(1.) With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties the Matter is finally heard.
(2.) Shri Praveen Verma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the process of selection had commenced as per the Rules in vogue at that point of time, the criteria for selection could not have been changed midway and the petitioners could not have been disqualified on the basis of the criteria for selection which was changed midway. In support of his submission, Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in MADAN MOHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, 2008 AIR(SCW) 1850
(3.) On the other hand, Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the select list contained in Annexure-P/8, as the selected candidates have not been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties. In support of the aforesaid proposition learned Panel Lawyer for the State has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSOCN v. A ARTHUR JEEN, 2001 6 SCC 380. It is further submitted by him that the State Government had clear intention to amend the criteria for selection which is evident from the Circular (Annexure-P/6) which ultimately culminated in the Notification, dated 4-10-2001 by which the 2005 Rules were amended. It was also submitted that if there is an intention to amend the criteria pending selection process, the process of selection can be withheld by the authorities and the posts can be filled up in accordance with the amended criteria. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT v. GUJARAT KISHAN MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT, 2003 4 SCC 712 and, : RAMULU v. S SURYAPRAKASH RAO, 1997 3 SCC 59.