JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Is it open to State Government and Public Service Commission to apply Government order dated 20th January, 1979 differently to persons similarly situated is the important question that arises for consideration in this petition directed against order of the Public Service Commission rejecting the representation of petitioner for recommending to State Government to appoint him in one of the vacancies of police service occurring due to non joining of the selected candidates. 2. How has this arisen may be narrated in brief. The petitioner was a candidate in Combined State Service Examination conducted by Public Service Commission for the year 1980-81. The result was declared on 18th September, 1981. The name of petitioner appeared in Allied and Accounts Service. After declaration of result some of the candidates who were selected for provincial Civil Service examination did not join. Consequently on their places the candidates who had been selected for the post of provincial police service were offered appointments and they joined is well. As a result of reshuffling five of the candidates who had been selected for the Provincial Police service had been appointed in the Provincial Civil Service and five other candidates who had already been selected for the post of provincial police service did not join. 3. The selected candidates of Civil Service and Police service were offered appointments in December, 1982 and January 1983. The candidates of other services including accounts were offered appointment in May, 1983. The petitioner joined in August,1983. Immediately thereafter on coming to know that vacancies in Civil and Police services and Sales tax Officers had fallen vacant due to non joining or reshuffling he made a representation on 24ih August, 1982, that is within 20 days from the date of his joining to the commission through proper channel that he may be offered one of the post in either of the services. It was rejected as according to Commission one year period provided for filling of the vacancies within one year from the date of declaration of result by virtue of Government order issued on 30th January, 1979 had expired The question, therefore, is whether the commission was justified in rejecting the representation and the State Government in not appointing petitioner to one of the posts either in Police Service or as Sales tax Officer. 4. 4. Clause (3) of the Government order dated 30th January, 1979 translated in English provides that the Government after due consideration has taken decision that after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the result of State Combined Services Examination conducted by the Commission no alteration shall be made in the allotment due to occurring of vacancies in any service and the result of the said examination shall not be made use of in respect of the said vacancies. To make this order effective the Government issued another order in 1981 and fixed a time table within which the appointment letters may be issued and candidates may join. It also provides and the circumstances in which the candidature of any selected candidate may be deemed to come to an end giving rise to vacancy. AH this exercise was taken so that any vacancy arising due to non joining of a candidate may be filled within one year. Clause (3) 1981 order also provided that in the vacancy thus arising fresh names may be called within one year as provided by the order dated 30th January, 1979. Yet another order has been issued in 1985 but it is not necessary to refer to it. 5. Whether the expression one year from the date of declaration of result should be understood and applied rigidly or it can be relaxed raises both issues of fact and law. Legally the issue-is what was the objective of the order and how it has to be construed. In clause (2) the reason for issuing the order is mentioned. It is stated that Government was facing administrative difficulties in filling of vacancies caused due to non joining of candidates after many years. To /remove this it took the decision to provide time limit during which it should be done. The objective was to remove uncertainty and avoid problems for instant seniority, promotion etc. If things proceed, as normally it should, and the declaration of result, issuance of appointment letters, occurrence of vacancies take place within one year there is no difficulty. But what happens if the results even after declaration are communicated late and the appointment letters itself are issued after one year. After all the declaration of result and placing of a candidate amongst selected candidates creates a right in his favour. He cannot be deprived of it. But what happens if the results even after declaration are communicated late and the appointment letters itself are issued after one year. After all the declaration of result and placing of a candidate amongst selected candidates creates a right in his favour. He cannot be deprived of it. In combined services Examination certain priorities are fixed. For instance, it appears the candidates with better marks, subject to their option are offered first civil Service, the police service, and so on and so forth.. But (he candidate with lesser marks placed down in the list has a right to move up if the candidate higher than him does not join. He cannot be deprived of this right except in accordance with law. 6. Factually the result was declared in September, 1981 but it was sent by Commission to Government in December, 1981. And the Government issued the appointment letters to candidates of Civil Service in July, 1982. But some did not join. Vacancy thus caused was filled by candidates selected from police service. In addition to it some of the selected candidates for police service did not join. According to the petitioner six, whereas the stand of Government is that the candidature of six was cancelled when was it cancelled has not been disclosed. If it was cancelled prior to January, 1983 and within one year from the date of declaration of result then the vacancy arose within one year and itcould have been filled even after expiry of one year as held by this court in Ram Naresh v. State, C.M.W. No. 15243 of 1986 decided on April 5, 1987. It is, however, undisputed that vacancies in Civil Services and even police services were filled after expiry of one year from the date of declaration of result. This could not have been done if the Government order of 30th January, 1979 was strictly applied. But the commission itself relaxed the applicability of the Government order" while recommending names from police service to Civil Service even though the request was received from Government by two letters sent in October, 1982 because even though it was after one year from the date of declaration of result but within one year from the date of communication. No rule or order has been "pointed out under which this was done. Except of course it can be justified on rule of convenience. No rule or order has been "pointed out under which this was done. Except of course it can be justified on rule of convenience. Even there public authority to be consistent. It cannot pick and choose. It was held by this court in Phool Chandra Yadav v. State, C.M.W. No. 3690 of 1981 decided on 6th March, 1984. Even in the matter of relaxation of a policy decision the Government is expected to act without discrimination. 7. What happens if vacancy arises after one year because the process of issuing appointment letter etc. itself commences after one year from the date of declaration of result. Obviously the Government order cannot apply. No one can be prejudiced for fault or mistake for which he is neither responsible nor over which he has control. More so when it is due to fault of other. It applies with greater vehemence where the defaulting party is public body. Therefore on no rationale the petitioner could be penalised for delay in issuance of appointment letter and consequent delayed occurrence of vacancies. If the commission would have recommended immediately after declaration of result and the appointment letters had been issued within two and half months as provided in Government order of 1982 and the vacancy would have arisen due to non-joining within 30 days then petitioner would have been entitled as a matter of right to one of the post in police service. That right is not taken away or effected if the entire process of issuing appointment letters, etc. commenced in January, 1983 after expiry of nearly one year and four months declaration of result. If the Government order of January, 1979 is applied to such cases it shall deprive the selected candidates of their right for being appointed to the post for which they had completed and were successful. 8. This apart the Government and the commission are expected to act uniformly and with even hand. They could not pick one or the other in violation of their own order and policy and shower benefit on some and refuse it to other. But that is what unfortunately happened. 8. This apart the Government and the commission are expected to act uniformly and with even hand. They could not pick one or the other in violation of their own order and policy and shower benefit on some and refuse it to other. But that is what unfortunately happened. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed by Commission it is admitted that the State Government had asked for additional names for the post of Civil Service by two letters in October, 1982 in the vacancies which occurred due to non-joining and the commission sent.' the names in December, 1982 and February, 1983. The explanation Offered for sending the names in lieu of request made by Government after one year from the date of declaration of results is defeated because the commission delayed in-communicating the result. According to it since the request was within one year from communication it was accepted. Further in the counter affidavit filed by State it is admitted that candidate of one Ram Kripal Singh selected for police service was cancelled and in his place Satya Vir Singh was appointed. In respect of others, the Commission refused as it was barred by time. Therefore, even though in all the cases namely, additional names for Civil Service and one in place of Ram Kripal Upadhya the State Government and the commission acted in violation of the Government order dated 30th January, 1979 the Government was not willing to bend in others. The action became discriminately and destructive rule of law. The argument of learned counsel for commission that even if opposite parties acted illegally in some cases they should not be directed to perpetrate, it by extending it to others is a lame argument, as no better excuse can be offered. 9. Further one, Hari Singh Shukla one of the candidates who was lower in order of merit to petitioner approached this court by way of writ petitioner No. 4695 of 1985. The petitioner was allowed on 3rd November, 1987 and direction was issued to commission to recommend his name for the post of sales tax officer. The court further took undertaking from petitioner that he shall not raise any question of seniority. It takes care of the basic reasons for issuing the order dated 30th January, 1979. That appears to be reasonable. The petitioner is present in Court. The court further took undertaking from petitioner that he shall not raise any question of seniority. It takes care of the basic reasons for issuing the order dated 30th January, 1979. That appears to be reasonable. The petitioner is present in Court. He gives similar undertaking as was given in Hari Shanker's case. 10. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to the Public Service Commission to recommend the name of petitioner to State Government for appointing him to one of the posts in provincial police Service on basis of Combined State service Examination of 1980 the result of which was declared in September, 1981 within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. The order has been passed subject to the undertaking of the petitioner that he shall not claim seniority in the cadre of police service over and above any one appointed prior to him either from 1980-81 examination or any examination held after it.