Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Since the controversy involved in all the above writ petitions is similar, therefore all the above writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri Ashok Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.

3. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to quash the selection process as well as the interview for the post of Assistant Boring Technicians which is scheduled to be held from 15.9.2015 till 6.10.2015 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.10.2014.

4. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) was constituted on 20.6.2014 under the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014. It is not disputed that the Act applies in relation to direct recruitment to all Group ‘C’ posts. The petitioner’s case is that he did not fill up the form for the post of Assistant Boring Technicians in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.10.2014 as according to him, the selection was required to be conducted by the Department of Minor Irrigation, U.P., Lucknow and that the Commission was not competent to conduct the examination in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow and any such selection held by the Commission would be absolutely illegal.

5. According to the petitioner, the recruitment and conditions of services of persons appointed in the Minor Irrigation Department Boring Technicians Service would be governed by the Uttar Pradesh Minor Irrigation Department Boring Technicians Service Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1993”).

Rule 3(a) defines ‘appointing authority’ to mean the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department of the concerned Division.

Rule 3(d) defines ‘Commission’ to mean the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission.

Reference has been made to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1993. Part III-Recruitment provides for the sources of recruitment, which reads as under :

Recruitment to the various categories of posts in the Service shall be made from the following sources :

(a) Boring Technicians-by promotion from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Boring Tech who have completed five years service, as such, on the first day of the years of recruitment;

(b) Assistant Boring Technicians-By direct recruitment through the Commission.”

6. The case of the petitioner is that the Rules, 1993 were amended in 2003 by the Amending Rules dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and in Rule 15(1) in place of the word ‘Commission’ it was provided that a Committee would be constituted at the State Level which would hold the Selections and this Committee would comprise of the :

(i) Chief Engineer as Chairman;

(ii) One Member to be nominated by the Chief Engineer not below the rank of Executive Engineer; and

(iii) One Member belonging to the SC/ST/OBC category as the case may be.

7. At the outset the submission of Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner was that the selections could