Yashwant Varma, J.

Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Piyush Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioners in this set of two writ petitions assail Notifications/Government Orders issued by the State-respondents cancelling a recruitment process initiate by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board [hereinafter referred to as “the Board”]. In Pradeep, the petitioners had applied for selection on the post of Fireman in the Uttar Pradesh Fire Brigade Service. The recruitment was to be conducted in accordance with the provisions put in place by the U.P. Fire Service Subordinate Officers/Employees Service Rules, 2016. In terms of Rule 15 of these Rules, the selection procedure was prescribed to follow the process as envisaged for the selection of constables in the U.P. Police for the time being in force. The procedure for recruitment of constables is comprised in the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules) as amended from time to time.

3. In Anand Yadav, the petitioners therein had applied for selection on the post of Jail Warder governed by the Uttar Pradesh Prison Administration and Reforms Department Jail Warder Cadre Service Rules, 2016 (2016 Rules).

4. The petitioners in both sets had filled in their application forms and also deposited the requisite fee. However and admittedly no further concrete or substantive steps in aid or furtherance of the recruitment exercise were undertaken by the respondents. The process of recruitment initiated by the Notifications dated 20 December 2016 and 16 January 2017 for the post of Fireman came to be cancelled in terms of the Government Orders dated 17 October 2017 and 21 March 2018. It is these notifications which are assailed in the writ petition preferred by Pradeep and Others. The selection process for the post of Jail Warder came to be cancelled by the respondents in terms of a Government Order dated 22 March 2018 which is assailed in the writ petition preferred by Anand Yadav and Others. Apart from challenging the notifications aforementioned the petitioners have sought a further relief of a writ of mandamus being issued commanding the respondent to complete the selection process in accordance with the original notification/advertisements issued.

5. The principal reason which appears to have weighed with the respondents to cancel the selection process which was so initiated appears to be the intervening amendments to the statutory rules which governed the process of recruitment. It is in that backdrop that the petitioners principally contend that the process of recruitment once initiated was liable to be completed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the statutory rules which prevailed on the date of issuance of the recruitment notifications and that any subsequent amendments to those rules would neither govern nor could such amendments be a legally justifiable ground to stall or cancel a selection process which was already underway.

6. Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the relevant clauses of the advertisement to submit that it was unambiguously provided that the process of selection for Fireman would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Rules. Similarly, for the selection of Jail Warders, Sri Singh drew the attention of the Court to Clause (4) of the advertisement to highlight that the respondents had clearly provided that the selection would be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the 2016 Rules. According to Sri Singh, once the process of selection commenced with the issuance of an advertisement, the same could not have been cancelled merely because of an amendment to the statutory rules which applied. Sri Singh would submit that the moment the recruitment notification came to be issued and the petitioners applied in terms thereof, certain rights came to be create