Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 553 (GAU)

Razouvoyi Francis Rhakho v. State of Nagaland

2009-08-11

ASHOK POTSANGBAM

body2009
JUDGMENT Ashok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Koza, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Y. Longkumar, learned Government advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. Also heard Mr. N. Mozhui, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Y. Wate, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition may be noticed as hereunder. 2.1. The Petitioner who is a Degree holder in Electrical Engineering belongs to Chakhesang Tribe, one of the recognized B Ts in Nagaland, and, he is qualified for appointment either as Junior Engineer or SDO in the Power Department, Government of Nagaland. 2.2 Broadly speaking, there are two categories of Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland, the first group being called as Indigenous Tribes or the Advanced Tribe and the other group being called the B Ts Nine (9) Tribes have been identified as B Ts and in order to ensure adequate representation of the B. T. S. in the State administration, Government framed a policy for reservation of 33% of vacancies for B.T.s and for effective implementation of the aforesaid policy, an Office Memorandum dated 18.8.2001 under No. RCBT-5/87(PT) was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, revising the earlier policy on reservation of posts for B Ts by introducing 45-point roster system. The name of the Backward Tribe ('BT') is indicated against the roster point earmarked for each of the 9(nine) B Ts and the same is followed in the recruitment for all categories of post. In case there is no suitable candidate available for a particular BT, when the turn of such BT comes by rotation of roster, the benefit would be extended to the next BT in alphabetical order. However, if there is no suitable candidate from any of the nine (9) notified B Ts in a particular recruitment, the reserved vacancies shall be treated automatically as de-reserved and the same can be filled up from amongst the Indigenous Tribes, i.e. Advanced Tribe, on the basis of merit. In the case of technical post, para 8 of the revised policy dated 18.8.2001, lays down the procedure and same is reproduced herein below: 8. In the case of technical post, para 8 of the revised policy dated 18.8.2001, lays down the procedure and same is reproduced herein below: 8. In the case of technical posts, if no suitable candidate is available from a particular B.T. whose turn has come on the roster, this benefit may be extended to the next BT in the alphabetical order as indicated in the relevant roster. However, in the event of non-availability of suitable candidates from amongst all the 9 (nine) notified BT for any single recruitment, the reserved vacancies shall be automatically treated as de-reserved and the same filled up from amongst the other indigenous tribes on the basis of merit. 2.3 There are two roster tables marked as Annexure A and Annexure B to the aforesaid reservation policy dated 18.8.2001. Table-A roster is applicable for recruitment to the category of posts where 80% of the posts are reserved for the indigenous inhabitants and the Table-B roster is applicable to the category of posts where 100% of the posts are reserved for the indigenous inhabitants. Admittedly, in the instant case, Table-A roster is applicable. In the 45-point roster under Table-A, the following are the slots reserved/earmarked for the B Ts Position of Vacancies Name of the BTs 2nd post Chakhesang, BT 5th post Chang Tribe 9th post Khiamnjungan Tribe 12th post Konyak Tribe 17th post Phom Tribe 20th post Pochury Tribe 24th post Sangtam Tribe 27th post Yimchunger Tribe 32nd post Zeliang Tribe 35th post Chakhesang Tribe 39th post Chang Tribe 42nd post Khiamajungan Tribe 3. It appears from the records that the Department of Power, Government of Nagaland, sought to fill up 7 (seven) posts in the Grade of S.D.O. (Elect) and 8 (eight) posts in the Grade of Junior Engineer (Elect) against direct recruitment quota through the Public Service Commission and, as such, a clearance with regard to the roster as well as reservation point was sought from the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P&AR Department), which is the competent and authorized Department to determine the roster point in a particular recruitment. The relevant clearance with details indicating roster points to be filled up in the proposed recruitment have been furnished by the Department of P&AR to the Power Department and the Power Department along with the clearance, submitted a requisition to the Commission for filling up of 8 (eight) posts of Junior Engineer. The relevant clearance with details indicating roster points to be filled up in the proposed recruitment have been furnished by the Department of P&AR to the Power Department and the Power Department along with the clearance, submitted a requisition to the Commission for filling up of 8 (eight) posts of Junior Engineer. The roster points furnished by the P&AR Department in respect of the aforesaid 8 (eight) posts of Junior Engineer, are quoted below: 3. Junior Engineer (E) - 8 Posts. (1) 22nd Post For all Indigenous Inhabitants Tribes in Nagaland 1 No. (2) 23rd Post Un-reserved 1 No. (3) 24th Post BT Quota in favour of Santam Tribe 1 No. (4) 25th & 26th Post For all Indigeneous Tribes in 2 Nos. Nagaland (5) 27th Post BT Quota in favour of Yimchunger Tribes 1 No. (6) 28th & 29th Post For all Indigeneous Tribes in Nagaland 1 No. = Total 8 Nos. 3.1. It is not in dispute that 1(one) post out of 8(eight) posts for Junior Engineer, was subsequently withdrawn by the Government, as a result, only 7(seven) posts of Junior Engineer remained to be filled up through the Commission. The Commission, vide its advertisement No. 3/2005-2006, dated 7.7.2005 notified in item No. 3.A for filling up 7(seven) post of S.D.O. (Elect) and also notified in Item No. 3.C. for filling up 7(seven) posts of Junior Engineer (Elect) and 18.8.2005 was fixed as the last date for submission of applications. In Item No. 15 of the advertisement, the Commission clearly stipulated that 33% of the vacancies notified under the aforesaid advertisement, were reserved for the B Ts and the relevant portion of item No. 15 is quoted below:- 33% of the vacancies are reserved for the candidates belonging to 9(nine) B Ts of Nagaland on Roster Basis as revised vide P&AR Department Notification No. RCPT 5/87(PT) dated 1st August, 2001, and Memorandum No. RCPT 5/87(PT) dated 26.8.2001. 3.2. As per the aforesaid advertisement dated 7.7.2005, the requisite qualifications for the post of SDO is Degree in Electrical Engineering or its equivalent from a recognized University whereas the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) is Diploma in Electrical Engineering, BE/B. Tech. (Electrical) from a recognized University. 3.2. As per the aforesaid advertisement dated 7.7.2005, the requisite qualifications for the post of SDO is Degree in Electrical Engineering or its equivalent from a recognized University whereas the requisite qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) is Diploma in Electrical Engineering, BE/B. Tech. (Electrical) from a recognized University. Perusal of the qualifications prescribed for both the posts as mentioned above, would leave no doubt that a Degree holder in Electrical Engineering is eligible for consideration of appointment for the post of SDO (Elect.) as well as for the post of Junior Engineer (Elect) whereas a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering is eligible for appointment only for the post of Junior Engineer and as such a Diploma holder is in eligible for consideration of appointment for the post of S.D.O. against direct recruitment quota. Thus, the Petitioner being a Degree holder in Electrical Engineering and also being eligible for both the posts of S.D.O and the Junior Engineer, applied for both the posts. 3.3. The selection test conducted by the Commission, consisted of written as well as viva-voce test. There is no dispute that two (2) different written tests were held in the year 2005, one for the S.D.O. and another for the Junior Engineer and result of the written tests were declared on 26.1.2006. It is stated that the Petitioner, having been declared successful in the written test, was called to appear on 18.2.2006 for interview, vide call letter dated 30.1.2006 which is annexed as Annexure K/4 to the additional affidavit-in-reply dated 26.5.2009. According to the aforesaid call letter, the Petitioner was called for interview both for the post of SDO (Elect.) as well as Junior Engineer (Elect.). The result of the written test, as it appeared in the Notification dated 26.1.2006 (Annexure D/1 to the writ petition), is somewhat confusing, in the sense that five (5) posts of Junior Engineer (Elect.) was shown as reserved for the Diploma holders and two (2) posts of Junior Engineer was shown for Degree holder. This aspect may be dealt with, if necessary, at the later part of the judgment. 3.4 The Commission, vide Notification dated 21.2.2006, recommended six (6) Degree holder candidates from the advanced Tribe and one Diploma holder from the BT (Konyak) for appointment as Junior Engineer (Elect.). This aspect may be dealt with, if necessary, at the later part of the judgment. 3.4 The Commission, vide Notification dated 21.2.2006, recommended six (6) Degree holder candidates from the advanced Tribe and one Diploma holder from the BT (Konyak) for appointment as Junior Engineer (Elect.). Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation, the Government issued a Notification dated 10.5.2006 appointing the aforesaid seven (7) recommended persons as Junior Engineer in the Power Department. The Notification dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure D/2) and Notification dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure E) are impugned in this writ petition in so far as it relates to the recommendation and appointment of the Respondent No. 6 as Junior Engineer. 3.5 Aggrieved by the recommendation and appointment of a candidate belonging to an Advanced Tribe, i.e., Respondent No. 6, against one of the vacancies reserved for BT, the Petitioner took up various actions for ventilating his grievances, one of such steps taken by the Petitioner was to apply for a copy of the statement of marks obtained by him. In the statement of marks furnished by the Commission, the Petitioner was shown to have secured 273 (written test) + 52 (viva voca) = 325 (total). The Petitioner submitted a representation dated 7.3.2006 to the Public Service Commission for rectification of the result/recommendation against the post of Junior Engineer in respect of BT, on the ground that one post reserved for B.T.s had been erroneously allotted to an Advanced Tribe despite the availability of qualified B.T. candidate. As no response was forthcoming from the Commission, it is stated that the Petitioner turned to Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland for justice by submitting a representation dated 16.6.2006 wherein it was focused and highlighted about the violation of reservation for BT in the recruitment of Junior Engineer conducted by the Commission in the years 2005 and 2006. It was also highlighted by the Petitioner that he being the next qualified BT candidate, his claim for appointment against the BT quota could not have been ignored by the authority and, as per entitlement under law, the BT quota should have been given to him instead of giving the same to an Advanced Tribe. As no action seemed to have been taken by the Government in pursuance of the aforesaid representation, Petitioner had no option but to file this petition. Hence, this writ petition. 4. As no action seemed to have been taken by the Government in pursuance of the aforesaid representation, Petitioner had no option but to file this petition. Hence, this writ petition. 4. It is stated that the Petitioner came across a communication dated 4th October, 2006 issued by the P&AR Department, Government of Nagaland (Annexure. R/2 to the affidavit-in-reply dated 24.4.2009) to Secretary of the Commission and this communication was in response to a letter dated 2nd June, 2006 from the Commission. In that, it is clearly pointed out by the Government that the Commission was under obligation to explain and clarify as to how 1 (one) post reserved for BT was utilized for accommodating a candidate belonging to Advanced Tribe. The aforesaid letter dated 4th October, 2006 is quoted below: To The Secretary, Nagaland Public Service Commission, Nagaland, Kohima. Subject – Representation and clarification on by Reservation for Junior Engineer (Power) Department. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. NPSC/EXAM-1/2006 dated 2nd June, 2006 on the subject cited above and to state that the P&AR Department have examined the matter and request you to clarify the following for further necessary action 1. A particular by which gained during a particular year will not be entitled to benefit in the succeeding year, is applicable for the post of non-technical only, where 100% is reserved for indigenous Inhabitants but not for Technical posts as per para 3 of revised reservation policy. 2. In the case of Technical posts, if no suitable candidate is available from a particular BT whose turn has come on the roster, this benefit will be extended to the next BT suitable candidate available and so on or from amongst the 9(Nine) notified BT of suitable candidate(s) available in the alphabetical order as per para 8 of revised reservation policy. 3. Even the number of posts requisitioned rectified by the Joint Secretary (P&AR) from the original requisition of 8(eight) posts to 7(seven) posts or reservation of Diploma holder. BT reservation quota will not be effected as worked out by the P&AR Department. 4. As to how, Hone) post of BT reservation quota was accommodated to other advance Tribe candidate when suitable candidate was available amongst the BT is not clear to us which has to be clarified by the NPSC. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Nchumbemo Lotha Senior Research Officer. 4.1. 4. As to how, Hone) post of BT reservation quota was accommodated to other advance Tribe candidate when suitable candidate was available amongst the BT is not clear to us which has to be clarified by the NPSC. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Nchumbemo Lotha Senior Research Officer. 4.1. Affidavits on behalf of the Respondent Government, the Public Service Commission and also the private Respondent No. 6, have been filed. In the Government affidavit, the position of reservation for B Ts quota as well as distribution of posts between Degree and Diploma under the relevant rules have been clearly spelt out. Para 6 and the relevant portion of para 7 of the Government affidavit, which are relevant for the present case, are quoted below: 6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the petition, the deponent states that during clearance given by the P&AR Department initially, it was reserved for the Tribes of Sangtam and Yimchunger. It is stated herein that the maintenance of the reservation roster in the State of Nagaland has since been delegated to the NPSC vide Office Memorandum No. AR-13/12/85 dated 26.10.2006. 7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the petition, the deponent states that out of 7(seven) posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under Power Department, 4 (four) posts are reserved for general category (for both Degree and Diploma-holders) and 3 (three) posts are reserved for Diploma-holders. 4.2 The statement in para 6 as extracted above is in consonance and consistent with the clearance given by the Department of P&AR (Annexure C.2) to the Power Department. According to the aforesaid clearance of P&AR Department, roster point 24th fell for BT quota in favour of Sangtam Tribe and roster point 27th in favour of Yiumchunger Tribe and the above position is endorsed and confirmed by the subsequent communication of P&AR Department, dated 4th October, 2006, which has already been extracted hereinabove. Therefore, the 7 (seven) posts of Junior Engineer, which were sought to be filled up, as discussed above, fell against the roster point Nos. 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 28th. Therefore, the 7 (seven) posts of Junior Engineer, which were sought to be filled up, as discussed above, fell against the roster point Nos. 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 28th. That apart, the Government also maintained in para 7 of its affidavit that 7 posts in question were to be filled up in-accordance with Degree-Diploma quota in the following break up - 4 posts for general category (both Degree and Diploma holders) and 3 posts only by the Diploma holders. 4.3 The contentions of the Respondent No. 2, the Commission, as disclosed in its affidavit-in-opposition dated 17.1.2008, may be summarized as below: (i) The roster point maintained by the Commission did not tally with the roster point maintained by the Government and as such the Commission went by their own roster point. Respondent No. 2 also claimed that such an action was authorized by the O.M. No. AR-13/12/85, dated 26th October, 2006 issued by the Government of Nagaland. (ii) As per roster point maintained by the Commission, there was no reservation for B.T. as claimed by the Petitioner. (iii) As per the recruitment rules, 40% of the posts were to be filled up by the Diploma holders and 60% posts were to be filled up by Degree holders and that the Commission calculated the roster point for Diploma and Degree on the basis of the roster for reservation. 5. The ground Nos. (i) and (ii) of the Respondent No. 2, as discussed above, are co-related to each other and, therefore, these two grounds are taken up together. It is pertinent to point out that the recruitment in question was of 2005/2006 and the written tests for the two categories of post were held on 26.11.2005 and 2.12.2005 followed by viva-voce test in the month of February 2006. It appears that there is no reason and justification as to why the Commission should not follow the instructions given by the Government with regard to number of posts to be reserved for the B Ts and number of posts to be divided between the Degree holder and the Diploma holder. In absence of any modification, cancellation or withdrawal of the clearance given by the P&AR Department with regard to the roster point for reservation and number of posts for reservation, the Commission was to conduct the recruitment test in terms of the aforesaid instructions. Nothing less, nothing more. In absence of any modification, cancellation or withdrawal of the clearance given by the P&AR Department with regard to the roster point for reservation and number of posts for reservation, the Commission was to conduct the recruitment test in terms of the aforesaid instructions. Nothing less, nothing more. Unless there are statutes, rules and standing order authorizing/enabling the Commission to proceed with the selection of Junior Engineer on the basis of their own roster, independent of the roster prepared and furnished by the Government, any recommendation made by the Commission is wholly arbitrary and illegal. However, in the instant case the entire selection process is not under challenge and the challenge is confined to the recommendation of the Respondent No. 6 against the post reserved for BT and as such no finding on the legality of illegality of the entire selection process is called for. Another plea of the Respondent No. 2 is that the Commission was duly authorized to maintain their own roster in view of the OM dated 26.10.2006 but this contention is not sustainable for the simple reason that the OM was issued much after the selection and appointment in question, was over and the OM, which is to operate prospectively, could not be construed to have operated retrospectively justifying the action of the Commission, i.e., allowing to maintain separate roster point for the Commission while conducting the selection test. Further, the Commission was bound by its Notification wherein it was clearly stipulated, without any ambiguity, that 33% of the vacancies notified under advertisement dated 7.7.2005, were to be reserved for the B Ts already identified by the Competent Authority. It is not for the Commission to decide whether there should be any reservation for BT or not. Reservation for the B Ts was to be determined by the Government on the basis of the Table-A roster as referred to above and as such, the plea of the Respondent No. 2 in this regard does not have the approval of the court. 6. On the above proposition, Mr. Reservation for the B Ts was to be determined by the Government on the basis of the Table-A roster as referred to above and as such, the plea of the Respondent No. 2 in this regard does not have the approval of the court. 6. On the above proposition, Mr. L.S. Jamir, the learned Additional Advocate General has fairly submitted that before delegation of power under OM dated 26.10.2006, as referred to above, the Commission was bound to follow the instructions given by the Government and the Commission had no authority and competency to deviate from any of the instructions given by the Government with regard to reservation of B Ts and determination of roster point and, as such the act of the Commission, now under challenge in this writ petition, is a clear violation of the instructions given by the Government, and, consequently, the recommendation of Respondent No. 1 is a nullity in law. In view of the clear stand taken by the Government through the learned Addl. Advocate General as well as on perusal of the affidavits of the Government, as extracted above, this Court is of the considered view that two posts of Junior Engineer under roster point No. 24th and 27th fell for reservation of BT and OM dated 26.10.2006 has no application in the instant case. Even assuming that two posts reserved for B Ts fell for Diploma-holder under the recruitment rules as discussed above, the same ought to have filled up from among the qualified BT candidate and question of giving one of the two reserved posts to a candidate of advanced Tribes is not permissible and authorized by law, and as such the plea of the Respondent No. 2 on this issue, stands rejected. As the contention of the Respondent No. 6 is on the same line of argument of the Respondent No. 2, i.e., the Commission, no separate reply is called for. 7. That with regard to the third point which relates to division/distribution of posts in the ratio of 60: 40 between the Degree and Diploma-holders, it must not be understood that aforesaid division of posts should be on the basis of 45th roster point under Table-A which is meant for reservation on social status. 7. That with regard to the third point which relates to division/distribution of posts in the ratio of 60: 40 between the Degree and Diploma-holders, it must not be understood that aforesaid division of posts should be on the basis of 45th roster point under Table-A which is meant for reservation on social status. The division of posts under the rules between the Degree and Diploma holders is on the basis of qualification whereas the reservation of the post for BT under Table-A of the 45th roster point, is on the basis of social status. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent No. 2 in this regard is misconceived and misplaced. 8. As directed by the court, the Secretary of Public Service Commission was present along with the relevant file before the court on 22.5.2009. On perusal of File No. NPS (C)/22/2007 as produced by the Secretary to the NPSC, this Court noted that the relevant result sheet for recommendation of the Junior Engineer was found missing and that apart, the file mentioned above was, perhaps, opened after the filing of the instant writ petition. There is nothing on the file to indicate as to how the following decisions have been taken - (i) Decision to recommend the Respondent No. 6, an Advanced Tribe with Degree, against one of the two (2) vacancies reserved for BT, (ii) Decision as to how a Degree holder belonging to Advanced Tribe candidate was recommended against the vacancy meant for Diploma holder, (iii) Decision as to how the claim of the Petitioner for recommendation against one (1) of the two (2) reserved vacancies for BT was considered and rejected. However, some copies of loose tabulation charts where the marks secured by the candidates in respect of the selection test for the post of SDO (Elect.) as well as for Junior Engineer (Elect.), were shown to the court and copies of the such loose tabulation containing the marks secured by candidates were furnished to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. On the prayer of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, time was granted to enable him to produce the relevant file where the recommendation for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer was processed but the same was not produced without any explanation on any subsequent date despite giving adequate opportunity. 9. On the prayer of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, time was granted to enable him to produce the relevant file where the recommendation for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer was processed but the same was not produced without any explanation on any subsequent date despite giving adequate opportunity. 9. The Petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 21.5.2009 and two other additional affidavit-in-reply. In one of the additional affidavits-in-reply, it is stated by the Petitioner that though two different written tests were held on different dates for the post of SDO and the post of JE, a common viva-voce test was held and the marks secured in the vive voce was added to the marks secured in the written test either for SDO or for Junior Engineer. From the documents placed on record (in the file) by the Respondent No. 2 and the documents annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure K/1 to K/3, the aforesaid assertion appears to be correct and substantiated. The following are the marks secured by the Petitioner for the post of SDO as well as for the post of Junior Engineer I. SDO - 273 (written test) + 52 (viva-voce) = 325 (Total) II. JE - 281 (written test) + 52 (viva-voce) = 333 (Total) 10. After abandoning the claim and withdrawal of WP(C) No. 179 of 2006 by one Shri Puhuyo Neeo, on being selected in some other selection test, the Petitioner was the only qualified backward Tribe candidate who remained in the fray for consideration of appointment against one of the reserved posts, which was given to the Respondent No. 6. In the additional affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 on 29.5.2009, a new plea was taken by the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner did not qualify in the written test for the post of JE but there has not been any explanation as to how the post reserved for the BT has been given to the Respondent No. 6. 11. In order to decide the new plea of the Respondent No. 2, the court is to examine the documents available on record and the file produced by the Respondent No. 2. 11. In order to decide the new plea of the Respondent No. 2, the court is to examine the documents available on record and the file produced by the Respondent No. 2. On perusal of the documents marked as Annexure K/l, K/2 and K/3 and the original loose tabulation placed in the file produced by Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner is found to have secured 281 marks in written test and is placed at Serial No. 16 whereas the name of Mr. N. Manek Konya, a Diploma holder candidate, recommended and appointed against one of the two (2) reserved posts, secured the following marks, i.e., 241 in written test + 52.50 = 293.50 in total. As noticed above, the Petitioner secured 333 marks in total for JE which is much higher than the marks secured by other reserved candidate, namely, Mr. N. Manek Konya who was recommended and appointed against one of the reserved posts and as such the new plea of the Respondent No. 2 is contrary to facts on record. Thus, have no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner was/is qualified for recommendation and appointment to the reserved post of JE. 12. In view of the finding recorded in the foregoing paras with regard to the number of posts to be reserved, roster point to be maintained for reservation and that the Petitioner was qualified for recommendation and appointment against one of the two (2) posts of Junior Engineer reserved for the BT, the next question to be considered is whether the Respondent No. 6 who belongs to Advanced Tribe, could be recommended and appointed against one of the two (2) posts reserved for BT and that too against a post allegedly meant for Diploma holder. As already noticed above, the Respondent No. 2 maintained that 3 (three) out of 7 (seven) posts in question, were to be filled up by the Diploma holder in terms of the relevant recruitment rules and this plea was used to resist the claim of the Petitioner. Assuming that this contention is acceptable, no explanation has been given by the Respondent No. 2 as to how 6 (six) out of 7 (seven) posts have been filled up by Degree holders and Respondent No. 6 was one of them. Assuming that this contention is acceptable, no explanation has been given by the Respondent No. 2 as to how 6 (six) out of 7 (seven) posts have been filled up by Degree holders and Respondent No. 6 was one of them. No doubt, it is manifest that attempt has been made by Respondent No. 2 to apply different yardstick against different people though the selection test was the same. The fallacy and contradiction as pointed out above, are irreconcilable which would only mean that the plea of the Respondent No. 2 has no legs to stand. Secondly, the very purpose of the 33% of reservation for BT in the advertisement dated 7.7.2005 has been deliberately violated by the Public Service Commission by recommending the Respondent No. 6 against one of the posts reserved for BT which fell within the aforesaid 33% reservation. It appears that all the rules and established norms have been given a go-bye by the Public Service Commission while recommending the case of the Respondent No. 6 against the reserved quota. The fact that the relevant file in which the decision to recommend the Respondent No. 6 has been taken, not being produced despite direction given from this Court, leaves the court with no option but to infer that the recommendation of Respondent No. 6 against the reservation quota was the result of some maneuvering and manipulation by some vested interest. In the circumstances, an interference of the court is called for. Accordingly, Notification dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure D/2) and Notification dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure E) are quashed in so far it relates to the recommendation and appointment of Respondent No. 6. 13. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the Petitioner shall be treated as the only qualified BT candidate for the post of Junior Engineer, against the remaining vacancy reserved for BT Though, the court, normally, does not issue any direction for appointment of any person, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice will be met if the Government is directed to appoint the Petitioner against one of the posts of Junior Engineer, reserved for BT. It is ordered accordingly. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 14. It is ordered accordingly. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 14. Despite the findings recorded above, and quashing of the recommendation and appointment of the Respondent No. 6, on consideration of equity, it is made clear that the Government shall be at liberty to locate a vacancy in the Grade of Junior Engineer for accommodating the Respondent No. 6. 15. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Petition allowed.