JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. H. Genananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Respondents, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5, Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel appearing for 64 (sixty four) private respondents, Ms. H. Bisheshwari, learned counsel appearing for 6 (six) private respondents; Mr. N. Mehendra, learned counsel appearing for 293 (two hundred and ninety three) private respondents and Mr. R.K. Deepak Singh, learned Advocate for 7 (seven) private respondents. 2. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the similar set of facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. W.P. (C) No. 815 of 2011 3.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for setting aside the entire recruitment process for appointment to the posts of 1423 (one thousand four hundred and twenty three) Primary Teachers pursuant to the Notice dated 12-09-2006 issued by the Employment Officer and also the impugned notification dated 04-09-2011 and Government order dated 09-12-2011 issued by the State Government. 3.2. According to the petitioners, they are all well educated unemployed youths whose names are registered in various Employment Exchanges for seeking employment. On 12-09-2006, the Employment Officer, Imphal West, Government of Manipur issued a notice informing the job-seekers to get their names sponsored in respect of the recruitment of 1423 Primary Teachers, 203 Primary Hindi Teachers and 46 Hindi Graduate Teachers in the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur with the help of their original employment exchange identity cards. In response to the said notice, the petitioners got their names enrolled and sponsored for appointment to the said posts of Primary Teachers. 3.3. On 22-12-2006, a written test for appointment to the said posts of Primary Teachers was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur and the result thereof was declared on 16-04-2007 whereby as many as 5322 candidates including the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination. The viva-voce test for appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers was held from 06-02-2009 and was continued till the month of August, 2009 and the petitioners also participated in the said viva-voce test. Although the viva-voce test having been held in the year 2009, the result thereof was not declared for more than 2 (two) years. The viva-voce test for appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers was held from 06-02-2009 and was continued till the month of August, 2009 and the petitioners also participated in the said viva-voce test. Although the viva-voce test having been held in the year 2009, the result thereof was not declared for more than 2 (two) years. While the petitioners were waiting for the result, a list of the recommended candidates for the posts of Primary Teachers came to be published in a local daily called “Huiyen Lanpao” on 26-06-2010 before the official publication thereof and on the next day itself, i.e., 27-06-2010 the Deputy Secretary (Education/S), Government of Manipur issued an order by which a Committee was constituted to enquire as to whether any irregularity/impropriety/illegality had been committed by the DPC or not and the committee was required to submit its report within 15 days therefrom. 3.4. The Director (Education/S), Government of Manipur issued a Notification dated 07-03-2011 notifying that 1051 (Gen.-512, OBC–177, ST–322, SC–21 and PH–19) Primary Teachers would be engaged on contract basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months or until further order whichever was earlier on payment of remuneration of Rs. 7600/- p.m. All the candidates whose names appeared in the said list of recommended candidates published on 26-06-2010 in the newspaper were found in the said Notification dated 07-03-2011. When the issue relating to leakage of the controversial select list was brought to the notice of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Manipur clarified that the appointment which was made vide Notification dated 07-03-2011 was on contract basis and purely temporary arrangement, since the academic session was to commence from April, 2011. In continuation of the said Notification dated 07-03-2011, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued another Notification dated 31-03-2011 by which the places of postings were allotted to all those Primary Teachers who were engaged on contract basis and on execution of agreements with the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur. As the official result of the said selection was not declared, 15 out of the present petitioners approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 189 of 2011 praying for direction to the respondents therein to declare the result of the said selection. of Manipur. As the official result of the said selection was not declared, 15 out of the present petitioners approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 189 of 2011 praying for direction to the respondents therein to declare the result of the said selection. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench on 27-07-2011 directing the respondents therein to declare the result of the said selection within a period of three months. On 04-09-2011, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a Notification declaring the result for appointment to the posts of 1423 Primary Teachers and in the said result, the names of the petitioners were not found and being suspicious of foul play, information were sought through the RTI Act to see their answer sheets and marks secured by them. In response to the application submitted by the petitioner No. 8, the Secretary, BSEM furnished a reply to him informing that in pursuance of a resolution of the Board in its meeting held on 15-05-2008, the answer scripts of the above said examination had been disposed of as per norms of the Board. 3.5. Being aggrieved by the said actions of the State Respondents, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 659 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench which was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition had been filed by the petitioners raising two main issues - one, as regards the correctness and legality of the disposal of answer scripts by the Board before the completion of selection process and two, in respect of the selection of 242 candidates belonging to OBC category when nothing is mentioned in the Notice dated 12-09-2006 about the reservation of seats for the candidates belonging to OBC. 4. The above writ petition was contested by the State respondents by way of an affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4. The above writ petition was contested by the State respondents by way of an affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 wherein it is stated that when the result of the said DPC came to be published in the newspaper causing suspicion in the mind of the public, the matter was brought to the notice of the Cabinet which felt that a Committee be constituted to enquire into the irregularity/impropriety/illegality committed by the DPC and when the report, submitted by the Committee constituted vide order dated 27-06-2010, was placed before the Cabinet on 22-09-2010 which advised for obtaining legal opinions from the Law Department and the learned Advocate General and after obtaining the said legal views from the Legal Department and learned Advocate General, the matter was placed before the Cabinet for consideration which took a decision on 16-12-2010 that the Administrative Department should constitute a Review DPC which was constituted on 24-12-2010 and on the basis of the recommendation of the said Review DPC, the result of the DPC was declared vide Notification dated 04-09-2011. It is further stated that an OM dated 27-12-2006 as a policy decision came to be issued prescribing the percentage of reservation for the OBC candidates in matters of appointment and although the said OM was subsequent to the requisition of the candidates for appointment of Primary Teachers vide Notice dated 12-09-2006, the adoption of such a reservation policy during the process of recruitment was not illegal. It is also stated that since the petitioners having been allowed to participate in the selection process and found not being successful, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the recommendation made by the Review DPC on the basis of merit. The respondent No. 5, the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur also filed an affidavit–in-opposition wherein it is stated that the Board was entrusted the task of conducting the written examination only by the State Government and accordingly, the written examination was held on 22-12-2006 and the result thereof was declared in the month of April, 2007 and no complaint from anyone was received by the Board regarding manipulation or otherwise thereof. It is also stated that as there was no space for preserving the answer scripts, the same were disposed of pursuant to a resolution dated 15-05-2008 of the Board as per the norms of the Board. It is also stated that as there was no space for preserving the answer scripts, the same were disposed of pursuant to a resolution dated 15-05-2008 of the Board as per the norms of the Board. W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 5.1. The petitioner who belongs to OBC, is one of the candidates who participated in the selection process for appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers pursuant to the Notice dated 12-09-2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the result of the selection was declared vide Notification dated 04-09-2011, it was found that as many as 185 candidates were shown to have been selected against the seats reserved for the OBC (Meitei) category which was contrary to the Notice dated 12-09-2006. 5.2. On 26-09-2011, she applied under the Right to Information Act for furnishing information as regards the marks obtained by her and on receipt of the information that she secured 91 marks, she came to know that she secured more marks than the candidate at Sl. No. 122 who had been selected, showing his marks as 64, against the OBC seats. Accordingly, she submitted three representations to the concerned authorities requesting them to appoint her as Primary Teacher against the OBC seats considering the marks obtained by her. The State respondents have not failed to consider her representations at all. 5.3. The case of the petitioner is that in the said notice dated 12-09-2006 it is nowhere mentioned that certain seats be reserved for the OBC category and therefore, the selection of as many as 185 candidates as Primary Teachers (OBC Meitei) as if there was any reservation for them, is arbitrary and illegal or alternatively, in case the selection of the said candidates is considered to be legal, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Primary Teacher for two reasons - one, she was sponsored as OBC candidate as is evident from the letter dated 05-12-2011 of the Employment Officer and second, she secured more marks than many of the candidates appointed as Primary Teachers against the seats reserved for the OBC category. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by her praying that the impugned selection list of Primary Teachers consisting of candidates belonging to OBC category be quashed and/or that the State respondents be directed to recommend/select her as Primary Teacher (OBC Meitei). 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by her praying that the impugned selection list of Primary Teachers consisting of candidates belonging to OBC category be quashed and/or that the State respondents be directed to recommend/select her as Primary Teacher (OBC Meitei). 6. It is vehemently submitted by Shri H. Genanada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the disposal of the answer scripts by the Board before the completion of selection process is totally arbitrary and illegal. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritpal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & ors, reported in (1994) 5 SCC 695, he has submitted that the selection made by DPC consequent upon the Notice dated 12-09-2006 as well as the Notification dated 04-09-2011 and the Government order dated 09-12-2011 be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, Shri S. Nepoleon, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritpal Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and to support his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Rani alias Poonam Vs. State of Haryana & anr., repoteed in (2012) 6 SCC 596 . Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Board has not cited any decision rendered by any of the Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has simply relied upon the averments made in the affidavit of the Board. Other learned counsels appearing for the private respondents have adopted the arguments made by the learned counsels appearing for the State respondents and the Board. 7. The point to be considered by this court in respect of the first issue is as to whether any one of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply to the facts of the present case and if yes, what is the relief to be granted in the matter? In Pritpal Singh’s case (supra), the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (now called “the Board”) issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of 40 Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police of which the number of posts became 98 after the supplementary requisitions. The written test was held on 19-02-1989 and the result thereof was declared on 11-08-1989. In Pritpal Singh’s case (supra), the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (now called “the Board”) issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of 40 Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police of which the number of posts became 98 after the supplementary requisitions. The written test was held on 19-02-1989 and the result thereof was declared on 11-08-1989. Interviews were held between 25-08-1989 and 29-08-1989 except for one candidate who was interviewed on 03-09-1989. In the meantime, the Board had destroyed the answer-books on 27-12-1989 pursuant to a resolution dated 27-10-1989 on the ground that there was no space to keep those answer-books. The results were declared on 06-04-1990 and 62 candidates came to be selected on different dates. The unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection by way of a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and in an appeal preferred against it, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court did not find any ground to interfere with it. Since the special leave was granted, the petitions for special leave to appeal filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were converted into civil appeals which were allowed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that there were serious allegations against the constitution, procedure and functioning of the Board; that the answer papers of the written examination were destroyed even before the results of the selection had been declared; that the explanation for destruction of answer papers was suspect and that there were many irregularities, manipulations etc. as detailed in para 12 to 15 of the judgment. Taking into account all those reasons altogether, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was satisfied that the selection made by the Board was not subjective and fair and must be quashed along with the appointment order made by the State Government. A fresh selection was directed to be made by the Board. In Poonam Rani’s case (supra) which also relates to the State of Haryana in respect of a recruitment of lecturers, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short “the Commission”) issued an advertisement and in response thereto, the appellant applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The appellant appeared in the written examination, the result of which was declared on 21-06-2008. The appellant was interviewed along with others and when the result of the selection was notified on 14-10-2008, her name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. The appellant appeared in the written examination, the result of which was declared on 21-06-2008. The appellant was interviewed along with others and when the result of the selection was notified on 14-10-2008, her name did not figure in the list of successful candidates. Immediately after the declaration of the result of written examination, the appellant applied through her Advocate to the Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of information as regards the details of marks secured by the female candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. The SPIO vide its letter dated 31-07-2008 informed her that the marks of the candidates could not be disclosed because the final result of the selection was yet to be declared. When an appeal preferred was not decided, she filed a writ petition being CWP No. 18945/08 which was disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, Information Commissioner to decide the petition by treating it as representation which was rejected on the ground that she secured 117 marks out of 225 as against 119 marks secured by the last candidate of the SC female category. The appellant filed another writ petition being CWP No. 136/09 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, after taking cognizance of the statement made by the Commission in its additional affidavit that answer sheets of the written examination had been destroyed, with the observation that no mandamus could be issued because she did not secure sufficient marks. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the LPA by reiterating the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge. Special leave was granted when a petition for special leave to appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The stand of the Commission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the appellant secured less marks than the one secured by the last candidate; that the answer sheets had been destroyed on 25-10-2008; that the law had been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shkla and Devki Nandan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana that if a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process. Shakuntala Shkla and Devki Nandan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana that if a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn around and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process. It is also submitted that in the absence of any allegation of malice in fact, the court cannot make a detailed probe into the assessment of answer scripts or calculation of marks and issue mandamus for appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that within a few days of the result of the selection, the answer sheets were destroyed in blatant violation of the resolution dated 01-10-1994, in terms of which answer sheets could be destroyed after three months from the date of declaration of the result of the selection. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the action of the officers of the Commission to destroy the record cannot but be termed as wholly arbitrary and unjustified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was also of the view that the Hon’ble High Court did not pay serious attention to the blatant violation of the resolution and had proceeded on erroneous assumption that in the absence of allegation of malafide against the particular officials/officers of the Commission, the Court was not required to go into the legality of their action to destroy the answer sheets within few days of declaration of the result of the selection. Allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to hold fresh written test and interview for considering the candidature of the appellant and unsuccessful candidates. 8. In the present case, the written test for appointment to the said posts of Primary Teachers was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur on 22-12-2006 and the result thereof was declared in the month of April, 2007. The answer scripts were destroyed pursuant to the resolution dated 15-05-2008 of the Board. The viva-voce test for the said appointment to the posts of Primary Teachers was held with effect from 06-02-2009 and continued till the month of August, 2009. The result of the selection could be declared only on 04-09-2011 and that too, with the interference of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. It appears that the facts of the present case are not identical to that of both the above cases. The result of the selection could be declared only on 04-09-2011 and that too, with the interference of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. It appears that the facts of the present case are not identical to that of both the above cases. Unlike the Pritpal Singh’s case in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court found many irregularities, manipulations etc., on the basis of which the Hon’ble Supreme Court was satisfied that the selection made by the Board was not subjective and fair and must be quashed along with the appointment order made by the State Government, there was no any such allegation/complain from any of the unsuccessful candidates, in the present case, including the petitioners about such irregularities, manipulations etc. committed by the Board. The only similarity in between the two cases is that the answer scripts of the written examination were destroyed before the result of the selection had been declared. In this regard, one fact that can be noted in the present case is that the Board was entrusted the task of conducting written examination only and it was not required to hold the viva-voce test which was to be done by the DPC. Although the answer scripts were destroyed before the declaration of the result of the selection, which took place almost after four years, the same was destroyed after one year from the date of declaration of the result of written examination. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, it is stated that the Board disposed of the answer scripts of the said written examination as per norms of the Board but a copy of such norms regulating the destruction of answer scripts by the Board is not placed on record for perusal of this court. However, from the perusal of the resolution dated 15-05-2008 of the Board, the only inference that can be drawn is that the Board disposes of answer scripts of each examination after a lapse of three months from the date of declaration of the result. In so far as the Poonam Rani’s case is concerned, its facts are also not exactly identical as that of the present case, as has been stated in the preceding para, except that the answer sheets/scripts have been destroyed in both the cases. In so far as the Poonam Rani’s case is concerned, its facts are also not exactly identical as that of the present case, as has been stated in the preceding para, except that the answer sheets/scripts have been destroyed in both the cases. However, in Poonam Rani’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the answer sheets were destroyed in blatant violation of the resolution dated 01-10-1994 by which answer sheets could be destroyed only after three months from the date of declaration of the result of the selection. No such blatant violation of a resolution or any other norm has been brought to the notice of this court in the present case, either by way of an averment in the petition or a submission during the course of hearing, wherein the answer scripts have been destroyed after a year from the date of declaration of the result of the written examination and that too, in terms of the resolution dated 15-05-2008 passed by the Board. Since the facts of the present case are not exactly identical as that of the above two cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court is of the view that the relieves granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above two cases cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the answer sheets/scripts have been destroyed before the completion of the selection process, the entire selection process shall be quashed and a direction be issued to the State respondents to conduct the selection afresh. His submission has no substance at all for the reason that there was no allegation/complain at all from any of the unsuccessful candidates against the conduct of written examination by the Board and moreover, in Pritpal Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not quashed the selection process only on the ground that the answer sheets have been destroyed before the completion of selection process and in addition thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found many irregularities and manipulations on the basis of which the entire selection process was quashed. 9. In the present case, the selection process can be divided into two parts - one, the part relating to the written examination being conducted by the Board and the second, the rest of the selection process till the end. 9. In the present case, the selection process can be divided into two parts - one, the part relating to the written examination being conducted by the Board and the second, the rest of the selection process till the end. The first part is the responsibility of the Board and its role was limited to the conduct of written examination only and the moment the result thereof was declared, its role came to an end and it had nothing to do with the rest of the selection process. There is no material on record to show that the Board was instructed by the State Government not to destroy the answer scripts till the completion of the selection process. As has been stated in its affidavit which is not controverted by the petitioners, the Board in its normal course disposes of answer scripts after three months from the date of declaration of result thereof. In the absence of any instruction from the State Government, the Board was not supposed to and could not be expected to keep the answer scripts un-destroyed or preserved for indefinite period when it was not sure as to when the selection process would be completed by the DPC. In the present case, one year after which the Board destroyed the answer scripts, is reasonable time for keeping the answer scripts un-destroyed or preserved. It is understandable if the Board was entrusted to complete the entire selection process but it was not so in the present case. Therefore, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances, there is no reason as to why this court ought to interfere with the written examination being conducted by the Board, when there was no grievance from any of the unsuccessful candidates against the Board except only the fact that the answer scripts were destroyed before the completion of the selection process which was not in its control and the reasons as to why the answer scripts were to be destroyed, have been narrarated above. As regards the interview also, there appears to be no allegation/complain from any of the unsuccessful candidates raising objection against the DPC. The petitioners have not stated in their petition anything about the irregularities, manipulation, arbitrariness committed by the DPC in the viva-voce test. As regards the interview also, there appears to be no allegation/complain from any of the unsuccessful candidates raising objection against the DPC. The petitioners have not stated in their petition anything about the irregularities, manipulation, arbitrariness committed by the DPC in the viva-voce test. When the select list came to be published in the newspaper, the public suspected the genuineness of it and therefore, it attracted the attention of the Cabinet which directed to constitute a Committee to look into it. At that point of time also, there is no material on record to show that any one demanded that the viva-voce be repeated in the interest of public. The fact that only some of the petitioners approached the Hon’ble High Court praying that the State respondents be directed to make the official declaration of the result, shows that they were not aggrieved by the viva-voce being conducted by the DPC and they wanted only the result to be declared by the State respondents. Accordingly, on the recommendation of the Review DPC, the result of the selection was declared on 04-09-2011. Thus, it can be seen that there is nothing wrong in the selection process upto the stage of viva voce test and therefore, no order can be passed by this court quashing the entire selection process, as prayed for by the petitioners, only on the ground that the answer scripts had been destroyed before the completion of the selection process. 10. As regards the second issue, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the declaration of result, some candidates were shown to have been selected against the seats allegedly reserved for the OBC category which was totally contrary to the Notice dated 12-09-2006, merits consideration by this court. In the said Notice dated 12-09-2006, nothing is mentioned about any seat being reserved for the OBC category and it could not be done also, at that point of time, for the simple reason that admittedly, the Office Memorandum prescribing reservation of seats for the OBC category came to be issued only on 27-12-2006 after the Notice dated 12-09-2006 having been issued by the Employment Officer and even after the written examination having been held by the Board. Moreover, this OM dated 27-12-2006 does not indicate that it would apply retrospectively. Moreover, this OM dated 27-12-2006 does not indicate that it would apply retrospectively. There is no material on record to show that after the said OM dated 27-12-2006 having been issued, a decision was taken by the State respondents to make an amendment in the breakup of seats, as detailed in the said notice, allotted amongst the categories by adding OBC category therein and a notice thereof was issued informing the candidates about such amendment. From the perusal of the proceedings of the Review DPC, it appears that it had proceeded on an erroneous assumption that seats were reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC and the DPC had not referred to any order issued by the State respondents, subsequent to the issuance of the said OM, that the OM would apply to the then ongoing selection process after due notice being given to the candidates. The Review DPC, in its proceeding, has merely stated that it has followed the 200 point reservation roster which came to be introduced only after the written examination and the viva-voce test were over. It may be noted that the Article 16 of the Constitution of India provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be set down by the constitution and the law made thereunder. Our Constitution scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.” In the case of UPSC Vs. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela & ors., reported in (2006) 2 SCC 482 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “12. Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words “employment or appointment” cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation, etc. The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution.” As is evident from the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an advertisement shall be issued in matters of public employment. The purpose of requiring the issuance of an advertisement is to give wide publicity to the eligible candidates as regards the terms and conditions including the criteria in respect of the details of selection. Any change in the terms and conditions shall be made known to all the candidates so that they could act accordingly. As mandated under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, equal opportunity shall be given to all in matters of public employment. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that although almost all the petitioners belong to OBC category, they did not get an opportunity to get their names sponsored as OBC candidates. As mandated under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, equal opportunity shall be given to all in matters of public employment. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that although almost all the petitioners belong to OBC category, they did not get an opportunity to get their names sponsored as OBC candidates. There is no statement in the writ petition in support of his submission but when he made the submission during the course of hearing, the same was not denied by any of the counsels appearing for the respondents. It may also be noted at this juncture that the grievance of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 is that in spite of her name being sponsored as OBC candidate, she had been treated as unreserved candidate and accordingly, her name was not included in the impugned list of OBC candidates, though she secured more marks than many of the candidates shown in the said OBC list. Thus, it is not clear as to how the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Officer. At the time of getting his/her name sponsored, was the concerned person required to indicate whether he/she belongs to OBC category because by then, the OM dated 27-12-2006 had not yet been issued at all? Or is it the case that the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Officer based on the information furnished by the person concered at the time of registration of his name in the employment exchange and if that be so, why was the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 denied the benefit of being OBC candidate. On a query put to the learned Government Advocate by this court in this regard, he was unable to give a concrete answer saying that the Government file was silent about it. No additional affidavit in compliance with the order dated 10-09-2015 passed by this court, has been filed by the State respondents in respect of similar queries. In the present case, in the Notice dated 12-09-2006, it is specifically provided as under: 1) Primary Teacher Gen. Category - 910 ST - 442 SC - 29 Phy. Handicapped - 42 1423 2) Primary Hindi Teacher Gen. Category - 130 ST - 63 SC - 4 Phy. Handicapped - 6 203 3) Hindi Graduate Teacher Gen. Category - 28 ST - 16 SC - 1 Phy. Category - 910 ST - 442 SC - 29 Phy. Handicapped - 42 1423 2) Primary Hindi Teacher Gen. Category - 130 ST - 63 SC - 4 Phy. Handicapped - 6 203 3) Hindi Graduate Teacher Gen. Category - 28 ST - 16 SC - 1 Phy. Handicapped - 1 46 It is nowhere mentioned in the said notice that certain seats are reserved for the OBC category and on the contrary, when the result of the selection was declared, the names of as many as 242 candidates were shown to have been selected against the seats reserved for the OBC category. To contend that the criteria cannot be changed after the process for selection has commenced, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1657 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once the advertisement had been issued on the basis of the circular obtaining at that particular time, the effect would be that the selection process should continue on the basis of the criteria which was laid down and it cannot be on the basis of the criteria which has been made subsequently. The Review DPC had committed error while recommending the candidates belong to OBC category as if there was reservation for them as per the Notice dated 12-09-2006 and the State respondents had blindly accepted the same. In fairness and in order to give equal opportunity, the State respondents ought to have given a notice to all the candidates that the OM dated 27-12-2006 would apply to the then onging selection process and all those candidates, including the petitioners, belonging to OBC category who could not get themselves sponsored as OBC candidates, could have been given an opportunity to do so. In other words, in case certain seats were to be reserved for the OBC, the State respondents must have ensured that all the candidates belonging to OBC category had got themselves sponsored by the Employment Officer. It appears that no such excercise had been done by the State respondents at all in the present case and no opportunity was granted to them. Denial of such opportunity to the petitioners has attracted the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It appears that no such excercise had been done by the State respondents at all in the present case and no opportunity was granted to them. Denial of such opportunity to the petitioners has attracted the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Failing to do that, the actions of the State respondents are unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal as being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The part of the selection process, as indicated above, i.e., from the stage where the error had crept in, is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be quashed and in other words, the recommendation of the Review DPC, Notification dated 04-09-2011 and the Government order dated 09-12- 2011 are liable to be quashed. 11. That since this court having held in the preceding para that the selection of as many as 242 candidates as Primary Teachers against the seats reserved for the OBC category, without the same being mentioned in the Notice dated 12-09-2006, is bad and liable to be quashed, no order is required to be passed in this writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 127 of 2012 and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. In view of the above observations and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 815 of 2011 is partly allowed and consequently, recommendation of the Review DPC, the Notification dated 04-09-2011 and Government order dated 09-12-2011 are quashed and set aside with the following directions: a) The State respondents and in particular, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are directed to instruct the Review DPC to submit a fresh recommendation strictly in accordance with the Notice dated 12-09-2006 within a period two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and in other words, the recommendation shall include the lists of candidates belonging to unreserved, SC, ST only and not OBC at all; b) On receipt of such a recommendation from the Review DPC within two months as mentioned above, the State respondents and in particular, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 shall issue a Notification declaring the result and issue appointment orders within a month thereafter; c) Keeping in mind the interest of the students, the incumbent Primary Teachers shall be allowed to continue in service in their respective positions for three months only from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and in the meantime, the State respondents and in particular, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 shall complete the whole exercise as indicated in the directions (a) & (b) above.