JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the final order dated 29-11-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C). No. 4606/2009 quashing the appointment of appellant/respondent No. 6 as Subject Teacher in History in Doboka Higher Secondary School, Nagaon and directing fresh advertisement. By the said order, claim of respondent No. 6/writ petitioner for appointment was also not entertained. The contextual facts may be briefly noted. 2. Respondent No. 6 as the writ petitioner filed W.P. (C). No. 4606/2009 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the appointment issued in favour of appellant/respondent No. 6 and for a further direction to appoint him as Post Graduate Teacher in History in Doboka Higher Secondary School. Case projected in the writ petition is that an advertisement dated 03-06-2007 was issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for filling up of 158 numbers of vacant posts of Subject Teacher in the State. The detail vacancies of posts (District-wise, School-wise and Subject-wise) were given. It was also stated that reservation provision for appointment would be followed as per Rule. However, the candidates were required to mention the concerned post/ school against which the applications were made. It was also notified that the selection would be made as per Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (2003 Rules). Petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Subject Teacher in History in the Doboka Higher Secondary School. The concerned selection was held on 02-09-2007. Writ petitioner secured 1st position where as respondent No. 6 was placed in the 4th position in order of merit. Thereafter, the Director of Secondary Education issued order dated 03-09-2009 appointing respondent No. 6 as Subject Teacher in History in Doboka Higher Secondary School. Petitioner contended that considering their relative merit position, respondent No. 6 could not have been appointed. It was also contended that since the selection for the post in question was not confined to any reserved category candidate, petitioner being a general category candidate should have been considered for appointment by virtue of his merit position being at the top of the select list. Further contention was that as only one post in the Doboka Higher Secondary School was to be filled up, it could not be kept reserved since there cannot be reservation against a single post. 3. Further contention was that as only one post in the Doboka Higher Secondary School was to be filled up, it could not be kept reserved since there cannot be reservation against a single post. 3. The Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam filed counter affidavit on behalf of the Director. It was stated that as per the 2003 Rules, School Selection Committee conducted the selection process. It was also stated that reservation for SC, ST, OBC etc. were provided as per provision of Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act 1978. Stating that the advertisement dated 03-06-2007 had mentioned about application of reservation rule, the Director stated that the advertisement was for 158 numbers of posts and to maintain the roster point of reservation for the reserved category, the selected ST(P) candidate was appointed in the post of Post Graduate Teacher in History in the Doboka Higher Secondary School. It was also stated that after preparation of the select list, the School Selection Committee submitted the same to the office of the Director of Secondary Education for doing the needful. Thus, respondent No. 6 being the selected ST(P) candidate was so appointed. 4. Respondent No. 6 also filed his counter affidavit. He stated that he belongs to ST(P) category and had applied for the post of Subject Teacher in History in Doboka Higher Secondary School pursuant to the advertisement dated 03-06-2007. He contended that the advertisement was a composite one for filling up of 158 vacancies of Subject Teacher in different Higher Secondary Schools in the State. The School Selection Committee of Doboka Higher Secondary School prepared the select list of four candidates for one vacancy of Subject Teacher in History. The said post was reserved for ST(P) as per roster and he having been found qualified and on being selected, was appointed. It was further stated that respondent No. 6 was appointed on 03-09-2009 following which he joined on 05-09-2009 and since then he was serving. 5. The said post was reserved for ST(P) as per roster and he having been found qualified and on being selected, was appointed. It was further stated that respondent No. 6 was appointed on 03-09-2009 following which he joined on 05-09-2009 and since then he was serving. 5. Learned Single Judge after observing that neither in the advertisement nor at the time of selection, notice was given to the participating candidates that the post was meant for ST(P) category, held that appointment given to the respondent No. 6 on the ground of being ST(P) candidate cannot be sustained as he was placed in the 4th position in order of merit as compared to the 1st position secured by the petitioner. Thus, appointment of respondent No. 6 was quashed. Claim of the petitioner for appointment was turned down as it was held that the select list was yet to be approved by the State Level Approval Committee and, therefore, no enforceable legal right of appointment crystallized in favour of the petitioner. However, keeping in mind the possibility of the post being a reserved category post, learned Single Judge directed filling up of the post by issuing fresh advertisement with clear indication at the advertisement stage itself as to whether it is an open vacancy or is only meant for reserved category as per reservation roster. 6. Aggrieved, respondent No. 6 has filed the present appeal. 7. Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that reservation policy of the State has been notified by way of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1978 (Reservation Act), which received the assent of the Governor on 23-05-1979 and published in the Assam Gazette dated 28-05-1979 which provides for various percentages of reservation to different categories, including ten percent for the Scheduled Tribes (Plains). The schedule to the Reservation Act provides for a twenty point roster, as per which the 1st and the 11th posts are reserved for ST(P). The schedule to the Reservation Act provides for a twenty point roster, as per which the 1st and the 11th posts are reserved for ST(P). He submits that as the advertisement clearly stated that reservation provision would be followed as per Rules, there was no need or necessity to further specify the posts as earmarked for various categories in the advertisement. The post in question being earmarked for ST(P) candidate as per reservation roster, appellant being qualified and selected and there being no other ST(P) candidate above him in the merit list, his appointment cannot be faulted. In the above context, learned Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in quashing the appointment of the appellant. As such, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge requires interference. 9. The stand of the appellant is supported by the Departmental Counsel who submits that as the advertisement mentioned that reservation provision would be followed as per Rules, there was no necessity of further specifying the roster in the advertisement as roster is already part of the reservation policy. He also places reliance on a Single Bench order of this Court dated 26-11-2010 passed in W.P. (C). No. 4115/ 2009, Sahera Banu v. State of Assam and others, relating to the same advertisement. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner though supports the decision of the learned Single Judge in so far quashing of appointment of the appellant is concerned, however contends that his client being at the 1st position in the merit list, the learned Single Judge was not justified in declining relief to his client on the ground that select list was yet to be approved. He submits that to that extent the order of the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with by directing the State respondents to issue appointment order in favour of his client. Seeking the aforesaid relief, the writ petitioner has also filed an appeal which is tagged with the present writ appeal. 11. We have considered the submissions made. 12. Question for consideration is whether it was necessary to specify the roster, which is already a part of the reservation policy, in the advertisement in question. This aspect is required to be gone into to determine the effect of roster not being specified in the advertisement considering the nature of recruitment. 13. 11. We have considered the submissions made. 12. Question for consideration is whether it was necessary to specify the roster, which is already a part of the reservation policy, in the advertisement in question. This aspect is required to be gone into to determine the effect of roster not being specified in the advertisement considering the nature of recruitment. 13. Admittedly, the provisions of the 2003 Rules are applicable to the present selection process. In that view of the matter, a few of the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Rules may be noticed. Post Graduate Teacher has been defined to mean the category of Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School for whose appointment the minimum qualification prescribed is Post Graduate Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce. Though there is no mention of Subject Teacher in the 2003 Rules, it is understood that Post Graduate Teacher is also referred to as Subject Teacher. The appointing authority in the case of Post Graduate Teacher is the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. Service has been defined to mean Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service. Rule 3 provides for the classes and cadres in the service. As per Rule 3(1)(a), Class-II (Senior) service includes the cadres of Principal, Vice-Principal, Post Graduate Teacher and Headmaster/Head Mistress/Superintendent. The post of Post Graduate Teacher belongs to Grade-II cadre of the service. At the time of commencement of the Rules, the cadre strength of Post Graduate Teacher was 5498. As per Rule 7, recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher of provincialised Higher Secondary Schools is to be made by direct recruitment only on the basis of selection made by the School Selection Committee as per procedure prescribed therein. The select list prepared by the School Selection Committee containing double the number of candidates against the vacancies advertised, is required to be forwarded to the Director of Secondary Education for approval by the State Level Approval Committee headed by the Director as Chairman. Rule 18 provides for reservation as per provision of the Reservation Act. 14. It is true that reservation would apply on the basis of and having regard to the total cadre strength of the post, which in this case is 5498, and that the roster cannot be operated school wise. The advertisement was for 158 posts as a whole. Rule 18 provides for reservation as per provision of the Reservation Act. 14. It is true that reservation would apply on the basis of and having regard to the total cadre strength of the post, which in this case is 5498, and that the roster cannot be operated school wise. The advertisement was for 158 posts as a whole. Therefore, the reservation roster will have to be applied with reference to the entire cadre. To that extent, the contention of the writ petitioner that the post in question being a single post, there cannot be any reservation as against the said single vacancy is misplaced. When the advertisement is for 158 vacancies with clear stipulation that reservation provisions as per Rules will be applicable, as a general principle, it can be said that there can be no further requirement or necessity to specify in the advertisement itself the vacancies earmarked for the various reserved categories as per reservation roster. 15. Having said that, the peculiarity of the present advertisement needs to be considered. A glance at the advertisement would clearly show that all the 158 posts have been indicated school-wise and post-wise. There was a clear stipulation in the advertisement itself that the candidate should mention the concerned post/school against which he had applied for and should also mention the name of the Legislative Assembly Constituency where the post is vacant. This requirement, in our opinion, has changed the very complexion of the selection process. 16. Though the advertisement was a general one for all the 158 posts mentioned, it is clear from the advertisement itself that selection was post/school-wise to be conducted by the concerned School Selection Committee, which was in tune with the requirement of Rule 7 of the 2003 Rules. It is the further requirement of the said Rules that the Member Secretary of the School Selection Committees should ensure the vacancy position of posts in their respective schools with sanction number, allotment and retention order of those posts from the concerned Inspector of Schools and collect applications through local advertisement after obtaining approval from the concerned Inspector of Schools. 17. Therefore, it is evident that the selection is to be made post and school-wise. If that be so, the position of the post in which the vacancy has arisen as per the reservation roster would be known before hand. 17. Therefore, it is evident that the selection is to be made post and school-wise. If that be so, the position of the post in which the vacancy has arisen as per the reservation roster would be known before hand. When candidates were asked to indicate the concerned post/school against which they had applied, it becomes necessary to indicate the status of the post as per the reservation roster. To test this proposition, let us take the present case, namely, the post of Subject Teacher in History in Doboka Higher Secondary School. If this post is meant for ST(P) as per the reservation roster, there was no justification in inviting applications from other categories of candidates, then consider their cases and prepare a select list where a general candidate is placed at Serial No. 1 in order of merit. Logically, the selection should have been confined to ST(P) candidates only. Inviting all categories of candidates to the selection process and after preparation of a select list in order of merit comprising other categories of candidates, to appoint a ST(P) candidate on the ground that the post is earmarked for ST(P) as per roster would neither be fair nor reasonable. As a matter of fact, the State has not been able to show how many ST(P) candidates other than the appellant had applied for the post in question. In the absence of any indication in the advertisement about the status of the post as per roster, selection was thrown open to all categories and only at the time of appointment, the lone ST(P) candidate who was selected, was appointed though placed below in the merit list on the ground that the post was reserved for ST(P). Such a procedure would not be just, fair and reasonable. 18. Therefore, to meet the test of fairness, reasonableness and transparency, in the case of selection under Rule 7 of the 2003 Rules, it is necessary to indicate the roster position of the post in respect of which the vacancy has arisen, in the advertisement itself. Failure to do so would not be a fair procedure and would vitiate the selection. 19. On this issue, the learned Single Judge held as under:-- 9. The impugned appointment order does not show that the respondent No. 6 was given appointment by considering that the post is meant only for ST(P) candidates. Failure to do so would not be a fair procedure and would vitiate the selection. 19. On this issue, the learned Single Judge held as under:-- 9. The impugned appointment order does not show that the respondent No. 6 was given appointment by considering that the post is meant only for ST(P) candidates. In any case, if the reservation roster indicated the vacancy to be reserved category post, the selection process should have been confined to reserve category candidates only and the candidature of general and other categories should not have been considered, for a vacancy meant to be filled up by ST(P) candidates. 10. Furthermore, neither in the advertisement nor at the time of selection, notice was given to the participating candidates that the post is meant for ST(P) category where candidature of other categories will not be considered. 20. Learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding of fact that the select list was yet to be approved by the State Level Approval Committee. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show any material to take a different view of the matter. In view of above, we find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 29-11-2011 stands affirmed. There will, however, be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed