The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation policy of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, reserving 80% of the posts for APST candidates, did not exclude APST candidates from competing for the 20% unreserved posts based on merit, in accordance with Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh is in appeal being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 27.4.2004 quashing the impugned select list dated 5.11.2003 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) and restoring the select list dated 26.6.2003 with consequential directions for appointment to posts in Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service (Entry Grade) and Arunachal Pradesh General Service on the basis thereof. While admitting the appeals, the operation of the impugned judgment and order was stayed mentioning further that all appointments made on the basis of the select list dated 5.11.2003 would be subject to the decision therein.

2. We have heard Mr. CKS Baruah, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, Sr. Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State Appellants and Mr. C. Baruah, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. U.J. Saikia, Advocates for the Respondents/writ Petitioners.

3. All the appeals having raised the common question of law in identical setting of facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The Respondents/writ Petitioners, non Arunachal Pradesh Schedule Tribes (hereafter referred to as the APST)/General candidates offered their candidature in response to the advertisement dated 8.6.2001 issued by the Commission for admission to Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Competitive Examination (APSCCE), Preliminary Examination, 2001-02 for recruitment to 63 Group "A" and "B" posts/ services of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as set out therein. The advertisement apart from setting out the conditions of eligibility mentioned about reservation of posts as per the Government of Arunachal Pradesh Reservation Policy as 80:20, i.e. 80% of the posts would be reserved for the APST candidates and the rest 20% would be unreserved (open competition). The number of posts subsequent thereto and during the process rose to 98.

5. The applications submitted by the Respondents/writ Petitioners were accepted and they having cleared the preliminary examination were allowed to appear in the main examination held in the month of September 2002. All of them having come out successful in the said examination, they were called for interview/viva voce in the month of May 2003. At that stage, some unsuccessful candidates approached this Court with WP(C) 125 (AP)/03 to interdict the process. Initially, this Court granted the interim relief but on application being filed by the State Appellant registered as MC 163 (AP)/03, the interim order staying the process was vacated on 16.9.200-3. A select list dated 26.6.2003 was thereafter published in which the names of the Respondents/Petitioners appeared as shown herein below.

Petitioner Writ Petition SI.No.

P-1 WP(C) 363 (AP)/2003 45

P-2 WP(C) 363 (AP)/2003 40

P-3 WP(C) 363 (AP)/2003 43

P-4 WP(C) 363 (AP)/2003 75

P-5 WP(C) 363 (AP)/2003 88

P WP(C) 367 (AP)/2003 49

P-1 WP(C) 330 (AP)/2003 94

P-2 WP(C) 330 (AP)/2003 53

P-3 WP(C) 330 (AP)/2003 51

P-4 WP(C) 330 (AP)/2003 65

P-5 WP(C) 330 (AP)/2003 68

P-1 WP(C) 81 (AP)/2004 38

P-2 WP(C) 81 (AP)/2004 42

6. The select list disclosed that 98 candidates had been selected in order of merit as the number of posts in between had increased. While the Respondents/writ Petitioners were thus waiting in bonafide expectation of being appointed on the basis of their selection, the impugned notification dated 5.11.2003 was issued by the Commission publishing a fresh select list canceling the earlier dated 26.6.2003. The list contained names of 84 candidates with only two non-APST/General candidates at SI. No.(s) 11 and 12. This list too was represented to be in order of merit. As the names of the Respondents/writ Petitioners got deleted in the process and were not included in the impugned select list, they approached this Court with different writ petitions as above, assailing the same. In essence, they contended that the office m