This batch of the writ appeals and Civil Rules were heard together as they involved common questions of fact and law relating to the selection and appointment of Assistant Engineers (Civil) under the Public Works Department, Government of Assam. 2. The facts briefly are that pursuant to a requisition dated 17.6.94 of the Government of Assam, Public Works Department (for short PWD), the Assam Public Service Commission (for brevity APSC), issued advertisement No. 7/94 in 'The Assam Tribune' dated 26.11.94 inviting applications from the candidates for 35 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under PWD. By the said advertisement, it was stipulated that applications were to toe submitted by the candidates to the APSC by 31.12.94. When the selection process (for the said 35 advertised posts was on, the Government of Assam informed the APSC by its letter dated 24.5.95 that the actual number of Vacancies in the postlof Assistant Eagineer (Civil) under PWD upto 31.12.94 were 39. Thereafter, on 13.8.95, a written test was conducted by the APSC for the candidates who had applied for the posts. After the said written test, the APSC wrote a letter dated 12.10.95, requesting the Government to let the APSC know about the actual number of posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) then vacant under PWD and by letter dated 15.11.95, the Government intimated the APSC that the actual number of posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) upto 31.12.95 under the PWD were 42. The candidates who had come out successful in the written examination were called for the viva-voce which was held from 19.11.95 to 20.11.95. Finally, by a letter dated 18.12.95, the APSC informed the Secretary of the Government of Assam, PWD, that altogether 674 candidates appeared in the written test out of which 251 were called for interview and the APSC interviewed 243 candidates (9 candidates having not turned up for the interview). In the said letter dated 18.12.95, the Commission recommended 43 names in order to merit for the 42 vacant posts and in addition recommended 108 names for future vacancies. 3. In the said letter dated 18.12.95, the Commission recommended 43 names in order to merit for the 42 vacant posts and in addition recommended 108 names for future vacancies. 3. 16 candidates who were not recommended by the APSC and of whom 14 were appointed under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation and Function) Regulations, 1951, (for short the Regulation 3(f) in the year 1994 as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under PWD filed writ petition being Civil Rule No. 4767 of 1995 challenging the selection made by the APSC and making a prayer therein that services of said 14 appointees under Regulation 3(f) should not be terminated. By judgment and order dated 23.5.96, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said Civil Rule and directed that the appointees under Regulation 3(f) shall be thrown out from the service within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order by following the principle of last come first go and the candidates regularly selected shall be given appointment by strictly following the merit list. Writ Appeal No. 249 of 1996, Writ Appeal No. 268 of 1996, Writ Appeal No. 290 of 1996 and Writ Appeal No. (T) 608 of 1996 have been filed by the petitioners in the said Civil Rule No.(T) 608 of 1996 have been filed by the petitioners in the said Civil Rule No. 4767 of 1995 against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.5.96 of the learned Single Judge. 4. One Sri Bhibhuti Bhusan Sarma who had acquired his AMIE (Civil) degree in the year 1993 and was eligible to apply in response to the advertisement dated 26.11.94 of the APSC filed Civil Rule No. 2859 of 1996 challenging the recommendation of candidates by the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.96 beyond the 35 advertised posts and by judgment and order dated 20.6.96, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said Civil Rule with the direction that as and when 35 advertised posts are filled up; the list of candidates recommended by the APSC would stand exhausted, and the authority will issue fresh advertisement to fill up the remaining posts. Writ Appeal No. 291 of 1996 and Writ Appeal No.296 of 1996 have been filed by the candidates selected and recommended by the APSC beyond the first 35 candidates recommended by the APSC in order of merit, challenging the said judgment and order dated 20.6.96 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No.2859 of 1996. 5. Civil Rule No.5607 of 1995 was filed by four candidates who were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD. They applied in response to the advertisement dated 26.11.94 and were recommended by the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.95 not for the 42 existing vacancies but for future vacancies. Their prayer in the Civil Rule was that why they should not be terminated from service and instead should be regularised. The said Civil Rule was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 9.2.96 with the observation that if there are vacancies after absorption of the selected candidates, the petitioners in the said Civil Rule may be allowed to continue by following the principle of 'last come first go'. Writ Appeal No.(T) 622 of 1996 has been filed against the said judgment and order c dated 9.2.96 by the said petitioner in Civil Rule No.5607 of 1996. 6. The petitioners in Civil Rules 3350 of 1996,5014 of 1995,5015 of 1995 and 5374 of 1995 were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Civil) under PWD under Regulation 3 (f) and pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.11.94 of the APSC submitted application for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and ^ appeared in the written test conducted by the APSC but did not qualify and have challenged the selection made by the APSC as contrary to the Rules and have prayed for a direction for regularisation of their appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD. 7. The 13 petitioners in Civil Rule No.534 of 1996 were appointed under Regulation 3 (f) as Assistant Engineers (Civil) under the PWD in the year 1994 and pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.11.94 of the .APSC submitted applications to the APSC and also appeared in the selection conducted by the APSC comprising of written test and viva-voce and the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.95 did not recommend their names for the 42 existing vacancies but for future vacancies in order of preference. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents not to terminate their services and to regularise their services as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD. 8. In Civil Rule No.401 of 1996, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer under Regulation 3 (f) on 4th October, 1994 under the PWD the applied to the APSC pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th November, 1994 and appeared in the written test but did not qualify in the said written test and has made a prayer in the Civil Rule that no appointment should be made in excess of & the 35 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the PWD advertised by the said advertisement from the candidates recommended by the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.95. 9. We have heard Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.296 of 1996, Mr. A Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants in WA No.290 of 1996 and WA No.268 of 1996 and the writ petitioners in CR No.5014 of 1995 and 5015 of 1995, Mr. BD Das, learned counsel for the appellant in WA No.249 of 1996 and the writ petitioner in CR No.401 of 1996, Mr. N Dutta, counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 15 in WA No.290 of 1996 and learned counsel for the appellants in WA (T) No.622 of 1996 and Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 8 in WA No.290 of 1996 and WA No.249 of 1996 and learned counsel for the appellant in WA*No.291 of 1996 and Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 14 in WA No.291 of 1996 and Mr. SS Dey, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, for the State-respondents and Mr. P. Prasad, learned counsel for the APSC as well as all other counsel appearing for the appellants, the petitioners and the respondents. 10. The first question that has to be decidded in this batch of cases is whether the selection of candidates made by the APSC for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD contrary to the Rules and arbitrary. Mr. 10. The first question that has to be decidded in this batch of cases is whether the selection of candidates made by the APSC for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD contrary to the Rules and arbitrary. Mr. AChoudhury, learned counsel contended that recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under PWD is governed by the Assam Engineering (Public Works Department) Service Rules, 1978, (for short 'the 1978 Rules'), and under Rule 6(1) (c) of the 1978 Rules, the APSC has to make selection in accordance with the scheme of selection prescribed by the Government in consultation with the APSC. The APSC could not hold written test for such selection until a written test is provided for in a scheme of selection prescribed by the Government under the said rule. Mr. SS Dey, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. P. Prasad, learned counsel for the APSC, did not dispute the position that no scheme of selection has yet been prescribed by the Government under the said Rule 6(1) (c) of the 1978 Rules but submitted that even in absence of any scheme of selection prescribed by the Government, the APSC can hold a written test and viva-voce for the purpose of selecting the candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD. 11. Rule 6 of the 1978 Rules relied on by Mr. AChoudhury is extracted herein below: "6. 11. Rule 6 of the 1978 Rules relied on by Mr. AChoudhury is extracted herein below: "6. Direct Recruitment: (1) Subject to sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, direct recruitment to cadres of Assistant Engineers, Assistant Architects and Assistant Research Officers, Road Research Laboratory shall be made by the Governor on the basis of selection made by the Commission in accordance with the procedure hereinafter provided: (a) Before the end of each year the Government shall make an assessment regarding the likely number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment during the next year and shall intimate the same to the Commission together with the details about reservation for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or any other category as laid down by Government, as provided under Rule 17 and about carry forward of such reservation; (b) The Government shall simultaneously request the Commission to recommend a list of candidates for direct recruitment, in order of preference; (c) The Commission shall make the selection in accordance with the scheme of selection prescribed by the Government in consultation with the Commission. The Commission hold such test or interview and undertake scrutiny of published articles or thesis of the candidate, if any and the certificates and other documents, as may be considered necessary; (d) The Commission shall furnish Government with a list of candidates recommended of candidates in such a list may be approximately double the number of vacancies; (e) The Commission shall simultaneously publish the list in the Assam Gazette and such other place the Commission may consider proper. (2) The lists mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of sub-rule (1) of this rule shall remain valid for 12 calendar months from the date of recommendation. (2) The lists mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of sub-rule (1) of this rule shall remain valid for 12 calendar months from the date of recommendation. (3) In the event of the Commission being unable to recommend sufficient number of candidates to fill up the vacancies in a year, it shall in consultation with the Appointing Authority, repeat the procedure as mentioned hereinbefore under sub-rule (1) of this rule for recommending a subsequent list in the year : Provided that the Appointing Authority shall not make appointment of any candidate from the subsequent select list until all the candidates of the earliest list of the same year, eligible for appointment, have been offered the appointment.” Under the first limb of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, the APSC is required to make selection in accordance with the scheme prescribed by the Government. But the second limb of the said clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 would further show that the APSC may hold such test or interview of the candidates as it may consider necessary. It will thus be clear that where a scheme of selection prescribed by the Government, the APSC will have to conduct the selection in accordance with such scheme of selection prescribed by the Government but where no such scheme has been prescribed by the Government, as in the present case, the APSC will be within its powers to hold a written test or viva-voce for selecting candidates. The first contention of Mr. Choudhury, therefore, that the written test conducted by the APSC was contrary to Rule 6(1) of the 1978 Rules has no merit. 12. It was next contended by Mr. AB Choudhury, learned counsel that in the present cases, the process of selection has not been fair and was arbitrary and vioative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the candidates did not know about the written test and syllabus for the examination until they received the call letters from the APSC in July, 1995. He further contended that along with the said call letters issued in July, 1995, a very sketchy syllabus was enclosed which did not contain the details of the syllabus but only the broad headings for the written test. He further contended that along with the said call letters issued in July, 1995, a very sketchy syllabus was enclosed which did not contain the details of the syllabus but only the broad headings for the written test. After receipt of the said call letters in July, 1995, the candidates could not possibly prepare for the written test in August, 1995 on the basis of syllabus which did not contain the required information particularly in Civil Engineering. Mr. Choudhury relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP vs. Ram Raghubir Prasad, AIR 1979 SC 888 , in which the Apex Court has observed that the syllabus must contain sufficient information for the concerned persons to know what courses of instruction were broadly covered under the heading mentioned. Mr. AB Choudhury also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Munindra Kumar vs. Rajiv Govil, AIR 1991 SC 1607 , in which the Supreme Court observed that the candidates who had taken the written examination and failed could be estopped from challenging a rule which was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel for the otherside however submitted that by the call letters issued in July, 1995 about 25 days were allowed to every candidate and a few candidates cannot make a grievance that they did not get sufficient time to prepare for the written test. Mr. Mishra submitted that similarly it is on the basis of the same syllabus furnished along with the call letters that all the candidates have prepared and taken the written test and a few of the candidates cannot complain of inadequate information in the syllabus having failed in the written test. Mr. Mishra cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. Akhilesh Kumar, AIR 1986 SC 1043 , for the proposition that a candidate who has appeared for the examination without protest was not entitled to approach the Court and challenge the said examination having failed in the same. 13. We find lot of force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mishra. In the case of Manindra Kumar vs. Rajiv Govil (supra) cited by Mr. 13. We find lot of force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Mishra. In the case of Manindra Kumar vs. Rajiv Govil (supra) cited by Mr. Choudhury, the Apex Court while observing that a candidate cannot be estopped from challenging a rule which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, also held that the conduct of candidates who have taken examination and have come out unsuccessful and the equities of those candidates who have been selected are relevant considerations for the purpose of moulding the relief. Similarly, in the case of Om Prakash vs. Akhilesh Kumar (supra) cired by Mr. Mishra, the Apex Court held that where a candidate having taken the examination without protest approaches the Court after realising that he has not succeeded in the examination, no relief can be granted to him for setting aside the examination as it would cause hardship to the selected candidates. In the facts of the present case, the syllabus that was circulated along with the call letters to different candidates by the APSC was the same to all the candidates and the time that was allowed to the candidates for preparation for the written test was the same for all the candidates and at the instance of a few candidates who had taken written test but had come out unsuccessful, the Court cannot set aside the selection of the successful candidates, so as to cause hardship to them. 14. The second question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the selection of more than 35 candidates for the 35 posts advertised by the advertisement dated 26.11.94 of the APSC was contrary to law considering the fact that no advertisement was made for the remaining posts. Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have held in Civil Rule No.2859 of 1996 that since the posts advertised were only 35, the selection list of the candidates recommended by the APSC would stand exhausted after 35 candidates were appointed in order of merit to the said 35 posts. Mr. DK Mishra, learned counsel, submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have held in Civil Rule No.2859 of 1996 that since the posts advertised were only 35, the selection list of the candidates recommended by the APSC would stand exhausted after 35 candidates were appointed in order of merit to the said 35 posts. He cited the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board, (1996) 4 SCC 319 in which the Supreme Court after reviewing all its previous decisions held that the State can deviate from advertisement and make appointment to the posts falling vacant thereafter on exceptional circumstances and that the Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction will not invalidate the excess appointment and may mould relief in such manner as to strike out a just balance between the interest of the State and in the interest of persons seeking relief. In the present case, since the APSC was initimated about the 42 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD by its letter dated 15.11.95, the recommendation of 42 candidates in order of preference made in its letter dated 18.12.95 should not be invalidated by the Court. Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel further submitted that the writ petitioners in different Civil Rules having participated in the written test and viva-voce conducted by the APSC and having been found unsuccessful have no locus standi to challenge the recommendation made by the APSC beyond the 35 advertised posts. Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel also relied on the aforesaid latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. Karyana State Electricity Board (supra) and sumbitted that the Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue direction to the authorities to accommodate even the candidates recommended beyond the 35 advertised vacancies. He submitted that the position of the appellants in Writ Appeal No.296 of 1996 is such that they cannot be appointed to the 35 advertised vacancies or the 42 existing vacancies but for the future vacancies and that unless they were appointed on the basis of the present selection they may cross the maximum age limit and will not be entitled for consideration for appointment in future unless the provisions in the rules relating to the maximum age was relaxed. 15. 15. Para 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vs. Haryana State Electircity Board (supra) is quoted herein below: "25. From the above discussion of the case law it becomes clear that the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for a certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list for more candidates. The State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Even when filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged the Court may not, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of persons seeking public employment. What relief should be granted in such cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case." 16. It is clear from what has been said by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision that selection process by requisition and advertisement can be started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not for future vacancies, Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the 1978 Rules quoted in this judgment will also show that the recruitment process can be initiated for the "likely number of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment during the next year". Thus, while it was permissible for the APSC to recommend any candidate for the existing and likely number of vacancies during year, it was not at all permissible for the APSC to recommend any candidate for the future vacancies. Yet by the letter dated 18.12.95, the APSC has recommended 108 names for future vacancies over and about the 42 vacancies in the/posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD, intimated to the APSC by the letter dated 15.11.95 of the State Government. "17. Yet by the letter dated 18.12.95, the APSC has recommended 108 names for future vacancies over and about the 42 vacancies in the/posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD, intimated to the APSC by the letter dated 15.11.95 of the State Government. "17. The Supreme Court has also observed in the aforesaid decision in the case of Prem Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board (supra) that if the requisition and advertisement are/for a certain number of posts only, the State cannot make more appointments than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have prepared a select list of more candidates. But it has been observed in the said decision that the State can deviate from the advertisement and make appointment to posts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances only in emergent situation and that too by taking policy decision in that behalf and that while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court will not invalidate the excess appointment and may mould reliefs in such a manner as to strike out just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of the persons seeking public employment arid as to what relief should be granted in any particular case will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of the present case, the advertisement for 35 posts was issued on 26.11.94 and therefore the APSC could select and recommend only 35 candidates and in case the APSC made out a select list of more than 35 candidates, the Government would not normally be permitted to appoint more than 35 appointments. The Government of Assam, however, informed the APSC by its letter dated 4.5.95 that the actual number of vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) had gone upto 39. This 4 additional vacancies in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD became available and for these four additional vacancies over and above the 3 5 advertised vacancies, persons who had become qualified in the year 1994 could have applied to the APSC as the date of submission of the application as per the advertisement dated 26.11.94 was 31.12.94 and only those persons who had become qualified in the year 1995 could not possibly have applied to these four additional vacancies. By letter dated 15.11.95 however the Government initmated the APSC that the actual number of vacant posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD had increased to 42 by 30.1.95. Hence, 3 more vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD has arisen during the year 1995. In our view, considering the fact that all persons who had become qualified during the year 1994 had the opportunity of applying to the APSC pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.11.94, and it is only those persons who had qualified in the year 1995 who did not get the opportunity of applying pursuant to the said advertisement, a just balance between the requirements of the State and the rights of the individuals seeking public employment can be struck by holding that the State Government would not be entitled to fill up the 3 vacancies to the posts of Assistant Engineer which arose in the year 1995 out of the list of the candidates recommended by the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.95 and only 39 vacancies in the said post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD as on 30.12.94 can be filled up by candidates recommended by the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.95 subject to the reservation. 18. The last question that need to be determined in these cases in whether the persons appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Regulation 3 (f) were liable to be terminated from service after they have not succeeded in the selection conducted by the APSC or are entitled to be regularised in service. Mr. N Dutta, learned counsel, submitted that even after filling the 39 vacancies from the list of select candidates recommended by the APSC in its letter dated 18.12.95, some vacancies may still remain in which the appointees under Regulation 3 (f) may be accommodated and they can be regularised when they get selected by the APSC in a subsequent selection. Mr. AB Choudhury and Mr. BD Das, learned counsel appearing for the few other appointees under Regulation 3 (f) also submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing Civil Rule No. 4767 of 1995 should not have directed the authorities to throw out the appointees under Regulation 3 (f). 19. Mr. AB Choudhury and Mr. BD Das, learned counsel appearing for the few other appointees under Regulation 3 (f) also submitted that the learned Single Judge while dismissing Civil Rule No. 4767 of 1995 should not have directed the authorities to throw out the appointees under Regulation 3 (f). 19. In our opinion, this observation has been made by the learned Single Judge in the context of the rights of the selected candidates vis-a-vis the rights of the appointees under Regulation 3 (f). A reading of Regulation 3 (f) would show that the appointment made under it is purely temporary pending selection by the APSC and the appointment letters issued in favour of the appointees under Regulation 3 (f) contain a clause that regularisation of service of the appointee will depend upon his selection by the APSC within the required position in the list of the candidates recommended by the APSC for regularisation. Since the parties in these batch of cases who were appointed under Regulation 3 (f)did get the opportunity of applying to the APSC for the selection and their names do not find place within the required position of the list of candidates recommended by the APSC for appointment to the 39 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the PWD as on 30.12.94, they should make room for appointment of the candidates selected by the APSC and the authorities would be entitled to terminate their services. To retain such appointees under Regulation 3 (f) in the 39 vacancies as on 30.12.94 for which candidates have been selected and recommended by the APSC would, in our opinion, violate the rights of the selected candidates under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 20. For the reasons stated above, the 39 vacancies as on 31.12.94 in the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department which were notified to the Assam Public Service Commission by letter dated 24th May, 1995, of the State Government are to be filled up by the candidates recommended by the Assam Public Service Commission in order of merit as intimated in its letter dated 18.12.95 to the Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Assam. The authorities will be entitled to terminate the service of 3 (f) appointees holding these posts to make room for the regularly selected candidates. The authorities will be entitled to terminate the service of 3 (f) appointees holding these posts to make room for the regularly selected candidates. Writ Appeal Nos.290 of 1996, 291 of 1996, 296 of 1996, 268 of 1996, 249 of 1996, Writ Appeals (T) 608 of 1996 and 622 of 1996 are disposed of in terms of this order and the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 23.5.96 in Civil Rule No.4767 of 1995, dated 20.9.96 in Civil Rule No.2859 of 1996 and dated 9.2.96 in Civil Rule No.5607 of 1995 are modified to the extent indicated above. The Civil Rule Nos.3350 of 1996, 5014 of 1995, 5015 of 1995, 534 of 1996, 401 of 1996 and 5374 of 1996 are disposed of in terms of the order made above. The interim orders, if any, in all these cases are vacated. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.