1 2026:CGHC:15118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 513 of 2023 1 - Rakesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Shri Lakhan Lal Dewangan Aged About 39 Years Working As Accountant And Posted At Office Of Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Korba Circle-2, Collector Premises Commercial Tax Bhawan, Korba District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Abbas Ali S/o Late Shri Mohd. Hussain Meman Aged About 41 Years Working As Data Entry Operator, And Posted At Office Of Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Korba Circle-2, Collector Premises Commercial Tax Bhawan, Korba District Korba (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipru, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner State Tax Commercial Tax Department, G.S.T. Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Suresh Kumar Gupta Working As Assistant Grade-Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-1 Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Prabhat Chandra Tiwari Working As Assistant Grade-Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-Ii Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ajay Kaushik Working As Accountant At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-Ii Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Hitesh Kumar Dubey Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-Ii Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Deepa Udhawani Working As Assistant Grade-Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division- Ii Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.04.17 10:44:16 +0530 2 8 - Smt. Rinu Sonkar Working As Assistant Grade-Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Dipesh Kumar Sahu Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-Ii Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 10 - Smt. Gayatri Sinha Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 11 - Gajendra Kumar Tiwari Working As Accountant At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 12 - Om Prakash Sahu Working As Ashu Clerk At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Durg Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 13 - Manish Chelaik Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 14 - Tamradwaj Sahu Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Commissioner State Tax, Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 15 - Deepak Turyakar Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 16 - Amar Singh Kanwar Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-Ii Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 17 - Uderam Dhruw Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 18 - Ramesh Kumar Dhritlahre Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division-I Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 19 - Ku. Dipti Markam Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At The Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 20 - Chandrakant Thakur Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Durg, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 21 - Deepak Kujur Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 22 - Rakesh Kumar Minj Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint 3 Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division-I Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 23 - Smt. Nandani Sahu, Working As Assistant Grade-Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner, State Tax Raipur Division-1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 2021 of 2023 1 - Pradeep Devhari Son Of Dhaluram Devhari, Aged About 36 Years Working As Lekhapal House No. 1725 Ward No. 61 Awadhpuri Calony Near Dhebar City Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Raj Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Netram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Grade 2 L.I.G. 836 Sector 5 Housing Board Colony Saddu Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Commerical Tax, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Commissioner, State Tax Commerical Tax Department, G.S.T. Bhawan, North Block Sector -19, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Suresh Kumar Gupta, Working As Assistant Grade -Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division -1 Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Prabhat Chandra Tiwari, Working As Assistant Grade -Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division -Ii Bilaspur, District - (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Ajay Kaushik, Working As Accountant At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division -Ii Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Hitesh Kumar Dubey, Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division -Ii Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Smt. Deepa Udhawani, Working As Assistant Grade -Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division II Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Smt. Rinu Sonkar, Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division -1 Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 9 - Dipesh Kumar Sahu, Working As Assistant Grade -Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - Ii Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 10 - Smt. Gayatri Sinha, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of The Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 11 - Gajendra Kumar Tiwari, Working As Accountant At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - Ii Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 12 - Om Prakash Sahu, Working As Ashu Clerk At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Durg Division Durg, District Durg (Chhatisgarh) 13 - Manish Chelaik, Working As Data Entry Operator At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - I Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 14 - Tamradwaj Sahu, Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 15 - Deepak Turyakar, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - 1 Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 16 - Amar Singh Kanwar, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division - Ii Bilaspur, District - Bilsapur (Chhattisgarh) 17 - Uderam Dhruw, Working As Data Entry Operator, At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - 1 Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 18 - Ramesh Kumar Dhritlahre, Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - 1 Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 19 - Ku. Dipti Markam, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 20 - Chandrakant Thakur, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Durg Division Durg, District - Durg (Chhattisgarh) 21 - Deepak Kujur, Working As Assistant Grade - Iii At Office Of Commissioner State Tax Head Office Chhattisgarh Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 22 - Rakesh Kumar Minj, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Bilaspur Division -I Bilsapur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 23 - Smt. Nandani Sahu, Working As Assistant Grade - Ii At Office Of Joint Commissioner State Tax Raipur Division - 1 Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma and Shri GP Mathur, Advocates. For State/Res : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA and Shri Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy GA. For Respondent Nos 3 to 23 in WPS No.2021/2023 : Shri N Naha Roy, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/04/2026 1. Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Challenge in these petitions has been made to the impugned select list dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the office of Commissioner State Tax Chhattisgarh, Raipur whereby leaving out the petitioners, private respondents have been declared to be appointed as State Tax Inspector. 3. By way of these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside impugned selection list dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-1) and appointment order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure P-2), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 6 direct the respondent authorities may first issue merit list and then only after inviting and considering objection final selection list may be issued immediately as per Rules 1966, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 4. For the purposes of disposal, facts pleaded in WPS No.513 of 2023 are referred to. 4A. The advertisement was issued on 28.04.2022 for departmental candidates inviting applications for the post of State Tax Inspector and written examination was held on 26.06.2022. As per condition no. 2 enumerated in the advertisement, the recruitment was to be done in accordance with Schedule-IV of C.G. Subordinate Class-III Executive Recruitment Rules 1966 (hereinafter “Rules, 1966”), from the clerical grade on the post of State Tax Inspector. As per schedule-IV of Rules 1966, the selection was to be made by adding marks obtained in the written examination and valuation of last 5 years confidential report. As per clause V (2) of Schedule IV, 20 numbers was to be given for confidential report of each year as for Excellent very good-20 numbers, Good-15 numbers, Average-10 numbers. The petitioners who are clerical grade employee as mentioned in the cause title are having more than 5 years of experience also appeared in the examination. However, without declaring the merit list directly selection list has been issued on 01.07.2022 selecting 21 private respondents and even no waiting list was published. Thereafter, on the same date i.e. 01.07.2022, appointment order have also been issued in 7 favour of the private respondents. It is noteworthy to mention that after commencement of the recruitment process, the State Government had notified new Rules on 19.05.2022 namely Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules 2022 (hereinafter “Rules, 2022”). The method of awarding marks on the basis of confidential report was changed in the new rules as for Excellent-20, Very good -16, Good-12, Average -08. The petitioners came to know that the recruitment process was completed on the basis of New Rules of 2022 and not on the basis of Rules 1966. As per information, written examination was conducted on 26.06.2022 as per earlier Rules 1966 and numbers of Confidential Report was granted to the candidates as per subsequent Rules of 2022. It is well settled that if any rules is amended during the recruitment process, then the same does not affect the continuing recruitment process and the same has to be completed under earlier Rules 1966. The non-publication of merit list is again major illegality and even, the numbers of selected candidates and last selected candidate has not been disclosed, which is apparently illegal, and whole selection process is vitiated on this ground. The petitioners have moved Right to Information application for knowing the numbers of the candidate on the basis of confidential report but the same has been denied by letter dated 16.08.2022. The petitioners have also moved representation under RTI Act, in which, they have shown how their answer sheet has been manipulated in respect of marks. Hence this petition. 8 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors in Civil Appeal No.2635 of 2013, reported in 2025 (2) SCC 1 wherein it has been clearly held that the norms of selection can not be altered after its commencement of selection process. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted position the selection process has been changed after its commencement according to new Rules, 2022 notified in the midst of selection process. Further, non- publication of merit list, marks obtained by the selected candidates has also not been disclosed which is another illegality committed by the respondent authorities. When the petitioner moved an RTI application to know about the marks obtained by the candidates on the basis of confidential report, the same has also been denied. 6. Leaned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary , AP Public Service Commission vs. B. Swapna and Others {(2005) 4 SCC 154} wherein at paragraph 14, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that norms of selection cannot be altered after commencement of selection process and the rules regarding qualification for appointment, if amended, during continuation of the process of selection do not affect the same. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment reads as under:- “14. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative. As has been fairly conceded by learned 9 counsel for Respondent 1 applicant it was the unamended rule which was applicable. Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criterion e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 163 : (1990) 12 ATC 727] and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig [(1999) 1 SCC 544 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 325] .)” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court also in WPS No.2683 of 2018 (Manraj Tamboli vs. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 19.04.2022 has dealt with a issue similar to the one in hand and while considering the principles laid down in the matter of B Swapna (supra) which has been reiterated in the matter of Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University {(2009) 4 SCC 555}. 8. Considering the backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitions may be allowed. 9. Learned State counsel submits that the new rules namely Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules 2022 clearly specified as under:- 10 17. निरस एवं व्यावृቈኌ (1) इ नियमों के तत्स्थाी और इ नियों के ्ቚारंभ होे के ठीक पूव! ्ቚवृ समस्त नियम, इ नियमों के अंत्ቇ!त आे वाले निवषयों के संबंध में एतद््ቛारा निरसिसत निकये जाते हैं:" 10. Learned State counsel submits that new rules were notified for the examination of the post in question which was used for the examination conducted on 26.06.2022 and accordingly merit list was prepared and private respondents were appointed and since new rules, 2022 came into force, the previous rules of 1966 cannot be considered. As such, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of respondent authorities in conducting the examination. The Writ Petition bereft of merits is liable to be dismissed. 11.On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents Nos.3 to 23 submits that soon after the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 was published, the new set of rules i.e. Rules of 2022 was notified on 19.05.2022 containing a complete code of recruitment to the Commercial Tax Class III (Executive) Service. The Rules of 2022 contained a specific Clause 17 -Repeal and Savings, which clearly stated that the rules prevailing immediately before enforcement of the present Rules stood repealed, provided all the orders and the actions conducted under such Rules would be deemed to have been done and performed under the present Rules. He submits that a plain and simple meaning of such clause would lead to the only conclusion that since 19.05.2022, the earlier Rules of 1966 had been replaced by the Rules of 2022 and the pending recruitment process as explained above would now be governed as per the Rules of 2022 solely and exclusively, 11 saving the procedure having already been initiated under the Rules of 1966. He further submits that the legal position on the subject that ‘enforcement of new Rules will not affect the recruitment process initiated under the earlier prevailing Rules and the same has to be completed under the earlier Rules only' has now gone through a noticeable change. He submits that petitioners are oblivious of the legal position evolved with time on the subject of filling up of vacancies arisen prior to the enforcement of the new Rules on the subject, which has now been settled by a detailed judgment of a three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 773, establishing thereby that it is the Rules in force on the date of consideration for appointment, which will prevail over the earlier Rules and no vested right is created in favor of the candidates concerned to be considered for appointment under the earlier Rules. Relevant paragraphs 82.2 and 82.3 reads as under:- 82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the “rule in force” as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. 82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is 12 intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. 12. In this way, the principle as explained above has now been established after an elaborated discussion and appreciation of various judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court leading to the conclusion that in the public interest, the State has a right to take a conscious decision of not filling up the posts even after initiation of the recruitment process by way of issuance of an advertisement and receiving applications from the aspirants. Needless to state that such wide observation impliedly and unambiguously contains the authority to conclude the recruitment process in terms of the Rules in force on the date of consideration, or there wouldn't have been a requirement to recognize such principles. 13.Further, Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 23 submits that even in case the contention of the petitioners is accepted as it is for the sake of arguments, one may not be able to comprehend any iota of prejudice or impropriety in the recruitment process, since by virtue of enforcement of the Rules of 2022, the prescribed mode of marking for the ACRs under the Rules of 1966 i.e. 20 marks for the classification of being Excellent/Very good' and 15 and 10 marks for the classification of being 'good' and 'average' respectively, have been altered in a way that now 20 marks have been allotted for the classification of being Excellent', 16 marks for 'very good' and 12 and 8 marks for the classification of 'good' and 'average', respectively. He submits that a mere perusal and comparison of the above 13 classifications clarifies that by way of the alteration in the marking parameters as stated above, the anomaly of putting the excellent and very good classification in the same bracket has been rectified by putting such classifications separately and chronologically in order. From such description, it is further clear that in the evaluation process, a more meritorious candidate having been able to secure the classification 'Excellent' will have a real and reasonable opportunity to have scored more marks than the candidate having been able to secure the classification 'very good, which means that he will have a better opportunity to secure position in the selection list than the candidate having lesser merit. This way, a further screening of more meritorious candidates from the rest has been ensured, which benefits the larger object of getting the best one appointed against the sanctioned vacancies. This situation cannot be stated to be an instance of changing the "Rules of Game', a phrase used for changing the very criteria or eligibility for selection, midway. Therefore, the petitioners have committed a misconception of law when they tried to project the present case within the meaning of changing of "Rules of Game', since herein there is no change brought in the eligibility or criteria of selection but a mere difference in the marking for ACRs have been introduced, looking to the remarks secured year-wise and such marking has been uniformly applied over all the candidates with no undue favour to anyone. To demonstrate this aspect, it is noteworthy to draw attention of this Court towards the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 14 passed in the case of Maharashtra SRTC Vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51, the relevant paragraph of which is reproduced as under: “5…….. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it pronounced upon the invalidity of the circular orders dated 24-6-1996, does not merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside.” 14. Lastly, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 23 submits that the petitioners have failed to point out any prejudice or discrimination on account of conducting the process under the Rules of 2022 and the said act comes out as an improper and misconceived effort to get the recruitment process scraped by any means. The petitioners have also utterly failed to establish violation of any of the fundamental or legal right causing this Hon'ble Court to intervene. Needless to state that the petitioners may not have a right to be appointed on the post of State Tax Inspector, but do have a right to be considered, which is not being taken away in any manner whatsoever by virtue of application of the Rules in force, i. e. the Rules of 2022 as such, the petitioners have not accrued with any cause of action to approach this Hon'ble Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is bereft of any merit warranting rejection at the threshold only. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material 15 available with the petition. 16.Admittedly, the petitioners are clerical grade employees who are departmental aspirants for the post of State Tax Inspector. In furtherance of the advertisement dated 28.04.2022 whereby applications were invited from the departmental candidates/petitioners and private respondents for the post of State Tax Inspector which was governed as per Schedule IV of the C.G. Subordinate Class-III Executive Recruitment Rules 1966, the petitioner appeared for the written examination on 26.06.2022. Thereafter, select list was prepared by adding marks obtained in the written examination and upon valuation of the last five years confidential report. As per Clause 5 (2) of the Schedule IV, for Excellent/Very Good remark 20 numbers, for Good remark-15 numbers, for Average- 10 numbers. Subsequently, vide notification dated 19.05.2022, the State Government notified new rules namely Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Class-III Executive Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 2022. As per the said new Rules of 2022, following changes were made in respect of awarding of marks on the basis of Annual Confidential Report. For Excellent remark- 20 marks, for Very Good remark-16 marks, for Good remark-12 marks, for Average – 08 marks. 17. At the foremost, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court has categorically held that a candidate has a right to be considered in accordance with the rules in force 16 on the date of consideration and no vested right accrues to be considered under repealed rules. The petitioners have not demonstrated that the policy decision embodied in the Rules of 2022 is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18.In the new rules of 2022, it has been specifically notified vide Clause 17 that earlier rules covering the subject matter stands repealed after enforcement of new rules of 2022. As such, according to the new rules of 2022, the marks on the basis of Annual Confidential Report was awarded to the departmental candidates and select list was prepared, which the petitioners have challenged through these petitions. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners have raised any grievance to the effect that any malafide or illegality has been committed while awarding marks on the basis of ACR as per the new rules of 2022. The only grievance which the petitioners are showcasing is that they have been awarded marks as per their ACR on the basis of new rules of 2022 and not as per old rules of 1966. Since the old rules of 1966 stood repealed upon notification of new rules of 2022, the petitioners cannot harp upon the Rules of 1966 stating that the the recruitment process should have been conducted as per rules of 1966. As such, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to how the alleged alteration in the marking scheme has materially prejudiced their candidature. It is trite law that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted merely on the basis of a technical plea unless substantial injustice or arbitrariness is shown. In 17 the present case, except asserting that the Rules of 1966 ought to have been applied, the petitioners have not placed any comparative chart or material to establish that had the old marking scheme been applied, they would have necessarily fallen within the zone of selection. 19.The doctrine that “rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun” is not an inflexible rule of universal application. The said principle applies primarily where the eligibility criteria or essential conditions of selection are altered to the disadvantage of candidates after commencement of the process. In the present case, neither the eligibility conditions nor the essential structure of selection—written examination plus assessment of Annual Confidential Reports—has been altered. What has been modified is only the distribution of marks within the ACR component, pursuant to statutory rules brought into force prior to finalization of the select list. 20. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have ever challenged the new rules of 2022 by any appropriate means so as to declare the said rules as ultra vires, however, after participating in the recruitment process and upon not receiving favourable outcomes as per the new rules 2022, they are challenging the select list that too without any ground or apparent illegality or irregularity committed against them. The entire recruitment process was conducted as per the new rules of 2022 and upon enforcement of the said rules, previous rules of 1966 stood repealed. In fact, under the new rules of 2022, the marks according to year 18 wise grading in the ACR has rightly been categorized. As for Excellent remark -20 marks which is the same as under rules of 1966. Only a distinction has been made to benefit the meticulous candidates who earlier despite being meticulous were categorized as Excellent/Very Good with the ones who were just above the ranking of being Good. And the less meticulous ones despite being such were any way being categorized in the Very Good/Excellent category. By creating a distinction between Excellent and Very Good, the said problem of wrong categorization of Excellent candidates with Very Good ones has been redressed by way of new rules of 2022 which cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Hence, this Court is also of the considered view that the refinement introduced in the marking pattern under the Rules of 2022, by segregating “Excellent” from “Very Good”, in fact advances the object of merit-based selection. The classification appears to be rational and founded upon intelligible differentia having nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely selection of the most meritorious candidates. 21. The recruitment process proceeded as per the new rules of 2022 and the petitioners chose not to agitate it and accepted to go with the recruitment process which proceeded as per the new rules of 2022. Now after not getting favorable results as they were not selected, they cannot challenge the select list dated 01.07.2022, as from the said conduct of the petitioners, it only appears that since they have not been selected in the departmental examination for the post of State Tax Inspector, they are 19 challenging the select list dated 01.07.2022 and seeking direction to conduct the recruitment process as per the old rules of 1966. Moreover, non publication of merit list is no such illegality for which entire recruitment process can be set aside. 22. For the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any good ground to set aside/quash the impugned select list dated 01.07.2022 and further direct the respondent authorities to conduct examination as per rules of 1966 which has been repealed by rules of 2022. The petitioners have failed to establish infringement of any enforceable legal right warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. 23.Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash