Judgment U. P. Singh, J The Union of the Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees through its Secretary General and others are the petitioners seeking appropriate direction from this Court by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India commanding the respondent Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to recommend the names of the petitioners and other successful candidates for appointment according to their seniority in the merit list on the posts of the Secretariat Assistant within the State of Bihar. 2. The petitioners appeared in the 1986 Examination for the posts of Assistant in the Secretariat and other connected offices of the Government of Bihar held by the respondent Board. In pursuance of the advertisement No.11/85 published by it on 25.8.1985 for the posts of Secretariat and connected offices, unemployed Graduates including the petitioners 2 to 5 applied in the prescribed form along with the requisite information and documents as prescribed in the advertisement. Similar advertisements 6/85 and 4/85 were published inviting applications for different posts and the advertisements were for recruitment of Class III posts within the State. The examination for the posts of Secretariat Assistant was held at different Examination Centers within the State in November, 1987. The petitioners along with others appeared in that examination. It is strange that the result of this examination was published only in July, 1990, and in the advertisement published in the year 1985 the number of vacancies were not disclosed. 3. In his communication dated 25.8.1987, the Joint Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms informed the Secretary of the Board giving the break up of the vacancies in a tabulated form and the total vacancies then existing were shown as 357. The Board was requested to recommend the names of the selected candidates at the earliest to fill up those vacancies. In its further communication dated 22. 12.1988, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms informed the Chairman of the Board that, as per the decision of the Government, the list of selected candidates i.e. the panel prepared by the Board, shall be valid for one year at least and may remain valid until the first date of the next examination to be held for the posts by the respondents which have not been advertised after 1987 for the posts in question. In its letter dated 20.3.1990, the Board through its secretary requested the State Government that, since the result was in the process and was likely to be published, the vacancies after 1987 created in various offices for the posts of Secretariat Assistants be communicated for its recommendation and proper action. This was necessitated because the vacancies available only upto 1986 as communicated under Annexure 2 had been sent for recommendation. 4. After the publication of the result on 16.7.1990, the Secretary of the Board again requested the State Government for the required information regarding the up-to date Vacancies available for the posts since the results were ready and the up to date vacancies had not been communicated. In the mean-while, on the recommendation of the Board rated 31.7.1990, only 304 candidates were given appointment. The persons securing 58.5% marks in the general were appointed. The candidates securing more than 50% marks in the general category and whose names were in the select list were empanelled and made to await in anticipation of the release of further vacancies by the respondent State. 5 In its communication dated 15.9.1990 the Department of personnel and Administrative Reforms issued letters to all the Heads of Departments that since the vacancies uptill 31.12.1988 for the posts of Secretariat Assistants are available, further vacancies available in different office Departments be communicated so that the steps for filling up the posts be taken forthwith. The same request was reiterated in another letter dated 5.11.1990. The petitioners have brought on record photostat copies of the two letters dated 6.11.1990 and 30.11.1990 issued by the Department of Human Resources Development disclosing availability of 28 vacancies and the other by the Registrar, Home (Prison) Department disclosing two vacancies and the petitioners have, therefore prayed for direction to the respondents to disclose the future vacancies which are not within their possession. The grievance of the petitioners is that out of 357 vacancies disclosed only 304 vacancies were filled up and the vacancies available uptill 31.12.1988 and thereafter are not being communicated by the State to the respondent Board for giving appointment to the persons in the merit list as per their seniority which is affecting their fundamental right of being considered for such appointment in pursuance of their selection made by the Board. The fact is undisputed that the petitioners applied for the employment in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 1985 and since the year 1985 no other advertisement was published by the respondent Board for filling up the posts of Secretariat Assistants and other connected offices. This situation has continued till the year 1991. 6. In the meanwhile, a policy decision was taken on 25.1.1990 deciding that the minimum qualifying marks for the S.C./S.T. candidates shall be 33.33%, for Backward class (Annexure 1) 35% and for the General candidates 40%. In the said resolution, it was further decided that the cut off date for the 2nd Graduate Standard examination, 1986, held by the Board shall be from the date of the publication of the result, i.e., 11.2.1988 to the further date 31.12.1989. It is worth noticing that the said advertisement for the second Graduate Standard Examination was published along with the present advertisement for the posts of Secretariat Assistants. A copy of the said memo dated 25.1.1990 has been annexed marked Annexure 10. Taking into account these facts and circumstances, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar vide his letter dated 12.12.1990 issued to the Departments further informed that the cut off date for the 36th Combined Competitive examinations shall be further extended to March 1991 and the availability of vacancies for filling up the posts shall be determined accordingly under the policy of the State Government to give employment to one lakh unemployed youths. Similarly, the Department of Home (police) vide it communication issued on 13.2.1990 extended the cut off date till 30.6.1990 for the vacancies to be filled up as per the advertisement published by the Respondent Board for the posts of sub Inspector and equivalent posts, the result of which was published on 30.6.1989. The said letter has been annexed Annexure 10/2. 7. A perusal of Annexure 10 series makes it evident that the examination held in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 1985, the cut off date for all the competitive examinations held by the Board were extended due to administrative and other reasons. In so far as the present case is concerned, after 1985 no advertisement for the posts of Secretariat Assistants was ever published. 8. In so far as the present case is concerned, after 1985 no advertisement for the posts of Secretariat Assistants was ever published. 8. In the case of I.J. Divakar and other v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another ( AIR 1982 SC 1555 ), it was said .: "A hope was generated in their minds that if they can successfully compete and come within the zone of selection they would be able to secure Government Service." In the said case, fresh Engineering Graduates had applied for the posts of Junior Engineer in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission. They had appeared at the viva voce test but, by subsequent regularisation of services of temporary Government servants the euphoria generated by the advertisement proved a mirage. Appearing for the respondents, the learned Solicitor General, with his typical fairness, stated that a number of posts of Junior Engineers for which requisition was pending with the Commission were still available and, therefore, their lordships of the Supreme Court directed that, in order to do justice between the parties and not leave fresh young Engineering Graduates, in lurch, the Commission shall proceed to finalise the list of selection on the basis of the test conducted and marks assigned and forward the same to the Government and, if the candidates so selected fell within the zone of selection, they must be first appointed according to their place in the select list before any outsider is appointed to the post of junior Engineer in any branch of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service. 9. In the case of State of Maharashtra V. Chandrabhan ( AIR 1983 SC 803 ), the Supreme Court said :- "......Public employment opportunity is national wealth in which all citizens are equally entitled to share and no class of people can monopolise public employment in the quise of 'efficiency' or other ground but the right to equal opportunity to public employment cannot be treated as a new form of private property with its attribute of competitive exploitation." 10. In some what similar circumstances, while considering the case of Surya Narain Yadav and others. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others ( AIR 1985 SC 941 ), the Supreme Court held :- "... the Board was aware of the position that these trainee engineers formed a special class and very peculiar circumstances warranted a definitely special treatment in regard to them. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others ( AIR 1985 SC 941 ), the Supreme Court held :- "... the Board was aware of the position that these trainee engineers formed a special class and very peculiar circumstances warranted a definitely special treatment in regard to them. Yet it is unfortunate that a statutory body like the Board has failed to stand up to its representations made from time to time to a group of engineers who had spent years of their valuable life for qualifying themselves as engineers and who believing the representation of the Board and acting upon the same continued to remain in the employment of the Board as trainee engineers foregoing opportunities available to seek other employments, and in the process have become age barred for any public employment. " In the case of Union of India v, Indo Afghan Agencies ( AIR 1968 SC 718 ), the Supreme Court held :- "Under our jurisprudence, the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot or: some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expedience fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an exparte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen. In the case of Collector of Bombay Vs. Municipal Corporation ( AIR 1951 SC 469 ), the Supreme Court said :- "Whether it is the equity recognised in Ransden's case (1866 LR I HL 129) or it is some other form of equity is not of much importance. Courts must do justice by the promotion of honesty and good faith, as far as it lies in their power." In the case of Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. Ulihasnagar Municipal Council ( AIR 1971 SC 1021 ), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows :- "Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representations of facts and promise made by them, relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. Ltd v. Ulihasnagar Municipal Council ( AIR 1971 SC 1021 ), the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows :- "Public bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry out representations of facts and promise made by them, relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. The obligation arising against all individual out of his representation amounting to a promise may be enforced ex contractu by a person who acts upon the promises, when the law requires that a contract enforceable at law against a public body shall be in certain form or be executed in the manner prescribed by statute, the obligation may be, if the contract be not in that form enforced against it in appropriate cases in equity" The Supreme Court added a pithy observation : "If our nascent democracy is to thrive, different standards of conduct for the people and the public bodies cannot be permitted. A public body is, in our judgment, not exempt from liability to carry out its obligations arising out of representations made by it relying upon which a citizen has altered his position to his prejudice." In the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ), the Supreme Court went ahead and said ;- "the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of estoppel, but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice and it can be basis of a cause of action." 11. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1979 SC 621 ), the Supreme Court went ahead and said ;- "the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principle of estoppel, but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice and it can be basis of a cause of action." 11. Admittedly, the advertisement published in the year 1985 and the examination held in leizurely manner in the year 1987 and the results published after 3 years only in the year 1990, on the basis of which the penal of successful selected candidates was prepared by the Board, are presenting peculiar features in this case, where for no fault of the petitioners, but on account of recalcitrant attitude of the respondents, the names of the successful selected candidates, who were awaiting for recommendation of their names by the Board, arc not being recommended since the vacancies were not made available by the State Government Till the other day, as per the normal practice and procedure adopted in the matter of appointment by the respondent State, the vacancies available till the date of publication of the results, were required to be filled up by the candidates of that examination. But, however, in the present case, the said principle and policy has been given a go bye without any cogent reason. On the other hand, the same advantage has been given in the case of other similarly situate persons who have appeared in the test for other posts under the respondent State. The petitioners are unemployed graduates. They obtained 50% marks in the written test and are not being given employment. Most of them would now be on the verge of crossing their age bar to appear in any further test and they are being denied the right of employment and are being illegally deprived of their livelihood which amounts to deprivation of life and is thus violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have, therefore, been legitimately demanding their right to be Considered first for such appointment on the posts of Secretariat Assistant against the vacancies available on the date of Publication of their result, i.e. 31.7.1990. The petitioners have, therefore, been legitimately demanding their right to be Considered first for such appointment on the posts of Secretariat Assistant against the vacancies available on the date of Publication of their result, i.e. 31.7.1990. The petitioners rave brought on record a letter dated 7.9.1990 issued to the Secretary to the respondent Board informing that the Chief Minister, Incharge of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, wants to give appointment to the persons who have secured up to 40% marks in the written test in pursuance of the advertisement no. 11/85 for the posts of Secretariat Assistant. It was, therefore, requested that the candidates who have not been given appointment but have secured upto 40% marks, their names as per the merit list be communicated (Annexure-l2). In pursuance of the Same, the secretary of the respondent Board sent a list of successful candidates in order of merit who had secured upto 40% marks (Annexure-13). It has been submitted that, as per the recommendation of the Board sent to the State Government for appointment there are 382 candidates in the merit list who have secured 50% marks and, above and, therefore, if the appointment is made as per the merit list, the members of all the petitioners Union shall be given appointment on those posts. The petitioners have further placed on record the communication dated 15.7.1991 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms wherein it has been stated that it was admitted on the floor of the State Assembly that till 31.12.1990 there were 472 vacant posts of Secretariat Assistants under the respondent State and it was further assured by the State Government that steps to fill up the vacancies are being taken. 12. It has been further pointed out that, besides the aforesaid vacancies, on account of promotion given on 1.8.1991 from the posts of Secretariat Assistant to the higher posts, 104 vacancies have become available which are to be filled up from amongst successful candidates and as such the number of the vacancies would be around 600 for the Secretariat Assistants. 12. It has been further pointed out that, besides the aforesaid vacancies, on account of promotion given on 1.8.1991 from the posts of Secretariat Assistant to the higher posts, 104 vacancies have become available which are to be filled up from amongst successful candidates and as such the number of the vacancies would be around 600 for the Secretariat Assistants. Now, instead of giving appointment to these unemployed youths, who have qualified and are awaiting, the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms has now by his communication no 208 dated 8.8.1991 addressed to the Chairman of the Board asked to publish fresh advertisement for appointment on the posts of Secretariat Assistant for direct and fresh competitive examination. The said letter is contained in Annexure 16 which has been assertively challenged by the petitioners on the ground that since the respondents have not found the persons of their own choice in the said merit list in which the petitioners figured as competent persons to be appointed, this communication (Annexure 16) was issued in order to accommodate the blue-eyed boys by holding a fresh test after long six years. It has, therefore, been asserted that the letter contained in Annexure 16 calling for fresh advertisement for appointment was based on no reasonable criteria and it was arbitrarily passed with an evil design to throw there petitioners out of consideration for such employment who have been awaiting for long six years since 1985. This six year period was lost on account of the laches of the respondents. The advertisement was published in the year 1985 and for no reason the examination was held only in 1987 and yet for no reason the result was published only in the year 1990. No such cogent reason has been assigned or furnished in the counter affidavit except a general denial that the process took some time. It would also be relevant to notice that in reply to the said letter contained in Annexure 16, the Board made it clear to the State Government in their communication contained in Annexure 18 that it is not possible for them to advertise the posts afresh on account of various difficulties, such as, lack of finance in which nearly the expenditure of rupees twenty two lakhs may be involved, lack of proper accommodation, lack of staff and so on so forth. It was also pointed out that examination papers were spoiled on account of proper place. In other words, it was made clear by the respondent Board that it would not be possible to hold any examination in the near future. 13. As it has been stated above, the facts of the present case present a peculiar feature. As contended by the learned Advocate General, it is true that mere selection in the list would not give any candidate a right of appointment. (See AIR 1973 SC 2216 ). But, then, he is a suitable candidate for being considered for such appointment. Such unemployed graduates, as the petitioners, were not responsible in any manner for long delay of six years in publication of their results. Again, if the vacancies could have been disclosed in the advertisement itself, possibly, the Board would not have been repeatedly requesting the respondent State to send the available vacancies from time to time. The facts enumerated above have shown that the total vacancies went around 600. The admitted position is that there was no fresh advertisement after the publication of the result of these candidates whose results were published in 1990. It has also been demonstrated on the facts of the present case that in similar examinations the date of the merit list was extended till the date of publication of the result but in the case of these petitioners a departure was made on the sole ground that six years have now passed and others might be awaiting. ] 4. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, therefore, we quash Annexure 16 dated 8.8.1991 and in order to do justice between the parties and not to leave these young graduates, in lurch, we direct the Board to recommend the names of these petitioners in accordance with their seniority in the merit list for appointment on the posts of Secretariat Assistants in accordance with the existing vacancies as available on the date of publication of their result, i.e. July, 1990. 15. This application is accordingly, allowed but there shall be no order as to cost. I agree. Application allowed.