JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:

“In the premises aforesaid your Petitioner humbly prays that your Lordship may be please to admit this petition, call for records of the case and issue rule on the respondents to show cause as to why:

1. A writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned notice no. NEIFM/211/Advt./2016/P-III/867 dated Pasighat the 3rd August, 2022 with regard to the Petitioner herein as being arbitrary.

2. A writ of certiorari should not be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned advertisement no. 07/2022 dated 07/12/2022 with regard to petitioner already being selected.

3. A writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued to issue a suitable direction commanding the respondents to comply with the exam result notification No. 2-158/2019/NEIAH/ADMN/NEIFM/REQ/dated 24/03/2020 and issue appointment letters to the selectees.”

3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 08.