Order : NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J. 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The description and the field of experience of the petitioner in brief are extracted from the pleadings made in their respective petitions which as under: (a) The petitioner in WP(S) No. 3775/2025 by profession is Generalist and as per pleadings made by him in the writ petition he has worked in various capacity in newspaper and Generals like Lokayat Patrika, Dainik Manas Varta, he has also involved in social works as detailed in the petition and has filed this petition wherein he has prayed for quashing of the decision of the respondent dated 09.05.2025 by which petitioner’s candidature for appointment on the post of State Information Commissioner has been rejected as he has not having 25 years of experience in the field and has prayed for considering candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Chief Information Commissioner. (b) The petitioner in WP(S) No. 3844/2025 and 3845/2025 by profession is an advocate and he has 23 years experience in the field of law and he has prayed for quashing of the decision dated 09.05.2025 by the Committee by which petitioner’s candidature for appointment to the post of Chief Information Commissioner has been rejected. (c) The petitioner in WP(S) No. 3811/2025 and 3815/2025 by profession is an advocate and having Ph.D. and he has 21 years experience in the field of law and has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as State Information Commissioner and in WP(S) No. 3815/2025 he has prayed for quashing of the further proceedings of interview for appointment initiated by the Search Committee. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 436/2018 on 07.01.2025 directed all the States to initiate proceedings for appointment of State Information Commissioner and passed the following order: “5. So far as the other States are concerned, we have perused their respective status reports. It seems that most of the States have initiated the selection process to fill up the vacancies, but without any commitment regarding the time line within which the appointments shall be made. So far as the other States are concerned, we have perused their respective status reports. It seems that most of the States have initiated the selection process to fill up the vacancies, but without any commitment regarding the time line within which the appointments shall be made. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to issue the following directions to all the States (other than the State of Jharkhand): i. The list of the applicants shall be notified within one week; ii. The composition of the Search Committee along with the criteria prescribed for shortlisting applicants shall be notified within one week thereafter; iii. The time line within which the interviews shall be completed be notified. This shall not be more than six weeks from the date of notification of composition of the Search Committee and the criteria for shortlisting applicants; iv. On receipt of the recommendations, the competent authority shall scrutinize and make appointments within two weeks. 6. The Chief Secretaries of all the States shall file their respective compliance affidavits in this regard. 7. All the States shall, separately, find out the total vacancies for the respective ICs and the pendency of applications before the respective commissions. Such information shall also be furnished. 8. All those States, which have already made the required appointments and where there are no vacancies, are exempted from compliance with the above directions.” 4. Further facts of the case are that on 25.09.2022 for appointment of State Chief Information Commissioner and 01 post of State Information Commissioner, the said advertisement was withdrawn by the State Government. Thereafter, on 07.02.2024 fresh advertisement for appointment to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner and 01 post of State Information Commissioner was issued. Thereafter, another advertisement dated 04.03.2025 was issued for appointment of State Information Commissioner by the respondent No. 2. The said post falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the qualification prescribed for the said post is provided under Section 15 of the RTI Act, 2005 which mandates appointment by the Governor on the recommendation of a Committee comprising the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister. As per the advertisement dated 04-02-2025, the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of State Information Commissioner is as under: 5. As per the advertisement dated 04-02-2025, the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of State Information Commissioner is as under: 5. The Clause 6 of the advertisement provides that the candidate who has completed 65 years will not be eligible to the appointment. The last date was notified for submission of application was 19.03.2025. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted their applications, thereafter, the respondent constituted a Search Committee headed by Additional Chief Secretary Home. It is pertinent to mention here that the Search Committee was constituted to fix the eligibility criteria, to examine the candidature and to send recommendation. The Search Committee vide decision dated 05.03.2025 has taken decision which was uploaded in the website and called the suitable candidates for interview as per the schedule dates and place for interview. The interview was to be conducted on 26.03.2025 for appointment to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner. The Committee has taken the decision on 05.03.2025 which reads as under: Accordingly, 33 candidates were called for interview at New Circuit House Nawa Raipur on 26.03.2025. 6. The Search Committee vide its decision dated 09.05.2025 has taken the decision which has been uploaded in the website. The Committee has taken following decision: As per the said decision, the candidates were called for interview on 28.05.2025 at New Circuit House Nawa Raipur. 7. The petitioner has filed WP(S) No. 3775/2025 on 20.05.2025 and matter was taken up on 29.05.2025 wherein this Court has restrained the respondents to proceed further with the final selection process till the next date of hearing. In view of the interim order, the proceedings have been kept in abeyance by the respondents. 8. On above factual matrix, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Respondents acted arbitrarily by introducing a new eligibility requirement (25+ years' experience). After the initiation of the selection process and after inviting applications the introduction of new eligibility criteria is impermissible in law and vitiates the entire selection process as it amounts to change of game during midway of selection process. To substantiate this submission they would refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed as under: "65.2. To substantiate this submission they would refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. High Court of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed as under: "65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved;" 9. They would further submit that the impugned action defeats the legitimate expectation of the petitioners to be considered fairly and transparently in accordance with the originally notified criteria. It has also been contended that Section 15(5) and 15(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 do not prescribe any minimum number of years of experience, and the respondents cannot add such a condition without any statutory backing. It has been further contended that no corrigendum or fresh advertisement was issued to inform all candidates about the changed criteria, thereby rendering the selection process fundamentally flawed. Thus, they would pray for quashing of the entire selection process or alternatively it has been contended that they be allowed to participate in the interview. It has been further contended that the procedure of shortlisting has not known to all the candidates, therefore, it is a violation of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anjali Bhardwaj vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (18) SCC 246 particularly paragraph 66.3 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed as under: “66.3. Likewise, it would also be appropriate for the Search Committee to make the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, public, so that it is ensured that shortlisting is done on the basis of objective and rational criteria.” 10. Likewise, it would also be appropriate for the Search Committee to make the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, public, so that it is ensured that shortlisting is done on the basis of objective and rational criteria.” 10. The petitioner in WP(S) No. 3775/2025 has filed rejoinder criticizing the action of the Search Committee in shortlisting the candidates and not following the procedure as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Anjali Bhardawaj (Supra) and contended that the respondents failed to adopt rational and publicly known criteria for selection which is against the principle of fairness and transparency which vitiates the entire selection process and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 11. On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that that there are total of 4 sanctioned posts in the State of Chhattisgarh, One (1) of the Chief Information Commissioner and Three (3) of the Information Commissioners (for short the IC). Out of the said 4 posts, two posts of Information Commissioners were filled on 20.03.2024. For filling up the post of IC which would have fallen vacant in May, 2025, an advertisement was issued thereby inviting applications on 04.03.2025. A petition in the nature of PIL was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide WPC 436/2018; Anjali Bhardwaj vs. UOI & Others regarding vacancy on the posts of Chief Information Commissioner & Information Commissioners in the States, throughout the country. The matter was heard and was disposed after taking affidavits on record by various State regarding filling up the vacant posts on an early basis vide order dated 15.02.2019. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Application No. 1979/2019 was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby vide order dated 07.01.2025, a direction has been issued to the State governments to file affidavits stating status of appointments and further time limit for conclusion of the same. As per provisions of the RTI Act as well guidelines being laid down from time to time, selection to the post of CIC & ICs is done by the Selection Committee. This is done on the basis of recommendations of the Search Committee. This has also been discussed in the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs. UOI & Others (supra) . It has been further considered that fixing of criteria for shortlisting by the Search Committee cannot be questioned as the same has backing of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. This has also been discussed in the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs. UOI & Others (supra) . It has been further considered that fixing of criteria for shortlisting by the Search Committee cannot be questioned as the same has backing of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 12. He would further submit that a Search Committee was constituted vide order dated 16.04.2025 in compliance of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for scrutiny of applications. The object of formation of such Committee was to decide the yardstick for short- listing, examine the applications on such yardstick and recommend names to the Selection Committee for appointment. As per minutes of meeting dated 09.05.2025, total no. of applications received is 231 from 172 applicants, out of which 163 applications were for Information Commissioner. The criteria prescribed by the Committee was 25 years' experience in the relevant field for the post of Information Commissioner. Further, the interview was scheduled for 28.05.2025 and the same has already been conducted. A copy of the report of the Committee was published in the official website of General Administration Department of State of Chhattisgarh. There cannot be any dispute of this fact of publication of the criteria, which is in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which would be evident from the fact that the same has been annexed in the instant petition. 13. He would further submit that the purpose of the RTI Act is to setout the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and further timely disposal of appeals of the applications so filed under the Act thereby seeking public information. Any impediment in such appointment would defeat the purpose of formulation of such Act since the posts would be lying vacant. On perusal of the advertisement and the condition thereby stipulating the essential qualification vide clause 2(1), it would be evident that the criteria so prescribed is comprehensive knowledge of fields so prescribed in the RTI Act alongwith experience as well as eminence in the field. On perusal of the advertisement and the condition thereby stipulating the essential qualification vide clause 2(1), it would be evident that the criteria so prescribed is comprehensive knowledge of fields so prescribed in the RTI Act alongwith experience as well as eminence in the field. Thus, the advertisement already provides for the criteria and the criteria so considered for shortlisting of applications by the Search Committee is in line with the said criteria, hence it cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Further, there not being any challenge to the authority of Search Committee in prescribing such criteria, any dispute with respect to the same would not be maintainable. 14. He would further submit that the petitioners have contended that rules of the game have been changed in the mid selection process. It is hereby most humbly submitted that on juxtaposing the criteria laid down in the advertisement and criteria decided upon by the Search Committee, it would be coherent that both are on the same lines. Where the advertisement simply provides for a criteria, in order to shortlist the number of applications so received during the process, the Search Committee has just provided a framework within such prescribed criteria, which in any terms cannot be termed to be change of criteria. It is further submitted that while prescribing or applying such criteria, no discrimination has been done by the authorities. With respect to the contention of the petitioners with respect to fixing of criteria by the Search Committee not having any nexus with the object so being sought to be achieved, it is submitted that this ground would be available to the petitioners in case where constitutionality of a law is under question. In the present case, no law being under judicial scrutiny, raising of such grounds would be highly misconceived and the instant petitions would be liable to be dismissed. 15. He would further submit that as per directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an affidavit was filed by the State of Chhattisgarh thereby stating the details of pending recruitment process of Chief Information Commissioner as well as Information Commissioners. It is further stated therein that the pending process will be completed within six months from date of filing of the said affidavit, which will be completed on 14.06.2025. It is further stated therein that the pending process will be completed within six months from date of filing of the said affidavit, which will be completed on 14.06.2025. It is settled position of law that no candidate participating in a selection process has a legal or vested right to be appointed. Only right is one to be considered. The petitioners in the present case have not made a case whereby their candidature has not been considered by the answering respondents and therefore instant petitions would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of a legal or vested right so available to the petitioners. 16. Considering the stand taken by the intervenors, the intervention application filed by all the intervenors are allowed and they are permitted to make their submission. They have supported the contentions raised by the State and have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions as well prayed for vacating the interim order passed by this Court. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18. From the submissions made by the parties, the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the procedure adopted by the Search Committee is against the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Anjali Bhardwaj (Supra) by adopting shortlisting of the candidates. 19. To appreciate this point, it is expedient for this Court to extract the relevant paragraphs of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court which reads as under: “66.3. Likewise, it would also be appropriate for the Search Committee to make the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, public, so that it is ensured that shortlisting is done on the basis of objective and rational criteria.” 20. In the selection process, shortlisting of the candidates will amount to alter substitution of criteria or eligibility of a candidate is always subject matter of scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is well settled position of law that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to the different posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the applicants must possess those basic qualifications and criteria before their applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which governs the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. 21. It is also equally well settled that whenever selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate, therefore, short-listing of the candidates is integral part of selection process. The only condition for following short-listing that it should be rational and objectively. In the present case the appointment has to be made on the post of State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner which are highly sensible and requires man of immense experience in the various field as provided under Section 15 of the RTI Act therefore, the candidates must have immense experience which may be gained by the candidate after having work in that field for a particular period. In the present case, the Search Committee considering the sensitivity and gravity of the post has fixed the criteria of 25 years experience in the field and the candidate should be less than 65 years, as such, it does not amount to change the game in mid way, but it is objectively looking to the sensitivity of the post for which appointment has to be made. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash (Supra) as well as Anjali Bhardwaj (Supra) recognized the theory of short- listing. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash (Supra) has examined short-listing in following paragraphs which reads as under: “CONCLUSIONS 65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tej Prakash (Supra) has examined short-listing in following paragraphs which reads as under: “CONCLUSIONS 65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree (supra) lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra). Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with the right to be placed in the Select List. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; 65.4.Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for Page 44 of bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 22. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Search Committee has not committed any illegality in short-listing the candidates looking to the number of candidates and less vacancy. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 22. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Search Committee has not committed any illegality in short-listing the candidates looking to the number of candidates and less vacancy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered the method of short-listing where the appointment has to be made on the basis of interview only on the count that if all the candidates are allowed to call for interview, it will consume lot of time and suitability of the candidates cannot be examined thoroughly which may effect the selection on a sensitive post. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Another reported in 1994 (6) SCC 293 has examined short-listing in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 11 as under: “6.The question which is to be answered is as to whether in the process of short-listing, the Commission has altered or substituted the criteria or the eligibility of a candidate to be considered for being appointed against the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court. It may be mentioned at the outset that whenever applications are invited for recruitment to the different posts, certain basic qualifications and criteria are fixed and the applicants must possess those basic qualifications and criteria before their applications can be entertained for consideration. The Selection Board or the Commission has to decide as to what procedure is to be followed for selecting the best candidates from amongst the applicants. In most of the services, screening tests or written tests have been introduced to limit the number of candidates who have to be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. Such screening tests or written tests have been provided in the concerned statutes or prospectus which govern the selection of the candidates. But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been impressed by the courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate. 7.Herman Finer in his book Theory and Practice of Modem Government at page 779 says: “If we really care about the efficiency of the civil service as an instrument of Government, rather than as heaven-sent opportunity to find careers for our brilliant students, these principles should be adopted. The interview should last at least half an hour on each of two separate occasions. It should be almost entirely devoted to a discussion ranging over the academic interests of the candidate as shown in his examination syllabus, and a short verbal report could be required on such subject, the scope of which would be announced at the interview...…. 8.The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best among the applicants. It is obvious that it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if large number of candidates are interviewed each day till all the applicants who had been found to be eligible on basis of the criteria and qualifications prescribed are interviewed. If large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint. The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview. It appears that Union Public Service Commission has also fixed a ratio for calling the candidates for interview with reference to number of available vacancies. 11.In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana it was said:(SCC p.446, para 20) "Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day of 5 1/2 hours. It appears that Union Public Service Commission has also fixed a ratio for calling the candidates for interview with reference to number of available vacancies. 11.In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana it was said:(SCC p.446, para 20) "Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day of 5 1/2 hours. It is obvious that in the circumstances, it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if such a large unmanageable number of over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed. The interviews would then tend to be casual, superficial and sloppy and the assessment made at such interviews would not correctly reflect the true measure of the personality of the candidate." 24. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Tridip Kumar Dingal vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2009 (1) SCC 768 has examined short-listing in paragraph 38 as under: “38. ...The contention on behalf of the State Government that written examination was for short-listing the candidates and was in the nature of `elimination test' has no doubt substance in it in view of the fact that the records disclose that there were about 80 posts of Medical Technologies and a huge number of candidates, approximately 4,000 applied for appointment. The State authorities had, therefore, no other option but to `screen' candidates by holding written examination. It was observed that no Recruitment Rules were framed in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and hence no such action could be taken. In our opinion, however, even in absence of statutory provision, such an action can always be taken on the basis of administrative instructions - for the purpose of `elimination' and `short listing' of huge number of candidates provided the action is otherwise bona fide and reasonable. …” 25. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2008 (1) SCC 362 has examined short-listing in paragraphs 17 to 19 and 23 as under: “17. However, for valid short-listing there have to be two requirements (i) It has to be on some rational and objective basis. For instance, if selection has to be done on some post for which the minimum essential requirement is a B.Sc. However, for valid short-listing there have to be two requirements (i) It has to be on some rational and objective basis. For instance, if selection has to be done on some post for which the minimum essential requirement is a B.Sc. degree, and if there are a large number of eligible applicants, the Selection Body can resort to short-listing by prescribing certain minimum marks in B.Sc. and only those who have got such marks may be called for the interview. This can be done even if the rule or advertisement does not mention only those who have the aforementioned minimum marks, will be considered or appointed on the post. Thus the procedure of short-listing is only a practical via-media which has been followed by the courts in various decisions since otherwise there may be great difficulties for the selecting and appointing authorities as they may not be able to interview hundreds and thousands of eligible candidates; (ii) If a prescribed method of short-listing has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement then that method alone has to be followed. 18. In the present case, no doubt, the UPSC had resorted to an objective and rational criteria that only those who have two years experience after getting the M.Sc. degree will be considered, while those who have got such experience but only before getting the M.Sc. degree will not be called for the interview. Ordinarily we would not have taken exception to this procedure since it is based on an objective criteria, and ordinarily this Court does not interfere with administrative decisions vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 . As observed in the said decision, the modern approach is for courts to observe restraint in administrative matters. 19. Hence, if the method of short-listing had not been prescribed by the UPSC or in a statutory rule, it is possible that the argument of learned counsel for the respondents may have been accepted and we may not have interfered with the method of short-listing adopted by the UPSC since it appears to be based on a rational and objective criteria. 23. 23. Had paragraph 3.1 not been in the advertisement of the UPSC it is possible that we may have taken a view in favour of the respondents since in that case it was open to the UPSC to resort to any rational method of short- listing of its choosing (provided it was fair and objective). However, in the present case, a particular manner of short-listing has been prescribed in paragraph 3.1. Hence, it is not open to the UPSC to resort to any other method of short-listing even if such other method can be said to be fair and objective.” 26. From the averment made in the writ petitions, it is quite vivid that the petitioners have not contended that the procedure adopted by the Search Committee in shortlisting suffers from malafide or arbitrariness or it has not followed rationally or objectively. Therefore, it cannot be said that while short-listing the candidates any illegality has been committed by the Search Committee. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that the Search Committee has not published the decision of short-listing before short-listing the candidates, as such, there is violation of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme in case of Anjali Bhardwaj (Supra) . This submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are incorrect as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not directed that it should be first published in fact only condition precedent for short-listing is that it should be followed rationally and objectively which have been done meticulously by the respondents. Even otherwise, the petitioners have no where contended that due to non-publication of method of short-listing any prejudice has been caused to them which is paramount consideration for this Court to interfere in the procedure adopted by the Search Committee. 27. From the above discussion and considering the law and facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the respondents have not committed any illegality in short-listing the candidates which may vitiate the entire selection process initiated by the respondents. Consequently, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. No order as to costs. 28. The interim order passed by this Court on 29.05.2025 is vacated.