JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned standing counsel for Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission as well as Mr. K. Ete, learned Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Mow, learned Counsel, appearing for private respondents. 2. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition are: (1) The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission ('Commission') issued an advertisement dated 25.7.2006, inviting applications in prescribed forms from citizens of India for admission to Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Competitive Examination (Preliminary) 2006-07 for recruitment to Group-A&B posts/services of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. (2) In response to the said advertisement, the petitioners submitted their application forms and were called for the preliminary examination. They appeared in the examination and were declared qualified for admission in the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Competitive Examination (Mains) 2006-07. (3) The Commission issued notice dated 11.4.2007 asking the candidates who have qualified in the preliminary examination to submit their duly filled-up applications. The petitioners submitted their duly filled-in applications and prepared themselves to sit in the said Main Examination. (4) A meeting of the Commission was held on 13.6.2007 in which several decisions, including the following, were taken: 2. Qualifying marks in General English : The Official language in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is English. The Commission views that emphasis should be given to Officer recruited through this Commission possesses good command of English language. Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that there will be qualifying marks of 40% in General English or as will be decided by the Commission in every written examination for recruitment to the posts. The candidates who fail to secure such required percentage of marks in General English, his/her answer script of other subjects "will not be evaluated." In terms of the aforesaid decision, a Notification bearing No. PSC-R/09/2007 dated 2.7.2007, was issued by the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of which was sent to the Director of Information & Public Relation, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, for causing publication in the extraordinary official gazette, but the same was not published so in the official gazette. (5) The local press/newspapers including "The Arunachal Times" and "Echo of Arunachal" published the said decision in their issue dated 4.7.2007 and 5.7.2007 respectively. (6) The Main Examination commenced on 26.12.2007. The petitioners appeared in the said examination. of Arunachal Pradesh, for causing publication in the extraordinary official gazette, but the same was not published so in the official gazette. (5) The local press/newspapers including "The Arunachal Times" and "Echo of Arunachal" published the said decision in their issue dated 4.7.2007 and 5.7.2007 respectively. (6) The Main Examination commenced on 26.12.2007. The petitioners appeared in the said examination. (7) After conclusion of the Main Examination, the Commission vide its notification No. PSC-R/14/2005, Vol.-III, dated 11.7.2008, published a list of candidates with their roll nos., who have been found qualified in General English by securing 40% marks. The petitioners' names are not included in the list and thereby, the petitioners' answer scripts of other subjects would not be evaluated and they would not be eligible for being called to the viva-voce test. The petitioners, being highly aggrieved, challenge the aforesaid decision dated 13.6.2007 taken by the Commission and the notification dated 11.7.2008. 3. Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2001, were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the recruitment of service as specified in the schedule attached thereto and in the said Rules, no provision has been made to fix a cut-off mark in General English paper in respect of the candidates who have already been declared qualified in the preliminary examination and appeared in the Main Examination and to debar them from appearing in the viva-voce test for not being able to secure 40% marks in General English paper and also not to evaluate their answer scripts in the other subjects. According to Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid Rules provide for conducting preliminary examination under Rule (f) at the first stage of the recruitment process by the Commission for screening the candidates for Main Examination and thereafter, to conduct Main Examination under Rule 2(e) at the second stage of recruitment process, both written and viva-voce test and the petitioners having been qualified in the preliminary examination and allowed to appear in the Main Examination, the answer scripts of the petitioners should be evaluated and their eligibility should be decided on the basis of the marks secured by them. The learned Counsel further submits that once a candidate has been allowed to appear in the Main Examination, the Commission is not authorized to screen the candidates further on the basis of marks secured in the General English paper and the Commission has thereby conducted the 3rd screening which is not provided in the aforesaid rules. It is the further submission of Mr. Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the Commission is not empowered by the existing Rules to take the impugned decision dated 5.5.2007 to screen the candidates who appeared in the Main Examination on the basis of the marks in General English paper to be eligible for being called to viva-voce test. Even assuming but not admitting that the Commission has the power to take such decision under the Rules, the aforesaid decision of the Commission cannot be given effect to the present Main Examination conducted by the Commission on 26.12.2007, inasmuch as in the Newspapers' report, as aforesaid, it has been stated that the Commission has decided to introduce the qualifying mark of 40% General English paper in future Combined Civil Services Examination for recruitment of APCS (Entry Grade), etc. This being the position, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid impugned decision cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process being conducted by the Commission and the same could be applied only to the future recruitment process only. 4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has cited and relied upon the case of Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (2007) 2 SCC 491 , in which it is held by the Apex Court that the statutory bodies are bound to apply the Recruitment Rules laid-down under the statutory Rules. In the said case, it is also held that a policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter or executive instruction and the same cannot prevail over the statutory Rules and constitutional provisions. In the said case, it is also held that a policy decision cannot be adopted by means of a circular letter or executive instruction and the same cannot prevail over the statutory Rules and constitutional provisions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also cited the case of A.A. Calton v. Director of Education As AIR 1983 SC 1143 , in which it is held by the Apex Court that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take-away an existing right unless the Statute either expressly or by necessary implication, directs that it should have such retrospective effect. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in a case of Dr. Lige Basar and Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, this Court, vide Judgment and Order dated 24.6.2008, interfered with the decision of the Commission prescribing minimum 33% of marks in written test and 45% marks in aggregate to be eligible for the viva-voce test and directed the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, i.e., the Secretary, APPSC to declare the result of the petitioners taking into consideration the criteria of selection which was applicable on or before 19.12.2006 and if they fulfill the criteria, to call them for viva-voce test. The other submission strongly urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned decision of the Commission was not published in the official gazette of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and as such, the local newspaper reports regarding the said decision of the Commission saying that it would take effect "in future" Combined Civil Services Examination in the State for recruitment to APSC (Entry Grade), etc., has to be taken as true and the Commission in order to save its own skin, deleted the aforesaid words "in future" subsequently with mala fide intention. 5. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have been countered by Mr. N. Tagia, learned standing counsel for the Commission. Drawing the attention to provisions under Rule 11 of the Rules, Mr. 5. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners have been countered by Mr. N. Tagia, learned standing counsel for the Commission. Drawing the attention to provisions under Rule 11 of the Rules, Mr. Tagia, learned standing counsel, submits that candidates must obtain minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion and then only, they would be admitted to the Main Examination and the candidates who obtain such minimum marks in the Main Examination, as may be fixed by the Commission, at its discretion, shall be allowed to appear in future for personality and other test. The Rules also provide general terms in Section 1 of the Appendix-1 that discretion is being conferred on the Commission to fix qualifying marks in any or all the subjects of the examination. It is under the provision of the aforesaid rules, the Commission took the decision for fixing the qualifying marks of 40% in General English paper and the candidates who fail to secure such percentage of marks, their answer scripts of other subjects would not be evaluated for calling in the interview/viva-voce test. In other words, the Commission has been given the power to take such decision in the process of conducting the recruitment test and as such, the said decision cannot be termed as illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary. As regard to giving the effect of the Commission's decision, according to Mr. Tagia, learned standing counsel, there is nothing in the resolution adopted by the said Commission that the said decision would take effect "in future" Combined Civil Services Examination in the State for recruitment of APCS (Entry grade), etc. The local press has misquoted and misunderstood the resolution passed by the Commission and added the words "in future" of their own and as such, such wrong reporting in the press-reports would have no effect or adverse consequence to mean that the said resolution would be effective only in future recruitment process and it would not be applicable to the present recruitment process. 6. As regards the allegation that the Commission did not cause publication of the aforesaid decision of the Commission in the official gazette of the State, Mr. 6. As regards the allegation that the Commission did not cause publication of the aforesaid decision of the Commission in the official gazette of the State, Mr. Tagia, learned standing counsel, submits that an Office Memorandum was issued on 7.1.2008 under No. O.M.-54/2006 and a copy of the same was forwarded to all concerned including the Director of IPR, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, for publication in the Arunachal Pradesh Extra-ordinary Gazette but the same was not published in the official gazette of the State. The learned standing counsel further contends that the allegation of deleting the words "in future" is an afterthought of the petitioners to improve their case and no such averment has been made in the writ petition against the Commission. The question of deleting the words "in future" does not arise because the decision was taken after due deliberations in the meeting of the Commission and the same was a conscious decision with a purpose to select the best candidates for bringing better efficiency in the public administration. 7. In support of his submissions, regarding fixing of cut-off marks in the General English paper by the recruitment Board, Mr. N. Tagia, learned standing counsel, cited the case of Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras v. V. Ramalingam AIR 1999 SC 2860 , in which the Apex Court held that the cut-off marks fixed by the Recruitment Board depends upon the examining Body's view on the importance of subject for the post in question and the court cannot substitute its own method adopted by organizations with the task of selection. In support of the same point, the learned standing counsel also cites the case of Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 100 , in which it is also held by the Apex Court that the competent authority has power to fix cut-off marks and such decision cannot be termed arbitrary. The learned standing counsel also relies upon the case of K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala as (2006) 6 SCC 395 , in support of his case that it is open to the Selection Board to fix cut-off marks or to prescribe minimum pass marks for written test or oral examination to get the best of talent and it can be done if such power has been conferred upon under the Rules. 8. 8. Supporting the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the Commission, Mr. K. Ete, learned Counsel appearing for private respondent Nos. 2-5, who were impleaded as interveners, submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have approached this Court after taking-part in the Main Examination conducted by the Commission with full knowledge about the decision of the Commission as regard fixing the minimum marks of 40% in General English paper for being called to the viva-voce test and they have approached this Court after being disqualified on their failure to obtain the minimum marks of 40% in General English paper. The petitioners, according to Mr. Ete, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, are trying to take undue advantage by misinterpreting the decision of the Commission in respect of the effect to be given to the said decision and in fact, there would be no difference if the words "in future" was incorporated or not in the resolution because the resolution itself was taken 6(six) months before holding of the Main Examination. The intention of the Commission was very much clear that the resolution should take its effect from the Main Examination to be conducted by the Commission in the present recruitment process. The petitioners by adopting such double-standard have been trying to frustrate the entire recruitment process initiated by the Commission and they are trying to deprive the candidates like the private candidates who have secured the minimum 40% marks in General English paper and qualified themselves to be called for the viva-voce test and as such, this Court, should not encourage the petitioners to deprive the eligible and qualified candidates who have accrued a right to be called for the viva-voce test and being considered for appointment to respective posts. 9. The learned standing counsel for the Commission put much reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 395 , to bring home his submission that the petitioners having participated in the Main Examination, it is not open to them to turn-round after they have been found not qualified having secured less than 40% marks in General English paper. The case of Siraj (supra) is distinguishable from the case in hand. (2006) 6 SCC 395 , to bring home his submission that the petitioners having participated in the Main Examination, it is not open to them to turn-round after they have been found not qualified having secured less than 40% marks in General English paper. The case of Siraj (supra) is distinguishable from the case in hand. In the said case, after the written test was held, the appellant candidate was called for an interview to appear before the Board consisting of 5 Judges including the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 7.12.2001 and thereafter, the select list was issued by the High Court on 17.2.2002. The appellant filed a writ petition praying for quashing of the select list insofar as it was contrary to the principles and rules of reservations. The interview was conducted as per the Kerala Judicial Service Rules 1991. In the said rules, it is provided that candidates who secured not less than 35% marks in each of the papers of the written examination with an over-all minimum marks of 45% of the written examination and 30% for the oral examination shall be eligible for appointment provided that minimum marks required for pass in each papers of the written examination shall be 35% with an over-all minimum of 35% to the total marks for candidates belonging to SCs/STs. It is also provided in the said Rules that no candidate who has secured minimum marks prescribed as above in the written examination shall be called for the oral examination and the marks secured by the candidates in the oral examination shall be added to the total marks secured by the candidates in the written examination and the names of all those candidates shall be arranged in the respective list on the basis of total marks secured by them, The appellant candidate who belonged to reserved category were thrown-out from the zone of consideration on the ground that he had not secured 30% marks in the interview whereas private respondents and other candidates have been selected only because they had got 30% marks in the interview irrespective of the facts that the total marks of those candidates are loss than the marks obtained by the appellant candidate. The preparation of the select list was challenged on the ground that the selection was against the Rules of reservation and on the ground of illegal prescription of cut-off marks in oral examination made by the Selection Agency without statutory sanction. The important point to be noted in the aforesaid case of Siraj (supra) is that the High Court of Kerala prescribed the minimum pass marks for interview for further elimination of candidates after a comprehensive written test was conducted and no minimum marks has been prescribed for a particular subject for being called to the viva-voce test. In my considered view, the ratio of the aforesaid case, being distinguishable in the facts and circumstances, would not be applicable to the present case. 10. The case of Banking Service Recruitment Board, Madras v. V. Ramalingam AIR 1999 SC 286, cited by the learned standing counsel for the Commission relates to fixation of minimum cut-off marks for examination in each paper in which the Apex Court held that so long as the same cut-off marks in each subject are applied to the papers of all the candidates, there is nothing irregular about fixing different cut-off marks for each paper and the cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the examining Body's view of importance of the subject for the post in question. In that case, the respondent-candidate was not qualified in the written examination since he obtained the marks below the cut-off marks in the English paper and therefore, there was no question of calling him for the interview. The said case, in my considered view, is not at all applicable to the present case because the interview was conducted by the Banking Service Recruitment Board only in 4 papers, namely, (1). Test of proficiency, (2), Test of English language, (3), Test of quantitative aptitude, and (4). Test of reasoning. There was no optional paper. The cut-off marks in each paper were fixed at the time of issuing the advertisement and much before the Preliminary Examination was held. Test of proficiency, (2), Test of English language, (3), Test of quantitative aptitude, and (4). Test of reasoning. There was no optional paper. The cut-off marks in each paper were fixed at the time of issuing the advertisement and much before the Preliminary Examination was held. There was no clause/condition in the said advertisement to the effect that the candidate who fails to secure the minimum cut-off marks in the test of English language, his/her marks secured in the other 3 test papers would not be evaluated rather it was provided as one of the conditions that the final selection will be made on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained by the candidate in the Preliminary Examination & interview and will be made strictly according to merit. 11. The other case strongly relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the Commission is the Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 100 wherein the Apex Court held that "it is trite that it is for the employer or for the expert body to determine the cutoff marks" and the court, while exercising its powers of judicial review would not ordinarily intermeddle therewith and the jurisdiction of the court, in this behalf, is limited. It is further held in that case that the cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the importance of the subject for the post in question and it is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candidates. It is to be pointed-out that in the aforesaid cited case, the cut-off marks fixed by the recruitment authority was fixed separately for general category and reserved category candidates and not in respect of papers/subjects. After completion of the interview, certain posts reserved for SCs & STs could not be filled-up owing to non-availability of qualified eligible candidates. The respondent-candidates in the above cited case who were not appointed although they have obtained the required minimum qualifying marks, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for filling-up the said posts. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) disposed of the said application directing the Railway administration to consider the question in regard to lowering of cut-off marks. The respondent-candidates in the above cited case who were not appointed although they have obtained the required minimum qualifying marks, filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for filling-up the said posts. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) disposed of the said application directing the Railway administration to consider the question in regard to lowering of cut-off marks. The Railway administration, however, took a decision that it would not be conducive to general merit of the candidates if the cut-off marks were further lowered whereafter, another application was filed before the said Tribunal and the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal taking a view that the appellant could not be directed to lower down the cut-off marks. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in which the High Court directed the appellant-Railway authorities to appoint the respondent-candidates by lowering the cut-off marks against the posts reserved for the candidates belonging to SCs and STs. The issue in the aforesaid cited case was in regard to whether the appellant-Railway authority should have filled-up the unfilled vacancies meant for the reserved category candidates by the general candidates on the basis of cut-off marks fixed for the general candidates. It was held that even assuming that the appellant-Railway authority appointed the general candidates, the general candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility clause including the cut-off marks fixed therefore and the cut-off marks fixed for the SC and ST candidates should not be applied to the general category candidates. The issue involved in the instant case is quite different and as such, I am afraid that the mandate of the above cited case would be applicable to the case in hand. 12. The impugned decision was taken by the Commission on 13.6.2007, i.e., after about 4(four) months from the date of conducting the Preliminary Examination on 2.2.2007 and the respondent Commission claimed that it has the power to do so under the provision of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2001. Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules is quoted below: 11. 12. The impugned decision was taken by the Commission on 13.6.2007, i.e., after about 4(four) months from the date of conducting the Preliminary Examination on 2.2.2007 and the respondent Commission claimed that it has the power to do so under the provision of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2001. Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules is quoted below: 11. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the Main Examination, and candidates who obtain such minimum marks in the Main (Written) Examination as may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be summoned by them for an interview for personality and other tests. This rule contemplates that the Commission has to fix minimum qualifying marks in the Preliminary Examination and those candidates who secure the minimum qualifying marks shall be admitted to the Main Examination. The Commission under the aforesaid rule is also required to fix the minimum qualifying marks in the Mains (Written) Examination and the candidates who secure such marks shall be called-for in the interview for personality and other tests (viva-voce test). The power for fixing the minimum qualifying marks both in the Preliminary Examination and Main Examination is in respect of all the subjects/papers. No power has been given under the provision of the aforesaid Rule to the Commission to fix a minimum qualifying mark in respect of a particular subject/paper. This rule contemplates that the Commission is required to fix the minimum qualifying marks before it holds the Preliminary Examination. In this case, the Commission took the decision admittedly after the Preliminary Examination was conducted which is not at all contemplated under the said rule. In my considered view, the Commission is not authorized to take the impugned decision after the Preliminary Examination was conducted, i.e., long after the recruitment process had already been set in motion. It is immaterial whether or not the petitioners appeared in the Main Examination are fully aware of about the decision of the Commission requiring the candidates to secure minimum 40% marks in General English paper. The principle of estopple sought to be applied by the Commission to the petitioners is not tenable under the law as the Commission sought to implement the decision which is not authorized under the rules. 13. The principle of estopple sought to be applied by the Commission to the petitioners is not tenable under the law as the Commission sought to implement the decision which is not authorized under the rules. 13. The Commission by conducting the Preliminary Examination screened the candidates for the Main Examination which consists of written and viva-voce test. The purpose of conducting the Main Examination is to assess the knowledge and intellectual ability and the viva-voce test is to assess the initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, ability to make decision, ability to lead, etc. It is not known how the over-all intellectual and personal qualities of a candidate be assessed by evaluating the marks obtained only in General English paper without evaluating the over-all performance and marks secured in the other subjects/papers. One may secure little less than 40% marks in General English paper while securing high percentage of marks in other subjects/papers. The objective of selecting better and best suitable candidates by conducting written test would be frustrated if the marks secured only in General English paper is given undue priority over the other subjects/papers and more so, if the marks secured in other subjects/papers are not at all evaluated. There is lack of nexus between the objective sought to be achieved by conducting written test and the impugned decision taken by the Commission. 14. The impugned decision has been taken by the Commission taking a view that emphasis has to be given by the Commission to possession of good command on English language by the would-be recruited Officers because English language is the official language in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is not reflected in the impugned decision that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has in any manner made any request to the Commission to lay special emphasis on English language vis-a-vis requiring the candidates to secure minimum 40% marks in General English paper in the written examination for recruitment to Groups A & B posts. It is not reflected in the impugned decision that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has in any manner made any request to the Commission to lay special emphasis on English language vis-a-vis requiring the candidates to secure minimum 40% marks in General English paper in the written examination for recruitment to Groups A & B posts. Even if such request was made by the State Government, it is not expected that no relaxation should be given in the case of APST candidates, they being backward in education and it would not be proper and fair to compare them with the general candidates who come from advantaged position unlike the APST candidates who prosecute their studies under various adverse circumstances and not expected to be at par with the general candidates in respect of command in English language. By this impugned decision, the Commission is trying to place the disadvantaged candidates, particularly APST candidates, at par with the general candidates. If the impugned decision is implemented, the local tribal people will be deprived of the right to adequate representation in public administration which will hit Article 335 of the Constitution of India. 15. At the time of hearing, Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioners, placed before this Court a copy of the Office Memorandum under No. O.M.-54/2006 dated 7.1.2008, issued by the Secretary (AR), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, regarding procedure for selection of candidates. It would be appropriate to quote the aforesaid Office Memorandum below: (To Be Published In Arunachal Pradesh Gazette) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Department Of Personnel, Administrative Reforms And Training Administrative Reforms No. OM-54/2006 Dated Itanagar the 7th January, 2008. Office Memorandum Subject: Selection of candidates for appearing in Viva-Voce Test on the basis of Recruitment Examination-procedure thereof. It has been brought to be notice of the Government that various appointing authorities are selecting candidates for viva-voce test on the basis of one or two subject of written examination ignoring other equally important papers and without following a uniform pattern. As a result, the ratio of candidates selected per vacancy varies from one examination to other without maintaining common practice on prescription of ratio or cut off marks even the candidates are selected in the ratio of 1:2:3. As a result, the ratio of candidates selected per vacancy varies from one examination to other without maintaining common practice on prescription of ratio or cut off marks even the candidates are selected in the ratio of 1:2:3. The issue was under examination of the Administrative Reforms Department and has found that no such procedure had been laid down earlier nor such procedures have been prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules. After careful examination of the issue and in modification of point Nos. 2 and 3 of the OM dated 28.8.2006, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh has decided to prescribe the following procedures for all direct recruitment examinations for appointment to Groups A, B and C posts/services under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh: (1) For appearing in the viva-voce test, candidates shall be selected in the 'ratio' of 1:3 (meaning 3 candidates shall be selected for each vacancy of 3(three) times of the ratio of the number of vacancies) on the basis of written examination papers. However, ratio of 1:3 shall not apply in case the candidates appearing the written examination is less than 3 times of the number of vacancies. In case of the candidates appearing in the written examination is less than 3 times of the number of vacancies, all the candidates securing 33% of marks in each written examination papers shall be eligible for appearing viva-voce test. (2) The candidates securing a minimum of 33% or more marks in each written examination papers and has secured 45% of marks out of aggregate total marks in the written examination papers shall be eligible for viva-voce test. On the other, it will further mean that selection for viva-voce test shall be based on the aggregate total marks secured in the written examination papers and subject to ratio of 1:3. The candidates securing less than 33% of marks in any of written examination papers shall not be eligible for appearing in the viva-voce test. (3) The Selection Committee or Commission may lower the 'cut off marks' of 45% to certain extent, in case of non-availability of Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe candidates securing the 'cut-off marks'. Therefore, all the appointing authorities are requested to comply with the above guidelines while conducting recruitment examinations for appointment to Group 'A', 'B' & 'C level of posts/services. Sd/-(Y.D. Thongchi) 7.1.2008 Secretary (AR) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh 16. The clear decision taken by the Govt. Therefore, all the appointing authorities are requested to comply with the above guidelines while conducting recruitment examinations for appointment to Group 'A', 'B' & 'C level of posts/services. Sd/-(Y.D. Thongchi) 7.1.2008 Secretary (AR) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh 16. The clear decision taken by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh is that the candidates securing a minimum of 33% of marks in each written examination paper and who secure 45% of marks out of aggregate total marks in the written examination papers shall be eligible for viva-voce test. No separate policy decision has been taken by the State Government requiring the candidates to secure a minimum of 40% of marks particularly in General English paper and not to evaluate the marks obtained in the other subjects/papers. In the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 7.1.2008, the State Government has rather taken a decision that the cut-off marks may be lowered to a certain extent in the case of non-availability of APST candidates. The Commission has taken the impugned decision contrary to the policy decision adopted by the State Government as aforesaid and has taken its own decision without providing any relaxation in minimum marks to be secured in t respect of APST candidates in the eventuality of non-availability of APST candidates securing the minimum fixed percentage of marks. The fixing of minimum marks of 40% in General English paper for all candidates without any relaxation in the case of APST candidates is more unreasonable and offending the policy decision of the State Government reflected in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 7.1.2008. 17. The candidates who appeared at the Preliminary Examination and who have been declared qualified on the basis of marks secured in the Preliminary Examination have acquired a right to appear in the Main Examination and they have further acquired the right to appear in the viva-voce test. The rules do not delegate any power to the Commission to eliminate a candidate for being declared as eligible for appearing in the viva-voce test who has secured the minimum required percentage of marks i.e., a minimum of 33% of marks in each written examination papers and 45% of marks out of aggregate total marks in the written examination papers, on the ground of not securing minimum 40% marks in the General English paper. The Commission has evolved a process of elimination of candidates who have secured less than 40% of marks in General English paper but who have otherwise, secured the required percentage of marks of 45% in aggregate of all the subjects papers as fixed by the State Government by way of policy decision as aforesaid. Such a decision to eliminate the candidates just on the ground of not securing 40% of marks in the General English paper rather goes counter to the process of finding better and best candidates of the top-posts in the State Civil Service. The impugned decision is also against the general procedure to evaluate the marks obtained by the candidates in aggregate taking into account the marks secured in the written papers at the Main Examination and at the viva-voce test. The existing Rules contemplate assessment/evaluation of marks obtained by the candidates in written papers and selection for viva-voce test in order of merit and after the viva-voce test, the Commission shall prepare the final list of eligible candidates on the basis of marks obtained in Written (Main) Examination and the viva-voce test. Here in the present case, the Commission, by taking the impugned decision is seeking to eliminate the candidates who appeared in the written papers in the Main Examination without assessing/evaluating the percentage of marks secured in aggregate by them and thereby, denying the opportunity of appearing in the viva-voce test for not being able to secure 40% marks in General English paper which is not at all provided in the existing Rules and also not backed by the policy decision of the State Government fixing the minimum required percentage of marks in individual papers and aggregate. 18. Moreover, the reason for fixing of minimum marks in respect of General English paper is unheard of in the competitive examination even in the case of Union Public Service Commission, the highest Selection Board for the top Civil Service Posts of the country like IAS, I.F.S, LPS, etc. Under the UPSC, the candidates can opt for medium of English, Hindi and even regional languages under the eighth schedule to the Constitution of India, for writing their answers in respect of optional papers but no such minimum marks is fixed for General English paper as a condition for evaluation of marks in other papers in the written test in the Main Examination. The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) has given no option to the candidates for any other medium except English for appearing in the written test. The candidates are required to choose only the English medium and as such, there is no reason for fixing the minimum 40 of marks for General English paper. The candidates who secure good marks above the minimum fixed percentage of marks in other optional papers, are to be taken to have sufficient command over English and it would not justify fixing of minimum percentage of marks in English paper only for evaluation of answers in the other optional subjects/papers. What is expected to find-out from the candidate is working command over English and excellent knowledge in the optional subjects/papers offered by a candidate and not the excellent command over English in total disregard to commendable knowledge in the optional subjects/papers. Demanding excellent command over English in exclusion to one's good knowledge in optional papers is tantamount to such demand during British Rule suiting their style of rule under the Crown. The impugned decision of the Commission, in my considered view, is influenced by the colonial approach which is no longer acceptable and encourage able in free India. One must not be oblivious of the ground reality that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is backward in all respects and most of the places in the State are still inaccessible and the State needs people in the Civil Services who are mentally and temperamentally prepared to serve in the interior and remote places with devotion and dedication. What is really required in the State Civil Service is not products of so-called elite English medium institutions from the so-called high families but the individuals who are really keen and committed to serve the backward rural populace who are yet to come-out from the semi-primitive stage and for whom, medium of communication is the regional dialects in preference to the foreign language like English. 19. The controversy regarding giving effect to the impugned decision 'in future' or from the on-going recruitment process should not detain this Court any longer in deciding the matter. There is no dispute that the impugned decision was taken after the Preliminary Examination was held by the Commission. 19. The controversy regarding giving effect to the impugned decision 'in future' or from the on-going recruitment process should not detain this Court any longer in deciding the matter. There is no dispute that the impugned decision was taken after the Preliminary Examination was held by the Commission. Normally, the recruiting authority is not expected to set new condition/conditions after the process of recruitment has already been set in motion and more particularly, when such change of terms and conditions are not reflected in the advertisement issued by the authority inviting applications from eligible candidates. In the present case, as already discussed above, the Commission took the impugned decision contrary to the policy decision of the State Government besides taking the same in the middle of the recruitment process which is totally unwarranted and beyond the accepted procedure in matter of recruitment and as such, the impugned decision is illegal; unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary and it is immaterial whether the said impugned decision is to be given effect to "in future" process or in the on-going process of recruitment. 20. The impugned decision dated 13.6.2007 is therefore liable to be quashed and the same is quashed hereby. It is directed that the Commission shall evaluate the marks secured by the candidates in all the papers/subjects of Main Examination on the basis of cut-off marks fixed by the State Government by way of policy decision reflected in the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 7.1.2008 and on the basis of evaluation of answer scripts of all the papers/subjects, shall call the candidates for the viva-voce test on merit and prepare a final seniority list on merit on the basis of marks secured in the Main Examination consisting of written and viva-voce test. Be it made clear that the marks secured in other papers/subjects by the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates shall be evaluated by the Commission provided they have secured the minimum 33% of marks or more in General English paper in the written test of the Main Examination and their eligibility for being called to the viva-voce test shall be determined accordingly on merit. 21. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands ill owed. Petition dismissed.