A.C. Upadhyay, J.

1. The appellants (respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the writ petition) are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.5.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 208(AP)/2007.

2. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, and Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.

3. The facts, admitted by the parties, which are essential for disposal of the writ appeal, may be stated as follows.

4. The writ petitioner i.e. respondent No. 3 herein, had challenged the legality and validity of the selection process of the appellants herein, for the post of Tourist Information Officer, a Group 'C non-Gazetted post, under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 3 herein, contended in his petition that the Tourist Information Officer Recruitment Rules, 1999, which was framed in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution recommended the method of recruitment, age, qualifications etc., which however was silent as regards the criteria for short-listing candidates for the viva voce test, pursuant to the written test examination. In order to fill up this gap in the recruitment rules the State respondent issued an executive instruction by way of Office Memorandum on 28.8.2006 regarding recruitment examination of various Government departments providing for a minimum qualifying marks of 45% in the written test and restricting the number of candidates to be called for the viva voce test to 3 times the available number of vacancies for recruitment i.e. at the ratio of 1:3.

5. On 14.9.2006 the advertisement was issued by the state respondent, for recruitment of 8 posts of Tourist Information Officer. Pursuance to the above advertisement the respondent No. 3, together with the appellants numbering about 2300 candidates appeared in the selection test conducted for the aforesaid pots.

6. On 14th March 07, the respondent No. 2 by an advertisement published in the local newspaper, informed in all 51 candidates, who had qualified for the viva voce test. The advertisement indicated only the Roll numbers of the candidates selected for viva voce test, directing them to appear on 30/3/2007 before the Selection Board. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 3 who qualified for the viva voce test together with the appellants, accordingly appeared before the Selection Board for viva voce test. Pursuant to the viva voce test conducted by the Section Board the impugned select list was published on 3.4.2007 by the state respondent, wherein the writ petitioner/respondent No. 3 in spite of doing extremely well in the examination was not selected and as such he immediately applied under Right to Information Act, 2005 to get hold of the marks obtained by all the candidates selected and interviewed.

7. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 3 to his utter surprise discovered that instead of calling only 24 candidates in the ratio of 1:3, as per the office memorandum dated 28.8.2006 for the viva voce test, for selection of 8 post, the respondent authorities had called in all 51 candidates in violation of the norms set by the office memorandum aforesaid. The petitioner/respondent No. 3, immediately submitted representation on 24.5.2007 before the State respondent and before other State authorities alleging irregularities in the selection process, but to no avail. Thus having failed in all fronts petitioner/respondent No. 3 filed the writ petition aforesaid seeking relief as indicated in the writ petition. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 3 No. 3 also contended that very high marks were awarded to the appellants herein by the respondents, with a mala fide intention of accommodating them in the list of final 8 candidates selected for the post.

8. The State respondent supporting the stand of the appellants filed affidavit admitting the fact of selecting candidates beyond 3 times the number of vacancies on the pretext of having seve