O R D E R

28th July 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.

The appellants in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals have challenged the legality of the order dated 7^th December 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013 and analogous cases – LPA No. 198 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013; LPA No. 413 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 1615 of 2014; LPA No. 434 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 1779 of

2014, and; LPA No. 451 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 5087 of 2013.

2. Since the issue involved in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals is common and all four Appeals are directed against the aforesaid order dated 7^th December 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013 and analogous cases, these Letters Patent Appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

3. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel who appears for the appellants in LPA No. 198 of 2019, LPA No. 413 of 2019 and LPA No. 434 of 2019 and Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel who appears for the sole appellant in LPA No.451 of 2019, have confined their arguments to introduction and applicability of “scaling method” in evaluation of the question papers for 4^th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination conducted in the year 2011.

4. The first ground to challenge the final results published for 4^th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 is that the rules of game could not have been changed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') in the middle of selection process and, that too, without any notice to the applicants who were aspirants for appointment on various posts under the Government of Jharkhand.

5. The learned counsels for the appellants would submit that after result of the preliminary test was published an amendment was introduced in the Rules of Procedure, 2002 for scaling of answer sheets by the Commission. It is stated that 29^th February 2012 was the last date for submission of applications for Mains Examination and, on the same day, an amendment was brought in under Clause 4 (xii) (i) of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 to provide for “scaling method”.

6. A related issue which is raised by the appellants in this context is that the Commission should have adhered to the Rules which were existing as on 1^st July 2010 and 4^th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 should have been conducted in accordance with the Rules which were in operation on that day.

7. Referring to a decision in “Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam & others v. Esthappan Cherian & another” (2021) 10 SCC 210, Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that any rule of law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear and manifest intention to the contrary.

8. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the following judgments:

(i) “Maharashtra Road Transport Crop. & Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors.” (2001) 10 SCC 51;

(ii) “Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi” (2008) 7 SCC 11;

(iii) “Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.”, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2020;

(iv) “The Assam Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Ors” (2019) 17 Scale 542;

(v) “Baranwal Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr”, Rajasthan HC, Civil Writ Petition No.1211 of 2014;

(vi) “P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.” 1988 Supp SCC 740;

(vii) “N.T. Devin Kati v. Karnataka” PSC 1990 3 SCC 157;

(viii) “Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam & Ors. v. Esthappan Cherian & Anr.”, Supreme Court ,Civil Appeal No.5815 of 2009;

(ix) “Shri Jibon Kalita v. The State of Assam”, Gauhati High Court, WP(C) No. 3864 of 2018;

(x) “Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors.”, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.9482 of 2019”

9. The grievance put forth by the appellants seems to be that by introduction of “scaling method” their raw marks were brought down substantially, which resulted in their elimination from selection.

10. Plainly speaking, submission made