Monika vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 1 of 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
220 Date of decision: 08.09.2026
1. CWP-30534-2024 (O&M)
Monika ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s)
2. CWP-23791-2024 (O&M)
Sonia and others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
3. CWP-23938-2024 (O&M)
Yashpal and others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
AND
4. CWP-27931-2025 (O&M)
Pankaj Kumar and another ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for
the petitioner in CWP-30534-2024.
Mr. Jasbir Singh Mor, Advocate with
Mr. Bharender, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-23938-2024.
Mr. Bhisham Kinger, Advocate
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 2 of 17
for the petitioners in CWP-27931-2025.
Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate with
Mr. Navnit Sharma and Ms. Neelam Yadav,
Advocates for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-23791-2024.
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the respondent-HPSC in
CWP-30534-2024 and CWP-27931-2025.
Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for the
respondent-HPSC in CWP-23791-2024 and
CWP-23938-2024.
*
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
CWP-30534-2024:
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) vide
which a new criteria and educational qualifications have been added to the
existing advertisement thereby changing the rule of games when the game
has already started; AND issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
the Respondents to restrain the candidates not registered from Board of
Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana from participating in the
selection process; AND issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
the respondents to issue fresh advertisement inviting applications for the
post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer thereby permitting only eligible
candidates to apply for the post, who are registered with Board of
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 3 of 17
Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana; AND issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to call the petitioner for
Interview, subject to final decision of this writ petition; AND in the
alternative, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to consider and take a final decision on petitioner's application
dated 30.10.2024, P8, by passing a speaking and well reasoned order,
within some short stipulated period and in the meantime, the respondents
may kindly be directed to call the petitioner for interview.
CWP-23791-2024:
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) vide
which a new criteria and educational qualifications have been added to the
existing advertisement thereby changing the rule of games when the game
has already started; AND further a writ in the nature of mandamus be
issued, directing the Respondents to restrain the candidates not registered
from Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana from
participating in the selection process.
CWP-23938-2024:
Present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of an
appropriate order or direction, calling for the record of the case and after
DIVYANSHI perusal of the same:-
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 4 of 17
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned
corrigendum dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P/8) for enlarging the selection
zone for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group B) against the advt
No. 16/2024 dated 21.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) by changing the
condition/qualification from registration of the candidate with the Board of
of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana to registration with any
Board of Ayurvedic System of Medicine/Indian Medical Council as amounts
to change of rule of games which is illegal, arbitrary as per law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
Commission to make the selection and appointment of the candidates on
the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group B) as per the prescribed
qualification under the Service Rules duly mentioned in the advt No.
16/2024 dated 21.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) and candidates registered with
the Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana may be
considered eligible and qualified for the said posts.
CWP-27931-2025
Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of an appropriate writ
in the nature of Certiorari with a prayer for quashing the impugned
corrigendum dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) which expands the selection
zone for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group B) advertised under
Advertisement No. 16 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024 (Annexure P-1), by altering
DIVYANSHI the eligibility criteria/qualification from requiring registration with the
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 5 of 17
Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana to allowing
registration with any Board of Ayurvedic System of Medicine or the Indian
Medical Council, as this constitutes a change in the rules of the selection
process, which is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India., in the interest of justice as well as in view
of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the present petition; AND
further, a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
the Respondent Commission to carry out the selection and appointment
process for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Group B) strictly in
accordance with the prescribed qualifications under the applicable Service
Rules, as specified in Advertisement No. 16 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024
(Annexure P-1); and to consider only those candidates who are registered
with the Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana as eligible
and qualified for the said posts, in the interest of justice and in light of the
facts and circumstances set forth in the present petition.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the
aforesaid 4 Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as
the facts and issues involved in all the 4 cases are identical/similar. For the
sake of convenience, facts are being drawn from CWP-30534-2024 titled as
Monika vs. State of Haryana and others.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3-Haryana
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’)
had issued Advt.No.16/2024 dated 21.06.2024 (Annexure P-2) inviting
DIVYANSHI applications for appointment to the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officer
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 6 of 17
(Group B) (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMO’). As per the said Advertisement,
closing date for submission of online applications was 12.07.2024. Being
eligible, all the petitioners had applied for the same vide applications forms.
4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the grievance of the petitioners is that subsequently vide impugned
Corrigendum dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), essential qualifications for
the post of AMO have been changed, and candidates registered from any
Medical Council have been treated to be eligible. It is also the grievance of
the petitioners that vide Announcement dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-5),
last date for submission of online application forms was further extended
from 16.08.2024 till 11:00 AM on 20.08.2024. Ld. Counsel contends that the
impugned Corrigendum cannot be sustained primarily on the ground that
rules of the game have been sought to be changed midway, which is
impermissible as per various judgments passed by this Court as well as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support, learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Mohanan Pillai
v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2007(2) S.C.T. 604: AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2840 ,
wherein it is held as under:-
"It is now well-settled that ordinarily rules which were
prevailing at the time, when the vacancies arose would be
adhered to. The qualification must be fixed at that time. The
eligibility criteria as also the procedures as was prevailing on
the date of vacancy should ordinarily be followed."
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 7 of 17
5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is registered by
the Board of Haryana and has already applied for the recruitment. However,
now vide impugned decision, the criteria stands enlarged to the detriment
of the petitioner's rights. Vide the impugned Corrigendum, a new criteria
and educational qualifications have been added to the existing
Advertisement, which is not permissible as per law. The selection criteria
was initially restricted only to the Board of Ayurvedic/Unani system of
Medicine, Haryana (Now Indian Medical Council of Haryana) which is now
enlarged with “ any Board of Ayurvedic System of Medicine/Indian Medical
Council ”, which amounts to change of rules, which is detrimental to the
rights of the petitioners. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ
petition be allowed and impugned Corrigendum dated 05.07.2024
(Annexure P-4), be quashed.
6. Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondent-
Commission has vehemently opposed submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioners and has submitted that impugned Corrigendum dated
05.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) was issued before the closing date of
12.07.2024. As such, petitioners were well aware of the conditions
stipulated therein even prior to participating in the selection process.
However, petitioners have never raised any objection at that stage
regarding the Corrigendum. It is only after the petitioners remained
unsuccessful in the Screening Test held on 23.09.2024 that present petitions
have been filed. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ
DIVYANSHI Petitions.
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 8 of 17
7. Learned counsel representing the 16 petitioners in CWP-
23791-2024 has made additional submissions to the effect that the
aforesaid CWP-23791-2024 was filed on 02.09.2024 i.e. prior to the conduct
of Screening Test on 23.09.2024. Therefore, petitioners herein had
challenged the impugned Corrigendum dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-4)
before participating in the selection process. As such, they are not estopped
from challenging the selection process. Moreover, out of the 16 petitioners
of CWP-23791-2024, 7 petitioners were selected and remaining petitioners
remained unsuccessful in the result declared on 09.10.2024. Therefore, the
said CWP-23791-2024 is different from the remaining cases in as much as
petitioners herein have challenged the Corrigendum before participating in
the selection process. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition
be allowed; and following prayers be accepted:
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the impugned Corrigendum dated
05.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) vide which a new criteria and
educational qualifications have been added to the existing
advertisement thereby changing the rule of games when the
game has already started;
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to restrain the candidates not registered from
Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine, Haryana from
participating in the selection process; and
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to issue fresh advertisement inviting applications
for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer thereby permitting
only eligible candidates to apply for the post, who are
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 9 of 17
registered with Board of Ayurvedic/Unani System of Medicine,
Haryana.”
8. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great
detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioners.
9. The admitted facts are that as per the Advt.No.16/2024 dated
21.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), closing date for submission of online application
forms was 12.07.2024. The impugned Corrigendum has been issued on
05.07.2024 i.e. prior to closing date. Further, the said Corrigendum was
issued in pursuance to Government Letter dated 04.07.2024; thereby
necessitating amendment to Clause 6(ii) and Note 1 given below Clause 6.
As such, in view of the above facts, it cannot be said that rules of the game
have been changed midway by the issuance of the impugned Corrigendum.
10. Further, vide the impugned Corrigendum, petitioners have not
been non-suited or disqualified from participating in the selection in any
manner whatsoever. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused
vide the impugned Corrigendum to any of the petitioners in all 4 writ
petitions. Moreover, Corrigendum has been issued in view of the
Government Letter dated 04.07.2024; and has been issued prior to cut off
date of 12.07.2024.
11. In this regard, reference may be made to judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Karunesh Kumar and others,
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 10 of 17
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706, decided on 12.12.2022; wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court interpreted the principle of 'changing rules of game' and
held that if a candidate is not non-suited from participating and not
disqualified from the selection process, in such a case the said principle will
have no application or otherwise it will hamper the power of an employer
to recruit a person suitable for the job.
The relevant para 32 of the said judgment reads as under:-
“32. The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision
of this Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in
our considered view, the facts of the aforesaid decision are
quite different from the present case. A change was introduced
for the first time after the entire process was over, based on the
decision made by the Full Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is
not as if the private respondents were nonsuited from
participating in the recruitment process. The principle
governing changing the rules of game would not have any
application when the change is with respect to selection
process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words,
after the advertisement is made followed by an application by
a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in,
disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is
only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an
application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to
recruit a person suitable for a job.”
12. Thus, all four writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this
short ground itself, as petitioners have been unable to demonstrate
material prejudicial change in rules of the game midway.
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 11 of 17
13. Furthermore, vide Announcement dated 18.07.2024, the
Commission had published Scheme/Pattern of Examination/s to be held for
carrying out selection for the post of AMO: as per which, selection process
was to be conducted in 3 stages viz., (a) First Stage- ‘Screening Test’, (b)
Second Stage- ‘Subject Knowledge Test’ and (c) Last Stage- ‘Interview’.
Admittedly, all the petitioners have participated in the Screening Test, which
was held on 23.09.2024. Result for the Screening Test was declared on
09.10.2024. It is admitted fact on record that: 1) the sole petitioner in CWP-
30534-2024 has remained unsuccessful in the Screening Test result; 2) that
all the 6 petitioners in CWP-23938-2024 were also unsuccessful; 3) that 3
petitioners out of the 16 petitioners in CWP-23791-2024 have also
remained unsuccessful in the Screening Test result (in this CWP, out of 13
petitioners who were successful in screening test, only 7 were qualified in
final result dated 5.2.2025); and 4) both the 2 petitioners in CWP-27931-
2025 were unsuccessful in the Screening Test result.
14. It is established position in law that having participated in the
selection process and having remained unsuccessful, candidates are barred
from challenging the same. In this regard, reference is made to a judgment
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (SC) :
Law Finder Doc Id # 2730841 ; the relevant para of which reads as under:-
“19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement
issued in connection with a selection process are normally not
open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the
ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that
DIVYANSHI matter, Article 14. Once an advertisement is issued inviting
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 12 of 17
applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay
duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand
what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds any of the
terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the
advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort
ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the
requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing
prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a
representation. Should such clarity be not provided, the
aspirant may participate in the process without prejudice to his
rights and may question the term even after he is not selected.
However, if the aspirant does not make any such effort and
takes a calculated chance of selection based on his own
understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and
later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open
to him to challenge the selection on the ground that the
disputed term is capable of being understood differently. In
such cases, the courts should be loath to entertain such plea of
ambiguity while preferring to accept the recruiting authority's
understanding of the said term. This is for the simple reason
that the recruiting authority is the best judge of what its
requirements are and it is such understanding of the recruiting
authority that would matter most in cases brought up before
the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein
aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to
what a particular terms means, even if any of the terms be
ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the recruiting
authority.”
15. Reference may also be made to another recent judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. State of J&K
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 13 of 17
and others (2023) 17 SCC 147 decided on 28.03.2023; wherein it is held
that: -
“13. The next aspect of the matter which requires
consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the
effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the
eligibility criteria enshrined in the advertisement notice dated
5-5-2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12-6-2009,
without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this
contention, regard may be had to the following case law:
i. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, this Court
authoritatively declared that having participated in a
selection process without any protest. it would not be
open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the
selection criteria subsequently.
ii. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi , an
advertisement was issued inviting applications for
appointment for the post of Physiotherapist. Candidates
who failed to clear the written test presented a writ
petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and
the process of selection. They pleaded that the
advertisement and the test were ultra vires the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and
Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and
Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After
referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of
waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the
challenge for the reason that the same would not be
maintainable after participation in the selection process.
The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the
above noted judgments, it must be held that by
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 14 of 17
having taken part in the process of selection with
full knowledge that the recruitment was being
made under the General Rules, the respondents
had waived their right to question the
advertisement or the methodology adopted by the
Board for making selection and the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
committed grave error by entertaining the
grievance made by the respondents."
iii. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar , a process
was initiated for promotion to Class III posts from
amongst Class IV employees of a civil court. In the said
case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a
written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks
were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27
(twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written
examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were
interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the
basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court
declined to approve the select list on the ground that the
ratio of full marks for the written examination and the
interview ought to have been 90: 10 and 45 ought to be
the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh
process followed comprising of a written examination
(full marks-90 and qualifying 45) and an interview
(carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of
the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons
were appointed on Class III posts. It was thereafter that
the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful
candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the order of the High Court on the
administrative side declining to approve the initial select
DIVYANSHI list. The primary ground was that the appointment
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 15 of 17
process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the
written test was required to carry 85 marks and the
interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on
the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on
notice when the fresh selection process took place that
the written examination would carry 90 marks and the
interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the
appellants having participated in the selection process
without objection and subsequently found to be not
successful, a challenge to the process at their instance
was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystallised
in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra
Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court
laid down the principle that when a candidate
appears at an examination without objection and
is subsequently found to be not successful, a
challenge to the process is precluded. The
question of entertaining a petition challenging an
examination would not arise where a candidate
has appeared and participated. He or she cannot
subsequently turn around and contend that the
process was unfair or that there was a lacuna
therein, merely because the result is not palatable.
In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, this Court
held that:
“‘18. It is also well settled that those
candidates who had taken part in the
selection process knowing fully well the
procedure laid down therein were not
entitled to question the same (see also
Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi
Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission)’"
13.1. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken
part in the selection process without any demur or
protest, cannot challenge the same after having been
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 16 of 17
declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate
and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply
because the result of the selection process is not
palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the
process of interview was unfair or that there was some
lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ
petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned
before a court of law, the rationale behind recasting the
selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the
selection process even after the criteria had been so
recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of
the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against
the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful
in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge
ought not to have been entertained in light of the
principle of waiver and acquiescence.
13.2. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the
only exception to a rule of waiver is the existence of mala
fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present
case, we are unable to find any mala fides or
arbitrariness in the selection process and therefore the
said exception cannot be invoked.”
16. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel
for the petitioners.
17. It is also to be noted that the selection process has been
completed, and appointments were made and selected candidates are not
before this Court as they have not been impleaded.
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP Nos. 30534, 23791, 23938 of 2024 (O&M)
and 27931 of 2025 (O&M) 17 of 17
18. Accordingly, from the above discussion, it is clear that
contention of the petitioners that vide the impugned Corrigendum,
Commission had changed the rules of game midway, is without merit.
Further as demonstrated above, petitioners in 3 Writ Petitions are estopped
from laying challenge to the said condition/Corrigendum after having
participated in the selection process and remained unsuccessful. It is also
clear that no prejudice has been caused to any of the petitioners in all the
four writ petitions. Consequentially, all the 4 Writ Petitions stand dismissed .
19. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
08.09.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.09.10 16:45
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document