Point of Law : Selecting body does not have its right to alter the procedure for selection than what is prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent No.-4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 through video conferencing. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners who are four in number, are before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notification issued by the respondent No.4, namely, U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, impleaded through its Secretary, dated 11th November, 2021 whereby the applicants under the Advertisement No.-20(07)/2015 and 16(04)/2016 have been directed to apply for appearing in the written examination for selection and appointment to the post of Instructors that are 559 and 293 respectively under the advertisements, to be filled in.

3. The petitioners who have applied against two advertisements respectively, have questioned the notification on the ground that at the time of advertisements in the year 2015 and 2016 prescribing last date for submission of applications as 24th November, 2015 and 21st December, 2016 respectively, the rules in existence were The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred as 'Service Rules, 2014') and according to these rules, selection had to be made on the basis of credentials, academic records of the candidates and walk-in-interview.

4. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 16 of the Service Rules, 2014. He submits that the selection process had already begun way back in the year 2015 and selection and appointment against two vacancies of Instrument Mechanic and Embroidery in needle work had already been made and the selection process in respect of the remaining 850 (557+293) had remained to be completed. However, in the meantime, Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Junior Level Posts (Discontinuation of Interview) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'Recruitment Rules, 2017') came to be framed by the Governor in exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and which provided that interview prescribed in the selection procedure in the relevant service rules of the State would be discontinued and wherever the recruitment process prescribed for interview only, such selection would now be made on the basis of the written examination only.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these rules saved the selection process in respect of the advertisement already issued prior to coming into force of these rules vide Clause (d) of Rule 4 of Recruitment Rules, 2017. However, the respondent No.-4 created confusion and that too for no justifiable reasons by seeking guidance from the Director, Training and Employment Government of U.P. Lucknow that approval be sought from the State Government for holding written examination in respect of the vacancies already advertised and in respect of which selection was yet to be accomplished.

6. This letter was written on 5th June, 2020 by the Secretary of respondent No.4, however, the Director in his wisdom correctly appreciated the matter and made recommendation to the Chief Secretary (Vocational Education and Craft Development Department), Government of U.P, Lucknow that any change in the method of selection qua posts already advertised out of which selection and recommendation in respect of two such advertised posts have already been made, would complicate things and would lead to disputes. The Secretary on 30th July, 2021 wrote to the Selection Board that recruitment had to be made strictly in accordance with Recruitment Rules, 2017.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was nothing in the order of the Secretary to direct for written examination in respect of the vacancies already advertised and for which the selection process was still on and yet the respondent No.-4 proceeded to issue notification fo