Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Nisheeth Yadav for the U.P. Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“(a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to send requisition for calling name of the petitioner against 34 vacancies (as candidatures of 10 persons have been cancelled and 24 persons have not joined).

(b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Commission after receiving the said requisition name of the petitioner and other similarly situated person may be recommended for necessary action.

(c) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to take proper action on the recommendation so made by the Commission and issue appointment letter etc. and also provide consequential benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.

(d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) And award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Brief background of the case, as reflected from the record, is that Public Service Commission, U.P. at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to, as the Commission) published an advertisement No. A-3/E-1/2004 in Employment News 25-31 December, 2004 (in short, advertisement 2004) for filling up 16 vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) (General-8, SC-4 and OBC-4) in Irrigation Department. The petitioner belongs to general category and possesses requisite qualification. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the post in question. Thereafter, the Commission again made an advertisement No. A-6/E-1/2007 (in short, the advertisement 2007) on 12.1.2008 for filling up 163 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), out of which 88 (General-44, OBC-24, SC-18 and ST-2) posts were earmarked for Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department. As per instruction of advertisement 2007, the candidates, who had applied for 16 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) against the advertisement 2004 in general recruitment, need not apply again. Finally the combined examination of advertisement 2004 and advertisement 2007 was conducted for 179 vacancies (16 vacancies of advertisement 2004 and 163 vacancies of advertisement 2007), out of which 102 vacancies (16 + 88) were earmarked for Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department. The petitioner admittedly cleared the written examination and faced the interview. Finally the result was declared by the Commission on 10.3.2011. Against advertisement 2004 out of 16 vacancies, 14 candidates were recommended by the Commission, out of which 11 were given appointments and 2 posts were carried forward. For advertisement 2007 against 88 vacancies, 87 candidates were selected. Due to non-availability of ST candidates, two posts reserved for SC were filled up by SC candidates and due to non-availability of suitable candidates, one post of OBC category was carried forward.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the selection for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Irrigation Department is governed by the statutory Service Rules known as “Uttar Pradesh Engineer Service (Irrigation Department) (Group B) Service Rules, 1993” (in short, the Rules 1993). Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 of Rules 1993 clearly postulates that it is incumbent upon the Commission to prepare the merit list of total requisitioned posts and thereafter 25% additional names are to be forwarded to the Appointing Authority. He submitted that the objections raised by the respondents precisely on the basis of G.O 1999, that the wait list is not prepared in the combined selection except in single cadre post, could not be sustainable and the same i