JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents, Mr. M. Pertin, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. J. Hussain, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 4. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of Sr. Teacher in Geography subject in the Directorate of School Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 3. The facts, leading to the filing of this writ, petition, may be summarized, as follows: The Director of School Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, respondent No. 2 herein, issued on advertisement dated 12.04.2006, for filling up of the post of Senior Teachers on different subjects including one post of Senior Teacher in Geography subject. 4. In response to the advertisement dated 12.04.2006, the petitioner applied for the post of Sr. Teacher In Geography. Accordingly, call letter was issued to him to appear in the written test examination, scheduled to be held on 08.07.2006. The petitioner qualified in the written examination and he was issued with another call letter dated 25.07.2006 asking him to appear before the viva voce test on 21.08.2006. Accordingly, viva voce test was conducted on 21.08.2006 and the merit list of candidates was published on 28.09.2006, selecting 2(two) candidates for the post. The present petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 9 in order of merit. It is alleged by the petitioner that initially the petitioner found that he was selected and placed at Sl. No. 8 in order of merit but subsequently after applying through the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner surprisingly discovered that he was again placed at Sl. No. 9 in the list of candidates. 5. It is stated by the petitioner that though initially advertisement dated 12.06.2006 was issued or filling up of one post of Sr. Teacher in Geography subject, however, subsequently, another 7(seven) posts fell vacant and accordingly the School Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, decided to fill up all the aforesaid 8(eight) posts from the selection made in terms of the advertisement and selection made pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. Teacher in Geography subject, however, subsequently, another 7(seven) posts fell vacant and accordingly the School Education Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, decided to fill up all the aforesaid 8(eight) posts from the selection made in terms of the advertisement and selection made pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner also stated that out of 8(eight) posts, which were going to he filled up, 7(seven) post were resulted to he kept reserved for the APST candidates and only 1(one) post only could the made available for the non APST candidates, in terms of reservation policy in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 6. In the meantime, Sri Osup Fahar and Sri Odol Pertin, who were selected and shown at Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 2, respectively in the select list, did not accept the offer of appointments in view of getting better opportunities elsewhere prior to the issuance of the appointment letters. Out of 8(eight) posts is aforesaid, 3(three) APST candidates from the select list have been appointed, namely, Sri Ollk Nobeng, Sri Jumjum Ete and Sri Reba Laa, after such appointment of three APST candidates, there still remained 5(five) vacant posts to be filled up. 7. It is not disputed that the ratio of reservation. In the direct recruitment of Sr. Teachers is 80:20 and the reservation of 80% of the posts meant for APST candidates is required to be carried out in terms of the roster prepared and maintained by the concerned Department. The petitioner stated that in fact there were in total 64(sixty four) posts of Geography Teachers in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and out of which 46(forty six) posts had already been filled up by non-APST candidates and only 13 (thirteen) posts were filled up by APST candidates excluding the present posts. The petitioner has further stated that when the number of posts were increased to 8 (eight), the. waiting list of the candidates also should have been rectified so as to maintain the ratio of 80:20 for the purpose of appointment of APST and Non-APST candidates rationally Accordingly, the name of the petitioner should have been included in the waiting list in order to maintain the ratio of reservation. The petitioner alleged that the State respondents ought to have filled up another 3(three) posts of Sr. The petitioner alleged that the State respondents ought to have filled up another 3(three) posts of Sr. Teachers by appointing APST candidates whereas only one APST candidate was appointed vide order dated 16.07.2007 and subsequently, thereafter, the state respondents, issued appointment letters to the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Sr. Teachers in Geography, who were non-APST candidates; that too during the pendency of the present writ petition. 8. The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities deprived the petitioner illegally and discriminatorily by appointing one non APST candidate from the waiting list without taking into account that only 20% un-reserved posts, which were available for non-APST candidates, had already exhausted. 9. The State respondents in their affidavit in opposition clarified the issue relating to the maintenance of the ratio of the reservation of APST and non-APST candidates by stating therein that 3(three) posts of Sr. Teachers in the Geography were created out of which, 2(two) posts were kept for direct recruitment and 1(one) post was kept for the purpose of promotion. Later on, again, 5(five) posts, of Sr. Teachers in Geography were created by the State Government vide creation order No. 3/249/06-07 dated 05.04.2007, out of Which 3(three) posts were kept for direct recruitment and 2(two) posts were kept for the promotee teachers. Accordingly, in all 3(three) posts of Sr. Teachers in Geography were allotted to the promotee teachers, which were also filled up, and 5(five) posts of Sr. Teachers were filled up by way of direct recruitment. 10. Before we proceed to discuss the merit of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State respondents, it would be opposite to reproduce here the merit list of Sr. Teachers prepared by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter in short referred to as APPSC) which reads as follows: 1. Senior Teacher(Geography)APST Candidate Sl. No. Name of candidate Total Marks written Obtained out viva voce Of 200 total Remarks 150 50 200 01 Shri osup fahar 98 32 130 02 Shri odol pertin 99 29 128 03 Shri ollk nobeng 79 41 120 04 Shri Tejum Eta 86 32 118 05 Shri Reba Laa 84 32 116 06 Ms. Senior Teacher(Geography)APST Candidate Sl. No. Name of candidate Total Marks written Obtained out viva voce Of 200 total Remarks 150 50 200 01 Shri osup fahar 98 32 130 02 Shri odol pertin 99 29 128 03 Shri ollk nobeng 79 41 120 04 Shri Tejum Eta 86 32 118 05 Shri Reba Laa 84 32 116 06 Ms. Omeng Taggu 88 26 114 07 Shri mijum Tacha 68 27 95 08 Shri Tabang Tali 65 28 93 09 Shri Jumya Loya 52 34 86 10 Shri Mokyam Lonkam 60 26 86 11 Ms. Oshot del 54 30 84 12 Shri Tapang Ering 53 27 80 13 Shri Jumken Riram 59 19 78 2. Senior Teacher Geography Non-APST Candidate 01 Shri Hemo Rai 91 26 02 Ms. Bijoya Bose 85 27 03 Smti. Mridula Nath 87 23 Note: Number of candidate appeared in written test - 16 and Viva Voce 16 Total number of vacant post 2 A. Merit List APST B. Waiting List APST C. Waiting List NAPST 01. Shri Osup Fahar 1. Shri Ollk Nobeng 1. Shri Hemo Rai 02. Shri Odol Pertin 2. Shri Tumjum Eta 2. Ms. Bijoya Bose 3. Shri Riba Laa 3. Smti. Mridula Nath 4. Miss Omeng Taggu 5. Shri Mijum Lacha (Mrs. K. Mamchoom) DSE (K. Yhang) JDSE (E) (K. Bori) DOSI (F) Member Member Member (Smti. J. Choden) DS (Edn) (J. Mishra) ST Chairman Subject Specialist 11. The state respondents further clarified that as per merit list so prepared by the APPSC, Sri Osup Fahar (Sl. No. 1) got promotion departmentally and so Shri Odol Pertin(Sl. No. 2) got appointment through direct recruitment. Sl. No. 1 Shri Ollk Nobeng and Sl. No. 2 Shri Tanjum He from waiting list of APST, got appointment through direct recruitment. Shri Hemo Rai(Sl. No. 1) among the non-APST selectee was appointment through direct recruitment process as per 80 : 20 ratio from the merit list and, wait listed APST candidate, namely, Shri Ribe Laa, Miss Omeng Taggu, and Shri Mijum Lacha, were also appointed. Thereafter, one non-APST selected candidate, namely, Ms. Bojoya Bose also got appointment through direct recruitment. As per the affidavit submitted by the State respondents, out of total 8(eight) posts in all 6(six) posts were filled up by the APST candidates and in 2(two) vacancies non-APST candidates were appointed in terms of the select list approved by the State Government. Thereafter, one non-APST selected candidate, namely, Ms. Bojoya Bose also got appointment through direct recruitment. As per the affidavit submitted by the State respondents, out of total 8(eight) posts in all 6(six) posts were filled up by the APST candidates and in 2(two) vacancies non-APST candidates were appointed in terms of the select list approved by the State Government. The State respondent further clarified that only one post was advertised for appointment of Sr. Teacher in Geography, however, anticipating subsequent vacancies of Sr. Teachers in Geography, selection of candidates was made for appointment in all those anticipated vacancies, from the existing select list of candidates. 12. According to the merit list at [Annexure 1(a)] aforesaid, the petitioner's name appeared at Sl. No. 9 amongst the APST candidates, out of total 16 numbers Of candidates, who appeared in the written test and Interview. The total number of APST candidates were 13 and in all there were 3(three) non APST candidates. In comparison of the marks secured by the selected candidates, the relative merit position of the petitioner was 11 out of 16 candidates. However, in the merit list of the candidates, the name of the petitioner was not included. 13. Mr. M. Pertin, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, has submitted that the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 9 amongst APST candidates and there was one more person namely, Shri Tabang Tali above the petitioner in the merit position and, unless, Shri Tabang Tali is given chance (sic) impleaded in the writ petition, the petitioner has no right to claim appointment in the said post. Mr. Pertin, learned Counsel, further contended that the advertised post has already been filled up by the candidates duly selected by the State respondents, therefore, the petitioner, who was not selected either in the merit list or in the waiting list, cannot be said to have a right to challenge the appointment of the private respondents. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 further submitted that the petitioner is not the person aggrieved in the facts and circumstances of the case as he was not among the candidates selected. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 further submitted that the petitioner is not the person aggrieved in the facts and circumstances of the case as he was not among the candidates selected. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since only one post was advertised for appointment Senior Teacher in Geography, other posts, which have already been filled up by the State respondents, shall not be available for the petitioner, since the petitioner was not selected by the committee and for his petition such appointment were challenged for the selected candidates were made parties in this writ proceedings by the petitioner. 15. In (2009) 1 SCC 386 Mukul Saikia and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the requisition and advertisement was MADE only for a particular number of posts, 'the State respondent cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised even through the Public Service Commission prepared a list for a large number of candidates, as the currency of select list had appoint as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, appointments beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies for direct candidates to violation of quota rules. 16. In order to emphasis on the point of non maintainability of this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondents relied on yet another decision of this High Court reported in 2006(4) GLT 503 Baphindali Giri and Ors. v. State of Megalaya and Ors. wherein it has been held that "person aggrieved" is a person who has a genuine grievance against an order, which has prejudicially affected his rights and interest. A person who is not directly and immediately affected by an order of appointment but remotely affected or his chances of promotion in future has been affected by such appointment cannot maintain a writ petition challenging the appointment of another person, as such person cannot be learned as "person aggrieved" to maintain such writ petition. The learned Counsel for the respondents further pointed out that the since the petitioner was not selected in the merit list, he had no right to be considered for appointment. 17. The learned Counsel for the respondents further pointed out that the since the petitioner was not selected in the merit list, he had no right to be considered for appointment. 17. Apparently the petitioner was not selected on merit the petitioner also could not establish that he had a right to come within the merit zone projected in the select list, the mark scored by the petitioner also is far below other candidates, who have been selected. On the top of it the petitioner has not challenged the irregular process of filing up of the future vacancies by adopted by the State respondents appointment of candidates beyond the number of posts advertised. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances aforenoticed the petitioner, being not a person aggrieved has no locus standi to file this writ petition, for the relief sought for by him. 18. It may be pointed out here that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the candidate, made by the State respondents beyond the number of vacancies advertised, neither the petitioner has impleaded all the selected candidates who have been appointed as Sr. Teacher In Geography by the State respondents. 19. In 2006 1 GLT 379 Loukrakpam Rupnarain Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors. this Court referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a relief should be confined to those specifically prayed for in the writ petition. 11. In the absence of proper relief this Court cannot grant the relief to the petitioner In the present writ petition that the writ petitioner Is senior to the Assistant Agriculture Officer/equivalent whose particulars are not spelt out and also without disclosing their respective positions in the existing final seniority list of the Assistant Agriculture Officer/equivalent of the Department of Agriculture dated 2.4.2002 in the pleading of the present writ petition by Interpreting the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.1.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 786 of 2000 in the manner writ petitions had interpreted. The Apex Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly and Ors. v. University of Lucknow and Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 307 held that a relief should he confined to those specifically prayed for in the writ petition. In that case, i.e. Krishna Priya Ganguly and Ors. v. University of Lucknow and Ors. The Apex Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly and Ors. v. University of Lucknow and Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 307 held that a relief should he confined to those specifically prayed for in the writ petition. In that case, i.e. Krishna Priya Ganguly and Ors. v. University of Lucknow and Ors. (supra) writ petitioner merely prayed for a writ directing the State and medical College to consider his case for admission but without any proper relief the High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the College to admit him (writ petitioner) to the Post Graduate College. The Apex Court held that such direction to the college to admit him to the Post Graduate College would amount to granting a relief which the plaintiff never prayed for inasmuch as the prayer of the writ petitioner in the writ petition is only for a direction to consider his case for admission. The Apex Court in State of Mysore v. G.N. Lingappa and Ors. 1969 SLR 709 (SC) hold that the court cannot grant the relief in the writ petition in the absence of proper plea and any prayer to that effect. The Apex Court, further, in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sunita Mehta and Ors. (2001) 9 SCC 344 held that the order not even challenged in the writ petitions cannot be quashed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. 20. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following relief: In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for records, issue Rule, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature should not he issued setting aside and quash the impugned Orders dated 16.07.2007, whereby the private respondents No. 3 and 4 have been appointed as ST(Geography) by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-4 and 4A) and further may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to rectify/update/modify the waiting list dated 28.09.2006(Annexure-3) due to increase in the Nos. of vacant posts and as per the 80:20 reservation policy and may further direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him as ST(Geography), after cause or causes that may be shown and hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute in interest of justice and pass such other or further order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. -AND- Pending disposal of the Rule, it is further prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the appointment orders dated 16.07.2007(Annexure-4 and 4A) for the ends of justice. 21. The petitioner, as matter of fact has prayed for relief in the faulty process adopted by the State respondents apparently, to reap the benefit out of it, without challenging the faulty process and without impleading all other such appointees. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to ponder over the issue as to whether the appointments of all the selected candidates by the State respondents, beyond the number of posts advertised, was proper or not. 22. The learned Counsel for the States respondents submitted that the petition neither challenged the entire select list nor he has questioned the appointment of all the candidates therefore he has no right to selectively question the process adopted by the State respondent. In support of her contention the learned Counsel for the State respondents relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) SCC 227 Amlanjyoti Barooah v. State of Assam, wherein it has been held as follows: 30. The appellant concededly did not question the appointment of 169 candidates, it is idle to contend that he was not aware thereof. If he was to challenge the validity and/or legality of the entire select list in its entirety he should have also questioned the recruitment of 169 candidates which took place as far back as on 4.7.2000. 31. The appellant was aware of his position in the select list. He was also aware of the change in the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee. He appeared at the interview without any demur whatsoever although he was not called to appear for the physical ability test prior thereto. 31. The appellant was aware of his position in the select list. He was also aware of the change in the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee. He appeared at the interview without any demur whatsoever although he was not called to appear for the physical ability test prior thereto. The appellant chose to question the appointment of 77 candidates not only on the premise that the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee was illegal but also on the premise that no new vacancy could have been filled up from the select list. 32. The appellant, in our opinion, having accepted the change in the selection procedure sub silentio, by not questioning the appointment of the 169 candidates, in our considered opinion, cannot now be permitted to turn round and contend that the procedure adopted was illegal. He is estopped and precluded from doing so. 23. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, drawing the attention of the Court to the roster of reservation and the circular issued by the Government in this regard, submitted that out of 8(eight) vacancies filled up by the State respondents from among the selected candidates, only one post of non APST candidate was available for appointment. The circular issued by the State Government has clarified that "In cases of direct recruitment to vacancies, the SC/ST candidates who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards, along with candidates of other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. The reserved vacancies will be filled up separately from amongst the eligible SC/ST candidates who are lower in merit than the last candidate on the merit list but otherwise found suitable for appointment even by relaxed standards, if necessary. 24. Apparently, In a 100 point roster approved by the State respondents, 5th point in the roster is on reserved vacancy; meaning thereby, it is open for general category candidates as well as APST candidates for selection on merit. Thereafter, the 10th point in the roster is again an unreserved post. 25. The State respondents initially advertised only one post of Sr. Teacher in Geography for the purpose of recruitment. Subsequently, thereafter, the State respondents appointed 7(seven) more selected candidates in the vacancies, which occurred and/or were created subsequently. Thereafter, the 10th point in the roster is again an unreserved post. 25. The State respondents initially advertised only one post of Sr. Teacher in Geography for the purpose of recruitment. Subsequently, thereafter, the State respondents appointed 7(seven) more selected candidates in the vacancies, which occurred and/or were created subsequently. Therefore, the State respondents ought not to have filled up the vacancies from the candidates selected pursuant to earlier recruitment and selection, meant for recruitment of 1(one) post of Sr. Teacher in Geography. In fitness of things, the State respondents ought to have made fresh advertisement for the purpose of recruitment of the additional posts, which were either created or which occurred subsequent to the advertisement made. The process adopted by the State respondents in using the earlier select list of candidates for the purpose of filling up of newly created vacancies beyond the number of posts advertised is irregular and improper, Neither any law nor any procedure binds the State. respondents to give a decent burial to their own reservation policy so adopted keeping in view the aspirations of the people of the State, by resorting to a faulty procedure. 26. The select list of candidates was prepared by the selection committee sometime in September, 2007, in terms of the advertisement dated 12.04.2006 to meet the requirement of selection and appointment of 1 Sr. Teacher in Geography subject. Apparently the State respondent stretched the merit list in order to fill up all future vacancies, by appointing all candidates selected by selection committee including candidates in the waiting list. Obviously, with the appointment of all selected candidates recommended by the selection committee the list recommended and approved by the competent authority has lapsed. 27. In Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University (2009) 4 SCC 555 , at page 562, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: 32. After analyzing the present issue in the light of the above said legal proposition laid down by this Court we hold that the High Court was Justified in rejecting the candidature of Merajuddin Ahmad as against the said post which was advertised for Pure Chemistry stream. However, with the appointment of Merajuddin Ahmad to the said post, the list recommended by the Selection Committee and approved by the other competent authority has lapsed. 28. However, with the appointment of Merajuddin Ahmad to the said post, the list recommended by the Selection Committee and approved by the other competent authority has lapsed. 28. The petitioner in the instant case was not selected by the selection committee on merit in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University(supra), the select list of candidates lapsed after appointment of the last selected candidates. Therefore, there is no scope to consider as whether a direction can be issued to the State respondent to reconsider and tinker the merit position of all the candidates at this stage, more so when all the candidates, who were selected and appointed are not before the Court. 29. Further, since the petitioner has neither challenged nor prayed for any relief for appointment of candidates beyond the number of post advertised, I do not deem it justified to interfere with the impugned order. 30. In the light of the above discussion, the petition filed by the, petitioner is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed-However, I pass no order as to costs.