JUDGMENT :

H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The writ petitioners being aggrieved with an impugned notification dated 02.06.2022 and merit list dated 02.06.2022, issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the number of posts of Sanitary Inspector were reduced from 4(four) to 2(two) in the General Category, thereby depriving them of employment, are before this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, by an advertisement dated 12.10.2007, the respondent No. 3 had advertised for filing up of Group B and C posts on Direct Recruitment, which included 4(four) Unreserved post and 2(two) ST posts of Sanitary Inspector. The advertisement thereafter remained pending, and on 21.08.2017, a second advertisement was issued for filing up of 4(four) posts of Sanitary Inspector (2-UR posts, 2-ST posts), which also stipulated therein that, candidates who had already applied against the earlier advertisement, need not apply again and that, the earlier applications received would suffice. The written test was then conducted on 14.03.2021, and thereafter on 02.08.2021, a Corrigendum was issued that the post of Sanitary Inspector as advertised be read as 6(six) (4-UR posts, 2-ST posts). The petitioners as per the results were placed at number 3 and 4 respectively, in the UR list which therefore guaranteed them employment to the post. However, after the publication of the merit list, the impugned notification dated 02.06.2022, was issued notifying that the number of posts of Sanitary Inspector would remain as 4(four) (2-UR posts, 2-ST posts), as advertised vide the advertisement dated 21.08.2017, and the Corrigendum dated 02.08.2011 was cancelled, as also the merit list dated 25.11.2021. A fresh merit list was then published, wherein the petitioners were placed at Serial No. 1 and 2 in the waiting list. The petitioners therefore by the change and circumstances brought about by the impugned notification dated 02.06.2022, instead of being appointed directly were however, placed in the waiting list.

3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

4. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioners had already been selected for the post of Sanitary Inspector vide the merit list dated 25.11.2021, but the respondents by way of the impugned notification dated 02.06.2022, changed the rules of the game by reducing the posts, an action he contends is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any authority of law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the second advertisement was a continuation of the first, wherein the vacant posts for filling up by Direct Recruitment had been clearly mentioned and had also been reiterated by a Corrigendum dated 02.08.2021, to correct the second advertisement, wherein only 4(four) posts had been mentioned. He therefore submits that the action of the respondents which has resulted in the illegal deprivation of the petitioners to gainful employment is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision which has great persuasive value on the meaning and status of a Corrigendum, in the case of Polyplex Corp. N Ltd. Thru’Auth. Signatory vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) SCC Online 5211, wherein it has been held that, a Corrigendum is used when correction is made in a printed manner, which has already been disclosed to public and a mere handwritten correction or draft will not be sufficient and the correction as such has to be notified separately. The learned counsel contends that, once the Corrigendum dated 02.08.2021, correcting the number of