1

CGHC010147862025 2026:CGHC:32309

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order reserved on 22-07-2026

Final Order delivered on 28 -07-2026

Final Order uploaded on 28 -07-2026

WPS No. 2904 of 2025

1 - C.L. Sandilya S/o Hariram Sandilya Aged About 56 Years Posted As

Assistant Grade -Iii Water Resources Division Baikunthpur District -

Korea Chhattisgarh

--- Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of

Finance Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District

- Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate And Pension Indrawati Bhawan Block A First

Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance Mantralaya Mahandi

Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Balodabazar Road Zero

Point Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer Directorate Of

Treasury Account And Pension (Audit) Indrawati Bhawan Block A First

Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2925 of 2025

1 - Amar Singh Bisen S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Singh Bisen Aged

About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Amapara, Rajim, Tehsil Rajim, District

Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

2

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road,

Zero Point, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer, Directorate Of

Treasury, Accounts And Pension (Audit), Indrawati Bhawan, Block A,

First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

WPS No. 8447 of 2025

1 - Dinesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Shridhar Singh Aged About 60

Years R/o Awantika Colony, Quarter No. F-01 Jagdalpur District -

Bastar, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Finance Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur

District - Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan Block A First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur

(C.G.)

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

3

4 - Account General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road, Zero

Point, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar, Assistant Accountants Officer Directorate Of

Treasury Accounts And Pension (Audit) Indrawati Bhawan, Block A First

Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2906 of 2025

1 - Jagannath Prasad Sao S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Sao Aged About 53

Years R/o G-3, Board Office Campus, Pensionbada, Raipur, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Finance, Mantralaya,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road,

Zero Point, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer, Directorate Of

Treasury, Accounts And Pension (Audit), Indrawati Bhawan, Block A,

First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2908 of 2025

1 - Suresh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Shri Tulsi Ram Dwivedi Aged About 50

Years Posted As Sub-Inspector (A), Police Headquarter, Department Of

Home, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

4

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And

Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava

Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road,

Zero Point, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer, Directorate Of

Treasury, Accounts And Pension (Audit), Indrawati Bhawan, Block A,

First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2914 of 2025

1 - Puran Lal Tati S/o Shri M.R. Tati Aged About 43 Years Posted As

Assistant Grade I, District -Treasury Sukma Sukma District - Sukma

Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Directorate Of Treasury Account And Pension

Indrawati Bhawan Block A First Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District -

Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury Account And Pension Indrawati

Bhawan Block A First Floor Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur

Chhattisgarh

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance Mantralaya Mahanadi

Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

5

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Balodabazar Road Zero

Point Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Accountants Officer Directorate Of Treasury

Accounts And Pension (Audit ) Indrawati Bhawan Block A First Floor

Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2930 of 2025

1 - Ku. Kalyani Vijay Laxmi Banjare D/o Shri Taplal Banjare Aged About

42 Years Assistant Grade I, Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts, A

Block, 1st Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,

District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road,

Zero Point, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattigarh.

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer, Directorate Of

Treasury, Accounts And Pension (Audit), Indrawati Bhawan, Block A,

First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2944 of 2025

1 - Jai Singh Sandilya S/o Shri Hariram Sandilya Aged About 53 Years

Posted As Assistant Account Officer, District Transport Office Balrampur,

Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner

6

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,

District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road,

Zero Point, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer, Directorate Of

Treasury, Accounts And Pension (Audit), Indrawati Bhawan, Block A,

First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

WPS No. 2952 of 2025

1 - Naresh Ram S/o Late Shri Mohar Sai Aged About 47 Years Posted

As Assistant Grade I, District Treasury Office Surajpur, District- Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh.

---Petitioner

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of

Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur,

District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indrawati

Bhawan, Block A, First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

3 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi

Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

7

4 - Accountant General (A And E) Chhattisgarh Baloda Bazar Road,

Zero Point, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Shri Bhojendra Bhoyar Assistant Accountants Officer, Directorate Of

Treasury, Accounts And Pension (Audit), Indrawati Bhawan, Block A,

First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

….Respondents

For Petitioners :Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Abhyuday Singh,

Advocate.

For State :Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, G.A.

For Respondent No.4 :Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate

For Respondent No.5 :Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J

CAV Order

1.Since all the petitions assail the common order and involve

interconnected issues, they were heard and being disposed of by

this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings

and the documents placed in WPS No.2904/2025 are being

referred.

2.By these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to

the issuance of the order dated 22.11.2024

(ANNEXURE P-1) for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to pass an appropriate writ / order

quashing and setting aside the order dated

22.11.2024 (ANNEXURE P-1).

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to pass an appropriate writ / order

quashing and setting aside the result dated

20.12.2017 (ΑΝΝΕXURE P-2)

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be

pleased to pass an appropriate writ / order

directing the respondents to issue a revised

8

final result for the Subordinate Accounts

Service (Departmental) Examination Part II held

between 08.08.2017 to 14.08.2017 after

awarding the petitioner pro rata marks for the

questions in Paper V which were outside the

notified syllabus and for questions which were

incorrect.

10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court,

may deem fit and proper, in the facts and

circumstances of the case.”

3.(i) Facts of the case, as projected in the petitions, are that the

petitioners are working as Accountants in the respondent

Department and have been serving the department since their

appointment. Having successfully cleared the Subordinate

Accounts Service (Departmental) Examination, Part I, they

became eligible to appear in Part II, which is essential for

promotion and career progression in the parent department. The

Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension issued an

advertisement dated 27.04.2017 inviting applications for the

Subordinate Chhattisgarh Accounts Service (Departmental)

Examination, Part II, scheduled from 08.08.2017 to 14.08.2017.

For Paper-V, the prescribed syllabus was Company Accounts and

Store Control (Graduation Level). The petitioner prepared for the

examination strictly in accordance with the notified syllabus.

However, when Paper V was conducted, some questions were

came allegedly outside the prescribed syllabus, i.e. questions

relating to Cost Accountancy, a subject not included in the notified

syllabus. It is further alleged that certain questions contained

9

incorrect figures. Despite objections raised by the petitioner, the

respondents declared the examination result on 20.12.2017

without considering the grievances. After obtaining his evaluated

answer script under the RTI Act, the petitioner submitted a

representation seeking revision of the result by deleting the

incorrect and out-of-syllabus questions and awarding appropriate

marks.

(ii) Aggrieved by the arbitrary conduct of the examination, the

petitioners filed W.P.(S) No. 6902 of 2018 and other connected

matters before this Court. During the proceedings, the Court

directed constitution of an expert committee to examine the

allegations regarding Paper V. The committee found that Question

No. 2(a) was partially incorrect, thereby acknowledging defects in

the question paper. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the

petitioner submitted detailed objections on 11.11.2024. However,

the respondents rejected the objections by order dated

22.11.2024 through a cryptic order without properly addressing

the petitioner's contentions regarding the out-of-syllabus and

incorrect questions. The respondents sought to justify the

inclusion of Cost Accountancy by relying on the graduation

syllabus of Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University and contending

that its omission from the notified syllabus was merely a

typographical error. The petitioner contends that such justification

is untenable, as the examination had to be conducted strictly

10

according to the syllabus published in the advertisement. The

respondents also relied upon the admit card, which allegedly

referred to Cost Accountancy. The petitioner submits that this

reliance is misplaced because many candidates did not receive

admit cards in time, compelling the Directorate to issue a public

notice permitting candidates to collect admit cards at the

examination centre by producing passport-size photographs

shortly before the examination. Thus, the petitioners had

legitimately prepared only on the basis of the officially notified

syllabus.

4.(a) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

respondents acted arbitrarily by setting questions in Paper V from

Cost Accountancy, despite the notified syllabus containing no

such subject. The syllabus, published along with the

advertisement and uploaded on the official website, did not

include Cost Accountancy, yet the question paper itself bore the

heading "Cost Accountancy" and all seven questions were framed

from that subject. Candidates were required to answer five out of

the seven questions, thereby compelling them to attempt

questions entirely outside the prescribed syllabus, which vitiated

the fairness of the selection process. Learned counsel submits

that Question No. 6(a) suffered from a material error, as the figure

of Rs.25 was wrongly printed instead of Rs. 2500, a fact

established through the copy of the original question paper

11

obtained under the RTI Act. Such an error rendered the question

incongruous and seriously prejudiced the candidates.

(b)According to the petitioners, several questions were drawn

from Advanced Accountancy and Advanced Cost Accountancy,

subjects forming part of the M.Com. syllabus and not the notified

syllabus for the present examination. The respondents'

subsequent plea that omission of Cost Accountancy from the

syllabus was merely a typographical error is wholly untenable, as

candidates cannot be made to suffer for the authorities' own

negligence. No material has been placed on record to show that

responsibility for such a serious lapse was ever fixed or that any

corrective action was taken. Learned counsel further submits that

the respondents' reliance on the admit card, which incidentally

mentioned Cost Accountancy in the timetable, is equally

misconceived. The notified syllabus alone governs the scope of

the examination, and candidates were entitled to prepare

accordingly. Likewise, the rejection of the petitioners' objections

on the ground that candidates ought to have answered the

questions despite typographical errors reflects a casual and

arbitrary approach.

(c)Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner did not

receive the admit card prior to the scheduled examination. The

Directorate issued an undated public notice stating that

candidates who had not received their admit cards would be

12

provided the same at the respective examination centres one hour

before the commencement of the examination. The issuance of

such a public notice itself indicates that the respondent authorities

were conscious of the fact that, owing to the belated issuance of

the admit cards shortly before the scheduled date of examination,

several candidates might not have received them in time. Such

lapses strike at the very fairness, transparency, and legality of the

selection process and cannot be sustained in law.

5.(I)Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents would

submit that the Subordinate Accounts Service (Departmental)

Examination is conducted by the Finance Department for

employees of the accounts cadre, and qualifying the examination

is necessary for promotion. Pursuant to the advertisement dated

27.04.2017, the petitioners appeared in the examination and

subsequently challenged the evaluation. Learned counsel further

submits that in the earlier round of litigations by a common order

dated 10.09.2024, this Court directed the respondent authorities

to decide the petitioners' objections after granting them a personal

hearing. In compliance with the directions of this Court, expert

committee was constituted to examine the grievances. After

considering the petitioners' written submissions and granting them

a personal hearing, the committee concluded that the questions in

Paper V were based on the B.Com. Second Year syllabus

prescribed by Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University and were

13

within the required standard. Learned counsel further submits that

the committee further found that omission of the words "Cost

Accounts" from the advertisement dated 27.04.2017 was merely a

clerical error. The complete title of Paper V, including "Cost

Accounts", was correctly reflected in the admit cards issued prior

to the examination, thereby informing all candidates of the

subjects covered.

(II)Learned counsels submit that the Subordinate Accounts

Service (Departmental) Examination is conducted by the Finance

Department for promotion of employees in the accounts cadre.

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.04.2017, the petitioners

appeared in the examination and subsequently challenged the

evaluation. By order dated 10.09.2024, this Court directed the

respondents to consider their objections after granting a personal

hearing. In compliance, an expert committee considered the

petitioners' written submissions and personal hearing and found

that the questions in Paper V were based on the B.Com. II Year

syllabus prescribed by Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University. The

committee further held that omission of the words "Cost Accounts"

from the advertisement was only a clerical error, as the complete

title of Paper V was correctly mentioned in the roll numbers and

examination timetable issued before the examination.

(III)By placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the

14

Supreme Court in the matter of Employees State Insurance

Corporation v. Union of India and Others (2022) 11 SCC 392,

learned counsel for the State would submit that in the event of a

conflict between the statement in an advertisement and the

service regulations, the latter shall prevail. Thus, the incorporation

of Cost Accountancy subject is just and proper and there is no

illegality at all. Accordingly, the examination was conducted fairly

and the petitioners' objections were rightly rejected.

6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

pleadings and documents.

7.The undisputed facts are that the petitioners participated in the

Chattisgarh Subordinate Accounts Services (Departmental)

Examination Part II conducted between 08/08/2017 to

14/08/2017. In the said examination, the syllabus was uploaded

on the official website of the Department. It is an undisputed fact

that the published syllabus did not include the subject Cost

Accountancy. However, the said subject was introduced for the

first time in the admit cards issued to the candidates. It is also

borne out from the record that some of the petitioners received

their admit cards only a few days before the commencement of

the examination, while others received them at the examination

center merely few hours before the examination. Consequently,

the petitioners had no prior notice or reasonable opportunity to

prepare for the newly introduced subject of Cost Accountancy.

15

Nevertheless, they appeared in the examination and, owing to the

inclusion of the said subject without adequate prior notification,

they were unable to secure the qualifying marks and consequently

failed to clear the examination.

8.By raising their grievances, earlier, the petitioners approached this

Court by filing WPS No.6902/2018 and connected matters,

wherein this Court directed the respondents authorities to

constitute a Committee and looking to the grievances of the

petitioners. Subsequently, on receipt of the report of the

Committee, this Court disposed of the writ petition and remanded

back the matter to the authority to consider and decide the

objection raised by the petitioner after affording due opportunity of

personal hearing to them. Thereafter, the petitioner raised

objection before the authorities who vide order dated 22/11/2024

rejected the objections raised by the petitioners without due

appreciation of the material placed by the petitioners.

9.It is an admitted fact that the subject Cost Accountancy was never

notified by the respondent authorities as part of the prescribed

syllabus. The said subject was introduced for the first time only at

the stage of issuance of the admit cards. If the omission of the

subject from the published syllabus was on account of a

typographical or clerical error on the part of the respondent

authorities, it was incumbent upon them to rectify the mistake by

granting the petitioners adequate notice and sufficient time to

16

prepare for the newly introduced subject, rather than merely

mentioning it in the admit cards issued immediately prior to the

examination.

10.It is also evident from the material available on record that the

objections raised by the petitioners with regard to alleged

incorrect questions, the same have also been rejected in a cryptic

manner, that too, without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons.

11.It is a settled principle of law that the rules of the game cannot be

changed after the game has begun. Equally well settled is the

principle that where an earlier notification prescribing the syllabus

is superseded or modified by a subsequent notification issued

before the commencement of the examination, the later

notification alone governs the selection process and prevails over

the earlier one. Therefore, if the authorities intended to alter or

correct the syllabus, they were required to do so by issuing a

proper corrigendum or a fresh notification sufficiently in advance

of the examination so as to afford the candidates a reasonable

opportunity to prepare.

12.In the present case, once the respondent authorities had

published the syllabus and invited eligible candidates to

participate in the examination on that basis, it was not open to

them to introduce an altogether new subject, namely, Cost

Accountancy, merely through the admit cards issued immediately

17

prior to the examination. Even assuming that the omission of the

said subject from the earlier published syllabus was attributable to

a clerical or typographical error, the respondents were duty-bound

to rectify the same by issuing an appropriate corrigendum or a

fresh notification and by granting adequate time to the candidates

to prepare for the newly introduced subject. In the absence of

such a valid re-notification, the respondents could not alter the

basis of selection at the eleventh hour through the admit cards.

Such a course is contrary to the settled doctrine that the rules of

the game cannot be changed after the game has commenced.

13.With regard to the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

State upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Supra)

wherein it has been observed that, in respect of service

jurisprudence, in the event of a conflict between the statement in

an advertisement and the service regulations, the latter shall

prevail, there is no doubt in this regard. However, in the case at

hand, at the last few days, that too through the admit cards, the

respondent authorities incorporated the new subject of Cost

Accountancy. Even some of the candidates got the admit cards at

the examination center just a few hours before the examination. If

the respondents intended to incorporate the subject of Cost

Accountancy, they were always at liberty to do the same.

However, prior thereto, they ought to have provided some time to

18

the candidates by extending the date of the examination, but the

same has not been done.

14.Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case

in their proper perspective, this Court is of the considered view

that the respondent authorities failed to publish the subject Cost

Accountancy in the prescribed syllabus within a reasonable time.

The said subject was notified only through the admit cards issued

to the candidates, which cannot be regarded as due or adequate

prior notification.

15.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. The order dated

22.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), as well as the result published on

20.12.2017 (Annexure P-2), are hereby quashed. However, the

respondent authorities shall be at liberty to conduct the

Chhattisgarh Subordinate Accounts Services (Departmental)

Examination, Part II, afresh after duly notifying the complete

syllabus in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations.

The revised syllabus shall be communicated to all eligible

candidates well in advance of the examination so as to afford

them adequate opportunity for preparation.

16.There shall be no order as to cost(s). SD/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

Judge

Gowri/ Amardeep