1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with common prayer, namely direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them to the posts of Constable in the State Police on the basis of selection made by the District Selection Board by cancelling the appointments of private respondents whose positions, they allege, are below the positions of the petitioners in the select list. 2. The facts and circumstances, including the issues, being common, all these petitions have been heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh (respondent No.2) issued advertisement dated 11th April, 2008 for recruitment of 1224 Constables in the Civil Police, APP Bn. And IRBN. The said posts were distributed in 16 districts of the State. As many as 67 posts were allocated for East Kemeng district, Seppa. All these petitioners hailing from East Kameng district applied for the said posts. Separate recruitment committees were constituted at the district level with the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned as its chairman. The selection tests were held during May to July 2008. The said 67 posts were again allocated/distributed in the following manner : Name of Dist.IUn.it Civil Police AAPBn. IRBN Total APST APST (Ex.SM) APST APST (Ex.SM) APST APST (Ex.SM) S1.3-East Kameng 17 02 05 01 38 04 67 Posts 4. No candidate from ex-servicemen applied for the same. The petitioners were found qualified in the physical endurance test, written examination and finally in the viva voce conducted by the District Recruitment/Selection Board. The District Selection Board released/published a merit list of 74 candidates on 19th July, 2008 and the same was sent/forwarded to the Police Headquarters for approval. The petitioner, Shri Hawa Bagang in WP(C) No.36(AP)/2009 got selected for the post of Constable in IRBN and his name appeared at SI. No. 65 in the list of selected candidates in order of merit. The petitioner No. 1, Shri Dadi Kolie and petitioner No.2, Shri Nechang Kamke in WP(C) No.96(AP)/2009 were also selected and their names found place at SI. Nos. 68 and 69 in the waiting list. Similarly, the petitioner No. 1, Prakash Kamchi and petitioner No.2, Shri Jamuna Cheri in WP(C) No.97(AP)/2009 were selected and placed at SI. Nos. 66 and 67 respectively in order of merit. Nos. 68 and 69 in the waiting list. Similarly, the petitioner No. 1, Prakash Kamchi and petitioner No.2, Shri Jamuna Cheri in WP(C) No.97(AP)/2009 were selected and placed at SI. Nos. 66 and 67 respectively in order of merit. The Police Headquarters accorded approval and provisionally selected 64 candidates for appointment subject to clearance in the medical examination and character/antecedent verifications against the total allotted posts of 67 keeping 3(three) posts reserved for sports persons. As per the list dated 29th September, 2009 published by the Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman of the East Kameng District, all the petitioners have been left out from the said list. 5. All those 67 candidates appeared before the District Medical Board at Seppa. Out of them the private respondent Nos. 7 to 11 were found suffering from medical infirmity. To fill up aforesaid 5(five) posts in place of the private respondents No.7 to 11, the District Selection Board provisionally selected the present petitioners and directed them to appear before the Medical Board Seppa on 10.11.2008. The Medical Board found them fit medically and recommended their names to the Police Headquarters for appointment. However, the respondent authorities did not issue appointment orders to them. 6. Some of the candidates who were found medically unfit made representation before the authority for re-examination and accordingly they were re-examined by the Medical Board at General Hospital, Naharlagun on 2.12.2008. This time, the Medical Board declared the private respondents as fit for appointment to the posts of Constable and accordingly they were appointed. As a result, the present petitioners lost their chance of appointment. 7. I have heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.36(AP)/2009 and Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.96(AP)/2009 and WP(C) No.97(AP)/2009. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, appearing on. behalf of the State respondents and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 7 to 11. 8. Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.96(AP)/2009 and WP(C) No.97(AP)/2009. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, appearing on. behalf of the State respondents and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 7 to 11. 8. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 36(AP)/2009 submits that once the District Medical Board examined medically all the selected candidates as constituted by the District Selection Board concerned and the said Medical Board found the private respondents physically unfit, the action taken by the respondent authorities in getting the said unfit candidates re-examined by another Medical Board at the General Hospital at Naharlagun is unwarranted and the same was done only to accommodate the private respondents. In ordering medical re-examination of private Respondents, the respondent authorities have not given the reasons for not accepting the report of the District Medical Board. Unless, according to Mr. Sonar, sufficient and reasonable grounds for rejecting the report of the District Medical Board are furnished, the respondent authorities cannot order re-examination by another Medical Board. He argues further that while rejecting the medical report of a District Medical Board, it must be found that there was error of judgment in the decision of the Medical Officers constituting the Board but in the present case, the medical re-examination was ordered merely because some representations were filed by some of the candidates declared medically unfit by the District Medical Board, which is not at all sustainable. 9. Mr. S. Tapin, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.96(AP)/2009 and WP(C) No.97(AP)/2009 submits that in the advertisement dated 11th April, 2008, no reservation was provided for the Sports persons in the recruitment of Constables. No such reservation for the Sports persons has been provided in The Constable of Police (Group 'D' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987 framed under article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such, the impugned action of the respondent authorities in appointing 3(three) candidates from Sports quota in respect of East Kameng district is unreasonable, illegal and unreasonable inasmuch as it has deprived the duly selected candidates of their chance of appointment. The appointment of Sports persons depriving the petitioners, who have been duly selected by the Selection Board and declared medically fit by the Medical Board, are liable to be quashed/cancelled and in their place, the petitioners should be appointed in order of merit. Mr. Tapin endorses the submissions advanced by Mr. Sonar in respect of medical re-examination of private respondents and acceptance of the medical report prepared by the District Medical Board. 10. Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, referring to averments in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities, submits that 3(three) posts of Constable in respect of East Kameng district were reserved for Sports quota as per the earlier direction of this court on 23.7.2008 passed in WP(C) No.261(AP)/2008 and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in providing such reservation for the Sports persons, although, no provision has been made in the service rules as well as the advertisement. In regard to medical re-examination of private respondent Nos. 7 to 11, it is submitted by Ms. Deka that as per the Standing Order No.30 dated 7th March, 2008 relating to procedure of recruitment of Constable at clause 11, it is provided that a candidate dissatisfied with physical measurement can appeal to the Chairman of the Recruitment Board. Further clause 20 provides for medical examination of candidates selected and approved by PHQ, should be got done through the Government Hospital at Naharlagun and Government Hospitals at the respective district Headquarters. The respondent authorities received two representations from the candidates and on receipt of the same, all the 5(five) candidates who were declared unfit in the earlier medical examination conducted by the District Medical Board, were called for re-medical examination at Naharlagun General Hospital as they were found bow hands. A specialist in Orthopaedics was included in the said Medical Board. In the medical re-examination held on 4th December, 2008, the Medical Board found the private respondents fit and accordingly by an order dated 11.12.2008, they were selected for appointment to the posts of Constable and directed to report at Police Training Centre (PTC), Banderdewa. 11. Further it is submitted by the learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate that the names of the private respondents were placed at SI. Nos. 3,22,29, 36 and 47 whereas the names of the petitioners appeared at SI. Nos. 65,66,67,68 and 69. 11. Further it is submitted by the learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate that the names of the private respondents were placed at SI. Nos. 3,22,29, 36 and 47 whereas the names of the petitioners appeared at SI. Nos. 65,66,67,68 and 69. In fact, except the petitioner in WP(C) No.36(AP)/2009, all other petitioners were placed in the waiting list. The petitioners having been placed much below the positions of the private respondents in the merit list would have no better claim over the private respondents. Merely, finding a place in the selection list, that too, in the waiting list, the petitioners have accrued no indefeasible right to claim appointments. She wants to fortify her submissions by referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in : 1. S.S. Balu and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 478. 2. G. Rongmeinaga v. District Sessions Judge, Manipur (E) and Others, 1998 (2) GLT 119. 3. Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. Pabitra Gogoi and Others, 1998 (4) GLT 60. 4. Hem Chandra Barthakur v. State of Assam and Others, 2000 (1) GLT 310. 12. The private respondents have filed no affidavit-in-opposition Mr. Taffo, learned counsel appearing for them simply endorses the stand taken by the State respondents. 13. The material facts, as narrated by the petitioners, have broadly been admitted by the State respondents in regard to allotment of posts for the East Kameng district and the provisional merit list prepared by the District Selection Board. The merit positions of the petitioners as well as the private respondents have also been accepted by the parties. The petitioners, although initially questioned the allotment of quota for Sports persons and appointments made under, Sports quota, it is found that they have not been serious about it after they came to know about the aforesaid order dated 23.7.2008 passed by this court in WP(C) No.261(AP)/2008. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The operative portion of the same is reproduced below : "...............With regard to the interim prayer, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the interim prayer. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The operative portion of the same is reproduced below : "...............With regard to the interim prayer, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the interim prayer. It is stated that an office Memorandum dated 14th May, 2001 has been issued by the Chief Secretary of the State wherein the recruitment policy for appointment of meritorious Sports persons is not more than 5% of the vacancies in Groups "B"; "C" and "D" posts shall be filled up by meritorious Sports persons. However, it is stated by the learned counsel Mr. Tado that an advertisement dated 11th April, 2008 for filling up the posts of Constables in Civil Police, APP Bn and IRBN has been issued wherein the numbers of posts are 1224. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the office Memorandum dated 14th May, 2001 and other connected OM of the Government of India and the advertisement dated 11th April, 2008, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for calling an interim order and in that view of the matter, it is hereby directed that pending disposal of the writ petition, the respondents shall not fill-up 5% of the vacancies/posts as advertised vide advertisement dated 11th April, 2008." 14. I have been able to locate from the records placed by the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, a copy of office Memorandum dated 14th May, 2001, aforesaid providing 5% of the vacancies in Groups "B", "C" and "D" posts against direct recruitment quota from amongst the meritorious Sports persons belonging to APST in relaxation of the recruitment procedure under the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the Government of India's office Memorandum. The aforesaid reservation for Sports persons is a policy decision of the Government which has been adopted in tune with the policy of the Central Government. The said office Memorandum is reproduced below: "GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, ADMINISTRAITVE REFORMS AND TRAINING O & M BRANCH: ITANAGAR No. OM-13/2000 Dated Itanagar, the 14th May, 2001 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub : Appointment of meritorious Sports persons to Groups "B", "C" and "D" posts in relaxation of recruitment procedure. The said office Memorandum is reproduced below: "GOVERNMENT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, ADMINISTRAITVE REFORMS AND TRAINING O & M BRANCH: ITANAGAR No. OM-13/2000 Dated Itanagar, the 14th May, 2001 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub : Appointment of meritorious Sports persons to Groups "B", "C" and "D" posts in relaxation of recruitment procedure. The undersigned is directed to say that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has adopted the recruitment policy for appointment of meritorious Sports persons to Group "B", "C" and. "D" posts in relaxation of the recruitment procedure issued by the Government of India under office Memorandum as below : 1. No. 14015/1/76-Estt(D) dated 4.8.1980 Annexure I 2. No. 15012/3/84-Estt(D) dated 12.11.1987 Annexure II 3. No. 14034/1/95-Estt(D) dated 4.5.1995 Annexure III 4. No.14034/3/95-Estt(D) dated 29.11.1996Annexure IV Further, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh also decided to extend the facility to meritorious Sports persons for appointment in Group "B" posts services under the same procedure as prescribed by the Government of India for Groups "C" and "D" posts. It is, therefore, impressed upon all the appointing authorities/Heads of Departments to make recruitment not more than 5% of the vacancies in Groups "B", "C" and "D" posts against direct recruitment quota from amongst the meritorious Sports persons belonging to APST in relaxation of the recruitment procedure under the same terms and conditions as stipulated under the Government of India Office Memorandum as cited above. Sd/- Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar." 15. In view of the above, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no appointment could be made against Sports quota for want of provision in the relevant service rules and the advertisement would be acceptable by this court. Moreover, it has been verified and found from the relief claimed in the writ petitions that they have not sought for cancellation of the appointments of the candidates who have been appointed against Sports quota. It would mean that the petitioners have no say against the reservation provided for the Sports persons and appointments made under the Sports quota. 16. Moreover, it has been verified and found from the relief claimed in the writ petitions that they have not sought for cancellation of the appointments of the candidates who have been appointed against Sports quota. It would mean that the petitioners have no say against the reservation provided for the Sports persons and appointments made under the Sports quota. 16. The only point left for consideration is as to whether the appointment of the private respondents who have once been declared unfit by the District Medical Board and subsequently re-examined and found medically fit by the State appointed/constituted Review Medical Board consisting of 4 doctors including an Orthopedics Surgeon, could be saved as valid or cancelled as demanded by the petitioners. It may be noted that the District Medical Board of East Kameng District as constituted by the respondent authorities to examine the candidates consists of 3(three) Medical Officers including the Senior Medical Officer (SG) of District Hospital, Seppa as its Chairman. But none of them is an Orthopaedics Surgeon. The private respondents were mostly found bow hands by the said District Medical Board and they were declared unfit. As none of the District Medical Officers in the Board was an Orthopaedics Surgeon, the respondent authorities constituted, what may be called review Medical Board, with 4(four) medical officers with the Medical Superintendent of General Hospital, Naharlagun as its Chairman and an Orthopaedics Surgeon as one of the members. On re-examination by the said Medical Board, the private respondents were found and certified as medically fit. The decision to constitute a review Medical Board with an Orthopaedics Surgeon to examine the private respondents cannot be faulted as examination of the candidates like private respondents who were allegedly found physically infirm and unfit by the District Medical Board, are required to be re-examined at least by an Orthopaedics Surgeon with all fairness. This was done by the respondent authorities through the review Medical Board to have the correct physical state of the persons concerned. Such action on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be interfered with by this court. 17. What is next to be examined is as to whether the court would be justified in interfering with the report of the review Medical Board in respect of the present private respondents certifying them as medically fit. Such action on the part of the respondent authorities cannot be interfered with by this court. 17. What is next to be examined is as to whether the court would be justified in interfering with the report of the review Medical Board in respect of the present private respondents certifying them as medically fit. As already discussed under what circumstances, the respondent authorities had to constitute a review Medical Board, it is needless to re-iterate that the said review Medical Board was constituted to have a correct report on the physical condition of the private respondents by getting them examined through a review Medical Board constituted of higher medical officers with better experience amongst whom at least one has been drawn from an Orthopaedics Surgeon. The respondent authorities have obtained expert opinion from a Board of Medical Officers including an Orthopaedics Surgeon. There is hardly anything to call the action taken by the respondent authorities in obtaining such expert opinion in question, and to interfere with the opinion offered by the expert body and any interference with the said expert opinion of the Medical Board would amount to substituting the expert opinion, which the court should refrain from doing so. This is a settled law and it is not necessary to reiterate by referring to various decisions of the Apex Court. 18. The court is not obliged to interfere with the expert opinion of the Medical Board in regard to physical fitness of the private respondents and also to interfere with their appointments merely on the asking of some selected candidates like the petitioners. The petitioners should bear in mind the settled law of the land that the selectee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right unless discrimination has been shown or established. They should also bear in mind that improper appointment of others would also not confer any right on them for appointment in place of the private respondents. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Aryavrat Gramin Bank v. Vijay Kr. Shukla, (2007) 12 SCC 413 . 19. Reference in this regard may be made to State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Rajkumar Sharma and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Aryavrat Gramin Bank v. Vijay Kr. Shukla, (2007) 12 SCC 413 . 19. Following the above discussions in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court would come to a conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish any case in their favour for granting the reliefs) as sought for by them like cancellation of the appointment of private respondent No. 7 to 11 and appointing them in place of the said private respondents. 20. The writ petitions are found devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 21. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Records are returned to learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Ms. Deka.