JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. We have heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the pro forma Respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the writ Petitioner-Respondent. 2. The material facts, which gave rise to the present appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission ('the Commission') published, an advertisement, on 14.7.2003, inviting applications for tilling up some posts of Assistant Engineer, the posts, so advertised, being as under : (A) Assistant Engineer (Civil) (PHE&WS Department) Existing vacancies Anticipated Vacancies -4 posts 5 posts reserved for APST (B) Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Public Works Department) Existing vacancies -4 posts All reserved for APST (c) Assistant Engineer (Civil) (Rural Works Department) Existing vacancies 3 posts 2 posts reserved for APST (ii) The advertisement required every candidate to indicate his preference for the Department to which he wanted to be selected. The writ Petitioner, being eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, applied, his first preference being the Public Works Department followed by Public Health Engineering and Water Supply Department. His third preference was Rural Works Department. The Petitioner appeared in the written test and viva voce. Thereafter, the Commission published the results of the written test as well as viva voce on 1.3.2004. The merit list, so published by the Commission, read as under: Sl. No. Roll No. Name of candidates Combined Merit PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT. 1. 2. 3. 4. 00152 00041 00097 000129 Opangmoyong Aiyiangrunam Pajing Hage Tajang Tadu Takha 3 4 5 6 P.H.E. & W.S. DEPTT. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 00028 00114 00001 00085 00042 00110 Tafang Bagang Nani Tade Ms. Hage Ankha Sawant Riang Joymniyang Perme Kaling Taki 7 8 9 10 11 12 RURAL WORKS DEPTT. 1. 2. 3. 00207 00125 00049 Shanty Bhusan Rajaj Pal Kipa Rinia (Reserved against Physically Handicapped.) 1 2 32 (iii) As the name of the writ Petitioner was not found in the merit list so published, the Petitioner came to this Court challenging, with the help of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of the said merit list. This writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 108(AP)/2004. This writ petition gave rise to WP(C) No. 108(AP)/2004. The grievance of the writ Petitioner was short and precise, his grievance being that in terms of the advertisement, dated 14.7.2003, five posts, out of six posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Department of PHE&WS, stood reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes ('APST') and one post was, thus, left for non-APST candidate, i.e., for candidates of general category; but in respect of all the six posts, candidates, belonging to the reserved category, were selected. This selection, according to the writ Petitioner, was in clear departure of the said advertisement. 3. The State Government did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. The Commission, however, resisted the writ petition by filing their affidavit-in-opposition and trying to justify the select list. According to the case set up by the Commission, as reflected from para-6 of their affidavit, the post of Assistant Engineer is Group-B post and the reservation policy of the Government, in respect of such posts, is that 80% of such posts shall be reserved for APST and the remaining 20% shall fall into the share of unreserved category. The Commission contended that in terms of this reservation policy, out of the total number of 13 posts, which had been advertised, 11 candidates from reserved category were recommended. The Commission further contended that in respect of the remaining two posts, which were left for the candidates of unreserved category, the Commission selected one candidate, namely, Shanti Bhusan, a candidates of general category, who had secured highest marks, and was placed, according to his preference, at Sl. No. 1, in respect of the post of the Department of Rural Works. The other post, which had become available to the candidates of unreserved category, was actually filed up by one Bajai Pul, who, though an APST candidate, had secured marks more than other non-APST candidates and was, therefore, placed, on his own merit, at Sl. No. 2. The combined merit list, according to the Commission, had, thus, two parts, one for APST candidates and the other for non-APST candidates. No. 2. The combined merit list, according to the Commission, had, thus, two parts, one for APST candidates and the other for non-APST candidates. In short, what the Commission contended was that out of the thirteen advertised posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) of the said three Departments, eleven candidates were selected from the reserved category and in respect of the remaining two posts, which were meant to be filled up by the candidates belonging to the general category, it ('the Commission') had recommended the name of Shanti Bhushan, a candidate of general category, and the name of Shri Kaling Taki (i.e., the Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) too, a candidate belonging to the reserved category, on the basis of merit. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, a learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the Commission was required to make selection in terms of the relevant recruitment rules and in terms of the reservation policy, which the State Government has. This apart, according to the learned Single Judge, the Commission could not have deviated from the conditions of recruitment as had been mentioned in the advertisement and ought to have, in respect of every Department concerned, recommended the names of the selected candidates in terms of the State Government's policy of reservation. 5. The learned Single Judge, therefore, concluded that the name of the writ Petitioner ought to have been recommended in place of the name of Kaling Taki, who had been placed at Sl. No. 6 (i.e., Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) in respect of the Department of PHE&WS. Because of the conclusion, so reached, the learned Single Judge, by judgment and order, dated 14.6.2005, passed in WP(C) No. 108 (AP) 2004, interfered with the merit list aforementioned and directed the Commission to recommend the writ Petitioner's name for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in PHE&WS Department inasmuch as the writ Petitioner was the person, who had secured highest marks amongst the candidates of the unreserved category. Aggrieved by interference with their recommendations, and with the directions given to them to recommend the writ Petitioner's name in place of the name of Shri Kaling Taki (who stood impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition), the Commission has preferred this appeal. 6. Aggrieved by interference with their recommendations, and with the directions given to them to recommend the writ Petitioner's name in place of the name of Shri Kaling Taki (who stood impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition), the Commission has preferred this appeal. 6. We may pause here to point out that the record reveals that the Respondent No. 3 had not appeared in the writ petition. Though the impugned order held the selection of the private Respondent (i.e., the Respondent No. 3, in the said writ petition), as wholly arbitrary, illegal and unfair, these findings have not been challenged by the private Respondent. Aggrieved by the directions given as aforementioned, it is the Commission, which has, however, preferred this appeal. 7. What emerges from the above discussion is that out of the six posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Department of PHE&WS, five posts had been kept reserved for the candidates of reserved category and one post was to fall into the share of the candidates of the general category. Similarly, out of the three posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Rural Works Department, two posts were reserved for APST candidates and one post was meant for the candidates of general category. As far as four advertised posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Public Works Department, were concerned, all these posts had been kept reserved for the candidates of APST. In these circumstances, there can be no dispute, and, in fact, it could not be disputed by Mr. Tagia that one post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the PHE&WS Department, and one post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Department of Rural Works, were meant for, and ought to have gone to, the candidates of general category. 8. In these circumstances, there can be no dispute, and, in fact, it could not be disputed by Mr. Tagia that one post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the PHE&WS Department, and one post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Department of Rural Works, were meant for, and ought to have gone to, the candidates of general category. 8. Strangely enough, what the Commission did was that while it selected, in the case of the lone unreserved post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Works, Shri Shanti Bhushan, who was a candidate of general category, it (i.e., 'the Commission') selected a candidate from the reserved category, namely, Shri Kaling Taki (i.e., Respondent No. 3, in the writ petition) in respect of the unreserved post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Department of PHE & WS, though this post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), in the Department or PHE & WS, ought to have gone, in terms of the advertisement, into the share of the non-reserved category. Thus, the selection of the Respondent No. 3 was nothing, but arbitrary, illegal and unfair. Such a selection could not have been allowed, and ought not to be allowed, to stand good on record. 9. While considering this appeal, what needs to be born in mind is that the role of a Public Service Commission, in a case of present nature, remains confined in conducting a fair and transparent selection for the purpose of making recommendations for appointment to the posts, which may have been advertised. While making the selections, the Public Service Commission must adhere to the recruitment rules, which may govern the recruitment process in a given case. 10. In the case at hand, a common selection test was held for various posts, which fell under different Departments of the State Government. In such a situation, it is clear that all the posts, which were advertised, could not have been treated as a single unit, particularly, when the posts, so advertised, were for different Departments. Logically, therefore, the reservation policy of 80:20 ought to have been maintained for each of the Departments separately. This has been, admittedly, not done, for, the Commission has treated the 13 advertised costs of 3 distinct and different Departments as one common unit. Logically, therefore, the reservation policy of 80:20 ought to have been maintained for each of the Departments separately. This has been, admittedly, not done, for, the Commission has treated the 13 advertised costs of 3 distinct and different Departments as one common unit. This process of selection is completely wrong and wholly against the advertisement, in question, inasmuch as the advertisement itself had distinctly mentioned as to how many posts in respect of which of the Departments, were being offered for selection and appointment to the candidates of reserved as well as general categories. In terms of the advertisement, in question, out of the six posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) of the Department of PHE & WS, five posts were kept reserved for the candidates of reserved category and one post was meant for the candidate of general category. However, what the Commission had done was that it had recommended, in respect of the total number of six posts aforementioned, candidates of reserved category only. In view of the fact that the writ Petitioner had secured the second highest marks amongst the candidates of the general category, the lone post, meant for the candidates of general category, in the Department of PHE & WS, ought to have gone to the writ Petitioner. Thus, the impugned merit list suffered from serious infirmity of law and the recommendations made, with the help of such a select list, could not have been sustained in law. Situated thus, we find considerable substance in the reasons, assigned by the learned Single Judge, for interfering with the merit list in the manner as indicated hereinabove. 11. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find no merit in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed