The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation policy in public service recruitment must be understood in line with the provisions contained in Article 16(4) of the Constitution, and the 20% of the posts were not exclusively earmarked for non-APST candidates.

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The two appeals under consideration were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court. By judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 the appeals were allowed. Aggrieved, some of the respondents in the appeals moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed a conflict between the judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 and an earlier judgment of the Division Bench rendered on identical facts in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. reported in 2002(1) GLT 223. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 was set aside and the matter remanded to this Court for consideration by a larger Bench. This is how the appeals have been posted before us.

2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed at the outset.

An advertisement dated 8.6.2001 was issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for recruitment to 63 posts in Group-A & B. In the advertisement issued it was clearly mentioned that as per the reservation policy in force in the State of Arunachal Pradesh 80% of the posts are reserved for APST candidates and the remaining 20% are unreserved (open competition).

3. The petitioners, who are non-APST candidates, applied pursuant to the advertisement issued and took part in the selection held. On 26.6.2003 a merit list of 98 candidates (the number of posts available in the meantime increased to 98) was published wherein the names of the petitioners appeared. According to the petitioners, they were awaiting their appointment orders. However, on 5.11.2003 the Commission published a fresh select list containing 84 names which did not include the petitioners. In the select list dated 5.11.2003 only two non-APST candidates were included at Serial Nos. 11 and 12. It must be noticed at this stage that upon publication of the select list dated 5.11.2003, the earlier select list dated 26.6.2003 was cancelled.

4. Aggrieved by the publication of the subsequent select list dated 5.11.2003 the writ petitions out of which these appeals have arisen were filed, essentially, contending that the 20% of the posts were exclusively earmarked for non-APST candidates and further that APST candidates were not eligible for selection against the said posts. The petitioners also contended that open competition in respect of the 20% of the posts is required to be understood to be confined amongst only non-APST candidates in view of the fact that 80% of the posts were earmarked for APST candidates. The reservation policy of the State was, however, not under challenge in the writ petitions filed.

5. The State respondents impleaded in the writ petitions i.e. appellants before us, contested the claims made by the writ petitioners by contending that in terms of the relevant notifications in force, details of which are being noticed later, while 80% of the posts reserved for APST candidates were to be exclusively filled up by such candidates on the basis of their inter se merit, the remaining 20% of the posts, being required to be filled up by open competition, even APST candidates were eligible to be selected against the said 20% posts on the basis of their merit as against the non-APST candidates. The respondent State specifically contended that the exclusion of the petitioners from the select list and the inclusion of the APST candidates in place of the petitioners was by virtue of the better merit of such APST candidates.

6. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petitions took the view that in view of the earlier decision of the Division Bench in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) the selection of APST candidates against the posts earmarked under the 20% category was not correct and therefore the subsequent select list dated 5.11.2003 was not legally tenable. Accordingly, directions were issued for operation of the first select list dated 26.6.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present appeals have been filed by the State.

7. The above recitation makes it a