JUDGMENT Lanusungkum Jamir, J. 1. The case, in a nut-shell, is that the petitioner who is a First Class Graduate in Electrical Engineering, had applied for the posts of Assistant Engineer (E), Group A (Gazetted), which was published by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.P.S.C.') by Advertisement dated 23.11.2011. In the said Advertisement, the A.P.P.S.C. had published for filling up of 20 posts of AE(E). Consequent upon her application, the petitioner was allotted Roll No. 100045 and she appeared in the written examination, conducted on 8th and 9th of November, 2012. Being qualified in the said written examination, the petitioner was called for viva-voce test on 04.04.2013 vide call letter dated 11.03.2013. The petitioner appeared in the viva-voce test on 04.04.2013 and the A.P.P.S.C. declared the result on the same date. In the said result, the petitioner did not qualify. While enquiring about the result, the petitioner came across her marksheet, on 08.04.2013, through one of her friend and therein in the said marksheet, she was awarded 33.75 marks out of 100 marks in the viva-voce test Being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an RTT application dated 16.04.2013, before the A.P.P.S.C., seeking certain documents with regard to the entire selection process. The petitioner also approached the A.P.P.S.C. and applied for her marksheet on 16.04.2013. On obtaining her marksheet, the petitioner found that her mark in the viva-voce test was 47.25 marks out of 100 marks. There was an increase of 13 marks from the earlier marksheet in her viva-voce test and therefore, sensing foul play, has filed this writ petition. Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel, representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, representing Respondent No. 2, Mr. Nani Tagia, learned standing counsel, representing Respondents No. 1 & 3 (A.P.P.S.C.), Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel, representing private Respondents No. 4-16 & 19-24, and Mr. Kento Jini, learned counsel, representing private Respondent No. 18. 2. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a First Class Graduate in Electrical Engineering(B.E.) and she is presently pursuing her M. Tech. (Electrical) from North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology (NERIST), Nirjuli. She had cleared the prestigious General Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) which is conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. (Electrical) from North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology (NERIST), Nirjuli. She had cleared the prestigious General Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) which is conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. He submits that on 23.11.2011, the A.P.P.S.C. had advertised for 20 posts of AE(E), and the educational qualification prescribed therein, for recruitment to the post of AE(E) is that the candidate should be a Bachelor of Engineering/Technology in Mechanical/Electrical/Engineering/Electronics/Computer, from any recognized University of India. Being a graduate in Electrical Engineering, she applied for the posts, in question, and accordingly, she was called for the written examination held on 8th and 9th of November, 2011. On being successful in the said written examination, the petitioner was again called for the viva-voce test on 04.04.2013, by call letter dated 11.03.2013. The petitioner appeared in the said viva-voce test along with others, on 04.04.2013, and had performed very well to the best of her ability. Learned counsel also submits that the A.P.P.S.C. had declared the result on the same date i.e. on 04.04.2013. However, in the said result Notification, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the select list. Being shocked, the petitioner while inquiring about the result, came across her marksheet obtained by one of her friend/candidate and found that she was awarded only 33.75 marks out of 100 marks. As the marks awarded to her in the viva-voce test was much below her expectation, the petitioner sensing foul play in the recruitment process, filed an RTI application on 16.04.2013, before the A.P.P.S.C., seeking certain documents and clarifications with regard to the entire selection process. The petitioner also approached the A.P.P.S.C. and applied for her marksheet on 16.04.2013. On obtaining the marksheet, the petitioner found that her marks in the viva-voce test had increased from 33.75 to 47.25 marks out of 100 marks. As the viva-voce test marks were different in both the marksheets, learned counsel submits that there was foul play with the intention to deprive the petitioner from being selected. 3. On obtaining the marksheet, the petitioner found that her marks in the viva-voce test had increased from 33.75 to 47.25 marks out of 100 marks. As the viva-voce test marks were different in both the marksheets, learned counsel submits that there was foul play with the intention to deprive the petitioner from being selected. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondents No. 1 & 3, submits that, in pursuance to the petitioner's RTI application dated 16.04.2013, the A.P.P.S.C. forwarded the certified copies of the Rules and Regulations of the viva-voce, certified copy of the answer scripts of all subjects of Assistant Engineer(Electrical)-Recruitment Examination-2012-13 against the Roll No. 100045 in respect of the petitioner and the individual mark sheets awarded by each Board members. He also draws the attention of this Court to Rule/Regulation 40 concerning marking in the viva-voce test and stresses reliance on Rule 40(II), (IV), (VIII), (XI) and (XIII). Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Board Members, of the viva-voce test, had not strictly followed the aforesaid Rules, and therefore, the entire proceeding of the viva-voce test, stands vitiated and the viva-voce test was only an eyewash before the law. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has a strong apprehension that the records placed before this Court, is not correct, rather a manipulated one, and the marksheet supplied to the petitioner by the A.P.P.S.C. is the correct one. 4. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Respondents No. 1 & 3, at Paragraph No. 7, submits that the Respondents No. 1 & 3 had contended that the mark sheet in the name of the petitioner showing a score of 33.75 marks in the viva-voce test, was simply a clerical mistake which was immediately corrected and a fresh marksheet was issued to her in which she scored 47.25 marks. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from the statement made in Paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondents No. 1 & 3, the A.P.P.S.C. has not issued any clarification regarding the said clerical error and therefore, he submits that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that at least from the stage of viva-voce test, the proceedings is vitiated and the same may be set aside and quashed and/or direct the Respondents No. 1 & 3, to recast the select list once again. He also submits that there is a Recruitment Rules for the recruitment of AE(E), Group B, in the Departments of Power(E), RWD, IFC, PHE, Power(C), etc., under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the same is called as "Recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer Rules, 2005" (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2005, and which came into effect from 19.12.2005 and he submits that the A.P.P.S.C. and the Respondent No. 2, cannot violate the provisions of the extant Rules of 2005 and also the clarification letter dated 31.05.2006 written by the Under Secretary(Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to the Secretary, A.P.P.S.C., Itanagar. Mr. Pertin; learned counsel, has further relied upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of- (a) (2011) 11 SCC 702 , Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, v. Mongol Singh & Ors., Paragraphs No. 16, 18 and 19, (b) (2009) 14 SCC 517 , Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers Welfare Society (I) v. Higher Secondary School Computer Teacher Association & Ors., Paragraphs No. 32, 33 and 34, (c) (1979) 3 SCC 489 , Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., and (d) (1983) 4 SCC 582 , B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors. Paragraphs No. 23 and 29. 5. Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on Respondent No. 2, submits that the petitioner had participated in the examination knowing fully well that in the Advertisement dated 23.11.2011, there was reservation on the basis of Branch/Stream wise and therefore, the petitioner, at this stage, cannot turnaround against the said Advertisement dated 23.11.2011 with a plea that the Rules of 2005, cannot be violated by the State Respondents. He submits that prior to the Rules of 2005, there was the Arunachal Pradesh Power Engineering Service Rules, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as APPESR 1993, in short), which has been superseded by the Rules of 2005. Learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that under the present Rules of 2005, there is no specific mention about the Branch/Stream and it also does not provide the syllabus for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (E). Due to this lacunae in the Rules of 2005, there has been a lot of confusion while giving requisition for advertisement of such post to the A.P.P.S.C. and it was in this context, that letter dated 31.05.2006, was issued. In the said letter, it was specifically stated that there is no Branch/Stream wise vacancies, and all vacancies are meant for AE(E) only, and he, therefore, submits that the said letter was by way of clarification, at that relevant point of time. He further submits that due to the confusion created, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had, therefore, issued Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011, whereby the syllabus for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer, in Electrical, Mechanical, Electronics, Telecommunication and Computer Engineering streams, were prescribed to be the syllabus contained in the APPESR, 1993. By the said Notification, the Branch/Stream wise reservation was also prescribed as 60% from Electrical Engineering, 30% from Mechanical Engineering, and 10% from Electronics, Telecommunication & Computer Engineering. He also submits that the Rules of 2005 and the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 is not under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, further submits that the Department of Power had clarified to the Secretary, A.P.P.S.C., on certain clarifications, raised by letter dated 21.11.2011, showing the distribution of the posts against each trade/category and had requested the A.P.P.S.C. to appoint 13 posts of Assistant Engineer (E),' from Electrical Engineering Degree Holders, 6 posts of Assistant Engineer (E) from Mechanical Engineering Degree Holders, and 1 post of Assistant Engineer (E) from Electronics & Telecommunication/Computer Engineering Degree Holders and it was on the basis of the said clarification that Respondents No. 1 & 3, had published the Advertisement dated 23.11.2011 specifying the required reservations on the basis of trade/category. He also submits that Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 has statutory power inasmuch as the Rules of 2005 were silent about the percentage of each discipline of Engineering needs and also the syllabus for recruitment to the post of AE(E). In this regard, he places reliance on (2008) 4 SCC 171 , Dhananjay Malik & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., at Paragraphs No. 7,8 and 10, with special emphasis on Paragraphs No. 14 & 15, which are quoted hereinbelow, for better appreciation: "14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, has pointed out at AIR p. 1914 that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed. 15. The aforesaid ruling has been reiterated in Para 9 of judgment by a three-judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. K.R Joshi, as under: "9. Generally speaking, an administrative order confers no justiciable right, but this Rule, like all other general rules, is subject to explanations. This Court has held that in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan that although Government cannot supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet, if the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed and these instructions will govern the conditions of service." 7. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, therefore, submits that the action of the authorities concerned, by issuing the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 was by way of supplementing the Rules of 2005 and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the said Notification as the same was issued to fill-up the lacunae and supplement the Rules of 2005. Further submission forwarded by the learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, is that the Rules as regards marking in the viva-voce test, which is annexed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his affidavit-in-reply, are not the Rules, rather, they were the Regulations, and therefore, they are not strictly enforceable. Further submission forwarded by the learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, is that the Rules as regards marking in the viva-voce test, which is annexed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his affidavit-in-reply, are not the Rules, rather, they were the Regulations, and therefore, they are not strictly enforceable. The petitioner, knowing fully well the reservation of Branch/Stream wise in the Advertisement dated 23.11.2011 and having participated in the process of selection without a whisper, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the selection criteria and therefore, he submits that the writ petition is utterly misplaced and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. Mr. Nani Tagia, learned standing counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 3 (A.P.P.S.C.) submits that Advertisement dated 23.11.2011 is, by itself, self-explanatory wherein, it has been specifically shown that out of 20 posts of Assistant Engineer (E), 13 posts are reserved for Electrical Engineering Degree Holders, 6 posts of Assistant Engineer(E), for Mechanical Engineering Degree Holders, and 1 post of Assistant Engineer (E), for Electronics & Telecommunication/Computer Engineering Degree Holders. Learned standing counsel specifically submits that selection of the candidates as stipulated ^Advertisement dated 23.11.2011 was made by the A.P.P.S.C. basing on a clear-cut Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 by the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner whose total aggregate mark is 523.75, was placed in 15th position in the overall merit list, amongst the Electrical Engineers, and that the mark statement issued to the petitioner, showing a score of 33.75 marks out of 100 marks in viva-voce test, was a clerical mistake, which was rectified immediately, by issuing another fresh marksheet with the actual viva-voce test mark of 47.25 marks, and therefore, he submits that there was no foul play as alleged by the petitioner. Learned standing counsel submits that there was some deviation in the procedure of viva-voce test from the Rules/Regulations, governing the procedure of viva-voce test, but the same shall not vitiate the proceedings of the viva-voce test inasmuch as it had been applied to all the candidates uniformly who appeared in the viva-voce test without any discrimination and he further submits that the reliance of the petitioner in the Rules/Regulation No. 40, as regards marking, are actually not the Rules but only the Regulations and the same has no enforceable right as they are not statutory and therefore, the petitioner has no right to seek for enforcement of the same. He further submits that there were two Boards consisting of 3 Members, each, for the viva-voce test, and there was neither any manipulation nor any foul play in the said viva voce test. 9. As directed by this Court earlier, Mr. Tagia, learned standing counsel, for Respondents No. 1 & 3, has produced before this Court, the award sheets of the Board Members with regard to viva-voce test for the recruitment of AE(E), in original. He also submits that no challenge has been made to the recruitment process conducted by the A.P.P.S.C. and also places reliance on Paragraph No. 19 of the instant writ petition, wherein the petitioner has averred that the petitioner is not questioning the selection process or criteria but is only questioning whether the A.P.P.S.C. can violate the procedure of the Rules of 2005 and clarification letter dated 31.05.2006, and provide reservation on the basis of Branch/Stream wise. He also submits that in the absence of any challenge to the recruitment process and that the petitioner having participated in the entire selection process silently, the petitioner cannot turnaround and challenge the proceedings of viva-voce test, only on the basis of a clerical mistake that was inadvertently made by the Respondents No. 1 & 3, which was later on, duly corrected by the A.P.P.S.C. 10. Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 4-16 & 19-24, submits that prior to the Rules of 2005, there was the APPES Rules of 1993. The said Rules of 1993, has been superseded by the Rules of 2005. Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No. 4-16 & 19-24, submits that prior to the Rules of 2005, there was the APPES Rules of 1993. The said Rules of 1993, has been superseded by the Rules of 2005. He also refers to the APPESR of 1993, more particularly, Schedule I of the said Rules, wherein, at Column 4, the reservation has been clearly shown with regard to Electrical Engineering Stream, Electronics & Mechanical Engineering Stream, Telecommunication Engineering Stream, and Computer Engineering Stream. It has been submitted by him that as the Rules of 2005 did not contain the trade/subject and syllabus for Assistant Engineer(E), the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 was issued for the reason of supplementing the Rules of 2005, and he, accordingly, places reliance on:- (a) The District Registrar, Palghat, & Ors., v. M.B. Koyyakutty, AIR 1979 SC1060, (b) State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 330 , (c) Kiran Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 719 , and (d) Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 220 . 11. Mr. Kento Jini, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 18, while adopting the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents, submits the Respondent No. 18 has obtained 18 marks more man the marks was obtained by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim selection to the post of AE(E). He also places reliance on Paragraphs No. 19, 21 and 23, of the instant writ petition, and submits that Ibis writ petition is totally misconceived being devoid of any merit and therefore, the same may be dismissed summarily. 12. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respective parties for the respondents, submits that he has made specific averments in Paragraphs No. 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14, and the same has not been controverted by the Respondents No. 1 & 3, and therefore, the same amounts to admission by the authorities concerned. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respective parties for the respondents, submits that he has made specific averments in Paragraphs No. 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14, and the same has not been controverted by the Respondents No. 1 & 3, and therefore, the same amounts to admission by the authorities concerned. He also submits that the Rules of 2005, are enforceable and the same should have been followed strictly by the respondents concerned while placing requisition for advertisement made by the Respondent No. 2, and that the A.P.P.S.C. should have also followed the same while advertising for 20 posts of Assistant Engineer (E), and he, therefore, submits that as the respondents have deviated from the Rules of 2005, the whole proceedings stands vitiated, or at least, from the stage of viva-voce test, and therefore, the same deserves to be interfered with by this Court, directing the respondents more particularly, Respondents No. 1 & 3, to re-conduct the viva-voce test, in the interest of justice. Further submission advanced by Mr. Pertin, learned counsel, is that having deviated from the Regulations as regards the marking in the viva-voce test by the A.P.P.S.C., the whole process of viva-voce test should be declared null and void. 13. At the very outset, the Rules of 2005 is considered, first. On perusal of the same, which has been annexed with this writ petition as Annexure-P/5, it is seen that the said Rules of 2005 is silent on the reservation on the basis of Branch/Stream wise. The required qualifications for recruitment to the post of AE(E), in the said Rules of 2005, is also silent in this regard. The Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 (annexed as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2) has also been perused and for better appreciation, the relevant portion of the said Notification, is hereby reproduced below: "NO. PWRS/E-93/95-96-Vol-III/Pt-II GOVTRNMENTOF ARUNACHAL PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF POWER ITANAGAR Dated Itanagar the 27th July, 2011 NOTIFICATION AND WHEREAS, however the Recruitment Rules of 2005 as published by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Training did not provide any syllabus for direct recruitment for the post of AE (E)/Mechanical and Electronics, etc., or the percentage to which each discipline of Engineering needs consideration, while selecting candidates against direct recruitment quota. NOW THEREFORE, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to order as under: (i) Syllabus as contained in APESR1993 shall be syllabus for recruitment to the post of AE (electrical/mechanical) and Electronics/Telecommunication/Computer, etc., under the Department of Power, till such time, a new syllabus is formulated by the Govt. (ii) 60% of the vacancy shall be filled up by candidates having a degree in Electrical Engineering (iii) 30% of the vacancy shall be filled up by candidates having degree in Mechanical Engineering. (iv) Remaining 10% of the vacancy shall be filled up by candidates having degree in Electronics, Telecommunication & Computer Engineering, etc. Sd/- Tumke Bagra Secretary (Power) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar." 14. In the case of Dhananjay Malik(supra), the Apex Court has observed that if the Rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can, by way of administrative instructions, fill-up the gaps and supplement the Rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed. Also in the case of District Registrar, Palghat (supra), the Apex Court has observed that there can be no quarrel with the proposition that if the statutory rules framed by the Governor or any law enacted by the State Legislature under Article 309 is silent on any particular point, the Government can fill-up that gap by issuing administrative instructions not inconsistent with the statutory provisions already framed or enacted. 15. In the case, at hand, the Rules of 2005 being silent on the matter of Stream wise reservation as well as qualification, required for recruitment to the post of AE(E), this Court is of the considered view that it was well within the right of the Government to issue Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 as the same was issued to supplement the Rules of 2005. The letter dated 31.05.2006 relied upon by Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, was by way of clarification to the Respondents No. 1 & 3, by Respondent No. 2, with regard to requisition to the post of AE(E) under the Department of Power, and the said clarification was prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011. 16. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot take umbrage or cannot insist that letter dated 31.05.2006 should be allowed to stand inasmuch as while supplementing the Rules of 2005, the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 automatically supersedes the letter dated 31.05.2006. 16. Under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot take umbrage or cannot insist that letter dated 31.05.2006 should be allowed to stand inasmuch as while supplementing the Rules of 2005, the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 automatically supersedes the letter dated 31.05.2006. It is important to note that the Advertisement dated 23.11.2011, was published by the A.P.P.S.C. only after the said Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 was issued. As such, the claim of the petitioner that the respondents cannot violate the provisions of the extant of Rules of 2005 and the clarification letter dated 31.05.2006, is not sustainable. The Advertisement dated 23.11.2011, while advertising for 20 posts of AE (E), had clearly stipulated the reservations, as under-13 posts of Assistant Engineer (E) from Electrical Engineering Degree Holders, 6 posts of Assistant Engineer (E) from Mechanical Engineering Degree Holders and 1 post of Assistant Engineer (E) from Electronics & Telecommunication/Computer Engineering Degree Holders and the relevant portion is quoted, here-in-below, for ready reference: "NO.PSC-R/17/2011 ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ITANAGAR Dated Itanagar the 23rd Nov. 2011 ADVERTISEMENT Applications in prescribed form are invited from Citizens of India for filling up 20(twenty) posts of Assistant Engineer(Electrical), Group-A(Gazetted), under the Department of Power, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in the pay scale of PB-3 15600-39100/- + Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- plus other allowances as admissible to Arunachal Pradesh Govt. employees from time to time. Out of 20 posts, 13(thirteen) posts will be filled-up from Electrical Engineering Degree Holders, 6(six) posts from Mechanical Engineering Degree Holders and l(one) post from Electronics & Telecommunication/Computer Engineering Degree Holders candidates. Sd/- (Tacho Taba) Joint Secretary Itanagar" 17. The petitioner having applied for the said post and having accepted the conditions stipulated therein, cannot turnaround and subsequently, contend that as the Rules of 2005 does not provide for any reservation, the same cannot have been done by the Respondents No. 1 & 3, and Respondent No. 2. It is also clearly observed in Paragraph No. 19, of the writ petition, that the petitioner, stated as under: "19. ...The petitioner is not questioning the selection process or any criteria of the selection process but what the petitioner is questioning is that the A.P.P.S.C. cannot violate the provisions of the extant Recruitment Rules (Annexure-P/8) and the clarification letter dated 31.05.2006(Annexure-P/9) and provide reservation on the basis of branch/stream wise." 18. ...The petitioner is not questioning the selection process or any criteria of the selection process but what the petitioner is questioning is that the A.P.P.S.C. cannot violate the provisions of the extant Recruitment Rules (Annexure-P/8) and the clarification letter dated 31.05.2006(Annexure-P/9) and provide reservation on the basis of branch/stream wise." 18. In view of the above facts and circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the Advertisement dated 23.11.2011, moreso, when the Notification dated 27.07.2011/01.08.2011 has already been enforced and which has not been challenged in this writ petition. Upon consideration of the citations referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case, this Court is of the opinion that the same are not relevant to decide the case, at hand. 19. In the light of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the only question left for consideration before this Court is whether the viva-voce test process can be declared null and void on the basis of two different marksheets having been issued to the present petitioner. 20. On perusal of the award sheets, in original, with regard to recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), it is seen that the procedure adopted by the Board Members in the viva-voce test, were the same, in relation to all the candidates who had appeared before them on 04.04.2013, and no foul play in favour of any candidate is detected by this Court. 21. Mr. Tagia, learned standing counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 3, has also produced before this Court, a copy of the brochure viz. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure Conduct of Examination Guidelines, 2012. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the Regulations is called the Arunachal Pradesh State Public Service Commission Regulations, 2012, which came into force on 20th of July, 2012, and the Guidelines for conduct of examination, is called the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Conduct of Examination Guidelines (1st amendment) 2012, which also came into force on 20th of July, 2013. 22. 22. On further perusal of the said award sheets, vis-à-vis, the Regulations, above mentioned, it is seen that the Board Members constituted for conducting the viva voce test, in question, acted within the provisions of the said Regulations/Examination Guidelines, insofar as marking is concerned, and the procedure so applied, was applied, equally, in respect of all the participating candidates, and, this Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the final select list, made, by the A.P.P.S.C., on the basis of the viva voce test, held on 04.04.2013. In the light of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, this writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. The interim order dated 26.04.2013 and subsequent extensions thereafter, shall stand vacated.