post of Senior Technical Assistants. They are aggrieved of their non-selection which has led to the filing of the writ petition.

3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present writ petition, relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. On 14.05.2022, applications were invited for 12 posts of Senior Technical Assistants, out of which 8 posts were in the stream of Geology. Out of the aforesaid 8 posts, one post was in the category of General, whereas one was for SC (Ramgarhia and others). Clause 10(1) provided that the candidate will have to pass the written examination with minimum 40% marks. The petitioner no.1 applied under General Category, whereas petitioner no.2 applied under SC(RO), both in the stream of Geology. On 22.06.2022, a corrigendum was issued while removing the condition of minimum 40% qualifying marks from the selection criteria. The corrigendum enables the candidates to apply afresh while extending the last date for submission of the online applications up to 11.07.2022. Another extension in the last date for submission of the application was given up to 25.07.2022. The written examination was held. Petitioner no.1 is stated to have scored 75.25 marks, whereas petitioner no.2 scored 65.25 marks.

5. While contesting the writ petition, the respondents have categorically stated that in the rules governing the condition of service of Senior Technical Assistants, only educational qualification are mentioned and no mode of selection has been prescribed. The Head of Department is also holding the charge of the Subordinate Service Selection Board. A decision was taken to view the condition of minimum 40% qualifying marks in the selection criteria keeping in view the past experience and thereafter, given opportunity to fresh candidates to apply.

6. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.

7. Two separate written notes have been filed by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners as well as the State of Punjab in support of their submissions. The relevant part of the written notes of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is extracted as under:-

"1. Corrigendum dated 22.06.2022 issued by respondent No.2 for deleting the Clause 10 (1) is illegal and arbitrarily as the same amounts to changing the rules of the game mid-way as it was issued after the last date for submission of applications i.e., 15.06.2022.

2. Illegality in issuance of the corrigendum is also borne from the fact that by deletion of the clause 10(1) of the advertisement, the Respondents have completely violated Article 16 of the Constitution as well as the settled principle that merit is of paramount consideration for recruitment to technical posts. Due to deletion of Clause 10(1). With no minimum marks for qualifying the test, it granted unfair advantage to certain candidates, such as the Respondents No. 3- 5 herein, as there was no competition or burden of securing minimum of the benchmark i.e. 40% marks

3. Senior Technical Assistant is a technical post and the job profile is highly technical in nature.

4. The plan of examination sh