Judgment : P. P. Gupta, J. 1. BY this petition the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to make the appointment in accordance with the selection list published on 19-1-1990 and further not to implement or act upon the revised selection list published on 22-12-1990. 2. THE competitive examinations for combined services are held by the U.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') and from amongst the candidates selected in the said examinations posts are filled up in the State Government under three candidates, viz. 'Executive Group', 'Allied Group' and 'Accounts Group'. For the examination for combined State Services of 1988, notice was published in the news papers including the daily news paper 'Pioneer' of 25-8-1988. By this notice published, vide advertisement No. A-1/E-1 of 1988- 89, details of the examinations-to be conducted including the syllabus of the subjects in which the examinations were to be held and the vacancies available against the posts for which the examination was being held were also published. Genera! instructions were also given for the benefit of the candidates along with format of the application, in which the candidates were to apply for appearing in the examination, were also published. 3. A bare perusal of the information published in the said advertisement under the head 'Rules and syllabus for the combined State Services Competitive Examinations, 1988' discloses that candidates opting to appear for the services falling in the category of Executive and/or Allied services were required to appear in four optional subjects and in four compulsory subjects (excluding elementary Mathematics). The candidates desirous in appearing for Accounts services/posts were required to appear in three optional subject and five compulsory subjects, which included Elementary Mathematics. It was, therefore, clear from these rules that a candidate, who had not appeared in the examination for Elementary Mathematics, could not be considered for the selection in the Accounts services, Nevertheless, it was open to the candidates to appear in four optional subjects and in all the five compulsory subjects including the subject of Elementary Mathematics and thereby to keep their option open for Executive and Allied services as well as for Accounts services. 4. 4. GENERAL Instruction No. 12 under the said advertisement was as follows :- "Candidates called for the interview on the basis of the result Of the written examination shall be required to indicate in writing their preference for various services on the day of the interview." The petitioner appeared in the said examination in three optional subjects only and also in all the compulsory subjects including the subject of Elementary Mathematics. Thus, his eligibility for consideration was confined to Accounts service only, as he had not appeared in the requisite four optional subjects. 5. IN all 565 candidates qualified in' the written examination and the petitioner was one of them. He was called for interview on 9-1-1990. From all the candidates, who were called for interview, options and preferences were taken in respect of the posts/services which they preferred to join in the event of their being selected This was done in terms of General Condition No. 12, quoted above. Since the petitioner had appeared in three optional subjects only and could not be considered for the posts of Executive/Allied service, it was not necessary for him to give his option because he on being successful could only be absorbed in Accounts service. 6. ON the basis of the options/preferences given by the candidates, a final merit list of selected candidates was declared by the Commission on 19-1-1990, which is Annexure 3' to The writ petition. The Press Communique dated 19-1-1990 declared two lists, one being of 61 candidates, who were declared successful tot being appointed in Executive and Allied services, and the other list was of 203 candidates for appointment !n the Accounts service. 7. THE petitioner's name found place at SI. No. 129 in the second list for the Accounts Service. 8. IN the aforesaid Press Communique notes 3 and 4 were appertained which reads as below : (3) All candidates have been declared successful provisionally upto the umber of vacancies reserved for different categories. The above result may modified or revised according to the preferences finally recorded by the candidates, and availability of the posts for them. (4) The candidates may change their preferences recorded at the time of interview within 15 days after declaration 6 this result if they so desire." After the revision of the options by the candidates, a revised selection list was published on 22-12-1990. (4) The candidates may change their preferences recorded at the time of interview within 15 days after declaration 6 this result if they so desire." After the revision of the options by the candidates, a revised selection list was published on 22-12-1990. As a consequence of permitting the candidates to revise their options given at the time of interview within 15 days after declaration of the result, the petitioner was out-listed and some other candidates, who were not even declared successful in the final selection list, were inducted. 9. THE petitioner has challenged the revised selection list dated 22-12- 1990 (Annexure 4') in this writ petition. His main contention is that the Gtommision had acted illegally and arbitrarily in taking fresh option/preferences after the publication of the final selection list dated 19-1-1990 after they laving already availed the options once at the time of interview. 10. THE facts of the case, as narrated above, are not disputed by the respondents. THE contention of the respondents is that under clause 75 of the U.P. Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1976, the Commission is empowered to deal with any such matter in such manner as it deems fit in respect of which specific provisions have not been made in the Rules. Oh the strength of this rule .it was submitted that the Commission took a policy decision to allow the candidates to change their preferences recorded by them at the time of interview within 15 days after the declaration of the provisional result and to modify/revise the result according to options and preferences finally recorded by the candidates, as had been notified in Notes 3 and 4 of the Press Communique dated 19-1-1990. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, we do not find any merit in the submissions made on behalf of the Commission. It is not disputed that in the advertisement No. A-1/E-1/88-89 for the Combined State Services Examination, 1988, under the heading of General Instructions, the candidates called for interview on the basis of the result of the written examination were required to indicate in writing their preference for various services on the date of the interview. It was a policy decision that was taken by the Commission. It was a policy decision that was taken by the Commission. Therefore, the Board was within its rights to make this provision in the advertisement as a matter of policy. But after declaring the policy, it was not open for the Commission to change subsequently by giving an opportunity to the selected candidates to change their options/preferences for the service within 15 days after the declaration of the result, and that too to the detriment of the petitioner, and other similarly placed candidates. As has already been said above, the petitioner had appeared only in three optional subjects. As such he could not be considered for the Executive/Allied services for which a candidate was required to appear in four optional subjects. Therefore, the petitioner could only be considered for Accounts service alone. That being so it was clear that the petitioner's option was for Accounts service only. The petitioner had already qualified in Accounts service in the select list declared on 19-1-1990. By changing the policy and permitting the selected candidates to modify their options/preferences within 15 days from the publication of the result, the petitioner was out-listed. The Commission cannot be permitted to change the policy of and on and after having declared the policy on the basis of which the selection was made, it was not open for the Commission to have revised its policy to the detriment of the petitioner and other candidates like him. The action of the Commission in permitting the candidates to change their option/preferences which they had given at the time of interview within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result on 19-1-1990 was wholly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law.* That being so, the petition must succeed. 11. IN view of the above, the petition is allowed and the select list dated 22-12-1990 (Annexure 4' to the writ petition) is set aside. Respondent no. 2 is directed to make the appointments in accordance with the selection list published by respondent no. 1 on 19-1-1990 (Annexure 3' to the writ petition). It is made clear that in case no post is available, respondent no. 2 shall create a superannuary post in the Accounts services to accommodate the petitioner against that post. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.