The main legal point established is that the application of reservation and the 100 point roster should be in accordance with the specific provisions and should not result in the displacement of candidates based on merit.

Heard Mrs G. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, for the appellant and Mr B.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner).

2. By an advertisement issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, APPSC), dated 23.9.99, applications were invited for filling up 22 posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil), Group 'B' (Gazetted) under the Irrigation and Flood Control Department. Out of these 22 posts, 18 posts were reserved for the Scheduled Tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. This reservation is pursuant to the notification issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, dated 24.9.90, which reads as under:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to order that 80% (Eighty percent) of the Group 'B' posts which are filled up by direct recruitment shall be reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe candidates.

This notification shall come into force with immediate effect."

3. In passing we may notice that the indigenous inhabitants of Arunachal Pradesh, all belong to Scheduled Tribes. In other words, 80% of the posts are meant for Arunachalees and 20% of trie posts, under the notification, are to go to non-Arunachalees. One Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav and another person, Shri Sanjoy Kumar Srivastava, both non-Arunachalees, apart from some others, had applied as non-Arunachalees. Shri Yadav and Shri Srivastava were recommended by the APPSC by keeping them on the combined merit list of non-Arunachalees and Arunachalees at SI. Nos. 8 and 14, respectively. However, it may be observed here that amongst the non-Arunachalees, Sarvashri Ashok Kumar Yadav and Sanjoy Kumar Srivastava were at SI. Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, in the merit list. It may further be observed here that the candidates at SI. Nos. 1 and 2 in the merit list amongst the Arunachalee happened to get more marks than Shri Yadav and Shri Srivastava, who were at SI. Nos. 3 and 4 amongst the non-Arunachalees. What the State Government did was that since the candidates at SI. Nos. 1 and 2 amongst the Arunachalees were better in merit than those at SI. Nos. 3 and 4 amongst the non-Arunachalees (Sarvashri Yadav and Srivastava), they shifted the two Arunachalees to the category of non-Arunachalees and removed the names of the candidates at SI. Nos. 3 and 4 amongst the non-Arunachalees and added the candidates at SI. Nos. 19 and 20 amongst the Arunachalees to be amongst the first 18 candidates. However, prior to doing all this, Sarvashri Ashok Kumar Yadav and Sanjoy Srivastava had been given the offer of appointment and Shri Yadav, who was working in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, was asked to resign that post before joining as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Pursuant to the offer of appointment, in fact, Shri Yadav resigned from his post. So far as Shri Srivastava is concerned, he was already in some other job in the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

4. When, the aforesaid facts came to the knowledge of the State Government, they withdrew the offer of appointment to Sarvashri Yadav and Srivastava and gave appointment to two Arunachalees who were initially at SI. Nos. 19 and 20 amongst the Arunachalees. This led Shri Yadav and Shri Srivastava to file two separate writ petitions, i.e., WP(C) No. 147(AP)/2000 and WP(C) No. 148(AP)/2000, respectively. Both these writ petitions have been allowed by the common judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 8.2.2002. The State of Arunachal Pradesh has filed the present appeal against the judgment in WP(C) No. 147(AP)/2000. However, so far the State Government has not filed any appeal against the judgment in WP(C) No. 148(AP)/2000.

5. Notice of motion was issued. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Counsel for Mr Yadav submitted that what the State Government has done is to apply the ratio of R.K. Sabarwal case of the Apex Court, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745, by considering that it w