Rumi Kumari Phukna, J.:-- This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved by the petitioner praying for setting aside the appointment order No.TAX (E)-424/2011 dated 18th February 2013 in respect of the private respondent No.5 in the post of Inspector Tax & Excise and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to make appointment to the petitioner in the post of Inspector Tax & Excise as recommended by the DPC held on 23.1.2013. 2. I have heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for State respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Also heard Mr. R.B. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No.5. 3. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently working as Assistant Inspector of Tax & Excise, which she got through meritorious sports quota. While in service, she achieved medal in International level as well as National Level. She has been awarded Gold medal also by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh as a mark of meritorious sports person during 2012-13. The post which she presently serving is a Group-C post and during her service in the same capacity as Assistant Director of Tax & Excise, the post of Inspector of Tax & Excise (Group-B post) fell vacant as a direct recruit quota, wherein she applied for recommendation to the said post of Inspector of Tax & Excise from the Arunachal Karate-Do Association but the Association reluctant to recommend her name on the ground that she has already availed the sports quota. But the Association recommended other candidates who were already absorbed in service from meritorious sports quota whereas the petitioner case has not been considered. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application before the Director of Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the Director of Sports and Youth Affairs forwarded the same to the Commissioner, Tax & Excise and recommended for giving her a chance to appear in the test for the post of Inspector Tax & Excise as per laid down rules under sports quota and the DPC recommended her name in order of preference in serial No.1 as per the recommendation of the DPC held on 23.1.2013. The contention of the petitioner is that in the case of direct recruitment post, she has every right to apply for the said post. As she has been deprived to be appointed to the said post of Inspector Tax & Excise, she has filed this writ petition for setting aside the appointment order of the private respondent No.5 and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her in the post of Inspector Tax & Excise as recommended by the DPC held on 23.1.2013. 5. Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 2 Nos.of post of Inspector Tax & Excise posts are lying vacant, which posts to be filled up amongst the meritorious sports person as per eligibility criteria elaborated in the office Memorandum dated 4.5.1995 that a meritorious sports person who fulfilled the eligibility condition shall be considered in order of preference, as specified in the said office memorandum. According to the petitioner, since her name was forwarded to the Commissioner, Tax & Excise, the DPC held on 23.1.2013 and recommended the name of the petitioner at serial No.1 has not been given appointment to the post of Inspector Tax & Excise whereas the private respondent No.5, whose name was placed at serial No.1 in the panel waiting list have been appointed as Inspector of Tax & Excise vide order dated 18.2.2013 depriving the petitioner for appointment to such post against 5% reserved quota from direct recruitment post, as the decision of the DPC cannot be altered by any authority other than the court being a quasi-judicial body and as such, the appointment order issued in favour of the private respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that the DPC recommendation is an advisory in nature and the same not necessarily binding on the appointing authority. Any appointment is made on the basis of recommendations of the DPC, an administrative approval has to be obtained from the competent authority and it is only after administrative approval, the appointment order is issued by the appointing authority, therefore, the DPC recommendation is not conclusive and final for an appointment process. Any appointment is made on the basis of recommendations of the DPC, an administrative approval has to be obtained from the competent authority and it is only after administrative approval, the appointment order is issued by the appointing authority, therefore, the DPC recommendation is not conclusive and final for an appointment process. He further submits that the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Inspector of Tax & Excise against sports quota and as such, she has been disqualified on the ground that a sports person who had already availed the sports quota should be entitled to similar benefits. Hence, the appointment of private respondent No.5 was considered as a fresh candidate against sports quota. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make out a case to be interfered by this court on this count and accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition, on behalf of the respondent No.3 has been filed, wherein, it was categorically stated that the petitioner's name had been recommended for employment to a Group-C post on 22.11.2010 under 5% reservations for meritorious sportsmen quota. When the petitioner applied to the post of Inspector of Tax & Excise for availing the said 5% reservations quota, they sought clarification from the Department of Administrative Reforms of the State Government and its response vide letter dated 18.1.2013 from the Senior Analyst-cum-Under Secretary, whereupon, it has been clarified that the guidelines issued by the Government of India on the matter of second time appointments under the meritorious sportsmen quota is silent. Therefore, the Association decided not to recommend the same of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Inspector of Tax & Excise as she has already availed the same benefit and only to provide equal opportunity to all deserving sports persons. 8. Mr. G. Tarak, learned counsel for the private respondent No.5 has submitted that the respondent No.5 submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Tax & Excise to re-consider the decision of the DPC in recommending the petitioner under 5% meritorious sports quota as because she was already appointed to the post of Assistant Tax & Excise under the said quota and her name was not recommended by the Arunachal Pradesh Karate-Do Association. On the basis of the said representation made by the private respondent No.5, a legal opinion was sought from the Law Department and after close examination and opinion of the Law Department, the Commissioner of Tax & Excise rejected the petitioner's recommendation and appointed the private respondent No.5 from the penal of the waiting list. Hence, she cannot claim again and again from the same quota. 9. Mr. Tarak, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.5, referring the case of Soluk Hakung v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors., WP(C) No.464(AP) of 2013, submits that the only certificate issued by the authority specified in Form of the Scheme, to be considered as eligible for appointment under meritorious sports quota. According to him, in the instant case, the writ petitioner was not eligible to be considered for appointment because she was not having certificate issued by the authority mention in the Annexure B of the Scheme. The selection of her name by the Selection Committee was illegal and even if she is appointed by the Government the same would have been set aside by this court in the event of challenge. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the DPC meeting held on 23.1.2013 in respect of appointment to the post of Inspector (Tax & Excise) and Constable (Tax & Excise) against the 5% reserved quota for meritorious Sports person, the DPC has made recommendations on the proposal placed before the Committee as under: "The proposal before Committee was the following: For appointment of Meritorious Sports Persons to the posts of Inspector (Tax & Excise) and Constable (Tax & excises) against 5 % reserved quota from direct recruitment post. After going through relevant records forwarded by the nodal department of Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of A.P. and applications received by the Department of Tax & Excise, the Committee after having scrutinised all the relevant documents like educational qualification, medal achievement and certificates, recommends for appointment of following candidates to the post, in order of preferences as indicated below: I. (A) Recommendations for the post of Inspector (T & E): 1. Ms. Debia Yakap. 2. Shri Tam Tapak. (B) Recommendations for waiting list to the post of Inspector (T& E): 1. Shri Nanu Sangha. II. (A) Recommendations for the post of Constable (T & E): 1. Shri Tagri Taju. 2. Ms. Debia Yakap. 2. Shri Tam Tapak. (B) Recommendations for waiting list to the post of Inspector (T& E): 1. Shri Nanu Sangha. II. (A) Recommendations for the post of Constable (T & E): 1. Shri Tagri Taju. 2. Shri John Bagang. 3. Shri Chuku Saha. 4. Shri Rechi Kagung. 5. Shri Lishi Tacham. (B) Recommendations for waiting list to the post of Constable (T&E): 1. Shri Dani Tamang. 2. Ms. Tage Chunia. From the above, it is found that the name of the petitioner was recommended along with another Shri Tam Tapak for the post of Inspector (Tax & Excise) and the name of the private respondent No.5 was recommended for waiting list candidate to the post of Inspector (Tax & Excise). 11. Despite recommendations made by the DPC in favour of the petitioner at serial No.1, the recommended candidate at serial No.2 along with the private respondent No.5, whose name was recommended by the DPC for waiting list candidate to the post of Inspector (Tax & Excise), have been appointed in the said posts against the 5% reserved sports quota for meritorious sports person, which is quoted below: "Government of Arunachal Pradesh Office of the Commissioner:: Tax & Esxcise Itanagar No.TAX (E) - 424/2011 Dated Itanagar the 18.2.2013 ORDER In pursuance to Government of Arunachal Pradesh Office Memorandum No.OM-13/2000, dated 14.5.2001 and on the recommendation of DPC conducted on 23.1.2013 basing on the recommendation of candidates by Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the following persons are appointed to the various posts shown below against 5% reservation quota of direct recruitment vacancies in Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) & group 'C' post amongst the Meritorious Sports Persons belonging to APST. (A) Inspector (Tax & Excise). SI. No.NameCategory of postScale of PayPlace of posting 1.Shri Tam TapakInspectorPB-2 9300-34,800 + Rs. 4200Khonsa, Tirap District 2.Shri Nanu SanghaInspectorPB-2 9300-34,800 + Rs. 4200Koioriang, Kurung Kumey District. (B) Constable (Tax & Excise). SI. No.NameCategory of postScale of PayPlace of posting 1.Shri Tagri RajuConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Deomali, Tirap District. 2.Shri John BagangConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Deomali, Tirap District. 3.Shri Chuku SahaConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Namdang, Changiang District. 4.Shri Rechi KagungConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Namdang, Changiang District. 5.Shri Lishi TachamConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Namdang, Changiang District. SI. No.NameCategory of postScale of PayPlace of posting 1.Shri Tagri RajuConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Deomali, Tirap District. 2.Shri John BagangConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Deomali, Tirap District. 3.Shri Chuku SahaConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Namdang, Changiang District. 4.Shri Rechi KagungConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Namdang, Changiang District. 5.Shri Lishi TachamConstablePB-1 5200-20200 + Rs. 1900BFC Namdang, Changiang District. They will be on probation for a period of 2 years with effect from the date of joining in their respective place of posting as shown above. The terms and conditions of appointment will be as follows: (1) The services will be governed by CCS (temporary Services Rules) 1965 as amended from time-to-time. (2) The appointment carries with it the liability to serve any part of Arunachal Pradesh or outside the State where Arunachal Government has an organisation as may be decided by Government from time-to-time in the interest of public service. (3) The appointment will be governed by relevant rules and orders of Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued from time-to-time. (4) The candidate should not have more than one wife at the time of appointment and throughout his service. (5) The appointment is subject to production of 'No Objection Certificate' from present employer if employed. (6) They will have to furnish their movable and immovable properties within four weeks from the date of joining; similarly they also have to furnish their details of their family members; (7) The appointment will be further subject to production of certificate of fitness from Civil Surgeon/District Medical Officer and Character Certificate issued by a Gazetted Officer. (8) Other terms and conditions which are not specified herein shall be governed by the relevant rules and orders issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh from time-to-time. The expenditure is debitable to the budget Head of Account Code No.01 (Non-Plant), Major Head-2039 State Excise, Sub-Major Head-00 and administrative, Sub-Head 01 - Head Quarter Establishment/Sub-Head-02 District Establishment, Detailed Head-00, Object Head - 01 Salaries (demand No.54) Sd/- (Tape Bagra) IAS Commissioner/Secretary (T&E) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar." 12. From the above pleadings between the parties and the stand taken by all the respondents, it appears that the respondent authority has resisted the claim of the petitioner that as she has already availed the chance of posting against the sports quota so she debarred from claiming the same benefit in 2nd time. From the above pleadings between the parties and the stand taken by all the respondents, it appears that the respondent authority has resisted the claim of the petitioner that as she has already availed the chance of posting against the sports quota so she debarred from claiming the same benefit in 2nd time. The Arunachal Karate-Do Association in his reply (Annexure XII) has categorically stated that once, who has been appointed under meritorious sports quota should not apply again and again as there is a provision in guideline for award of incentive increment those who are serving in Government establishment. But the Association nowhere denied that the petitioner is not eligible to obtain certificate from them as sought for. 13. Again it is also noted that the State respondents have decided to abide by the opinion so made by the Secretary (Law), who has also opined that a sports person, who had already availed the sports quota should not be entitled to similar benefits in another post and more so when the post is feeder post for the promotion to the higher post. However, it appears from the stand taken by the respondents, they could not rely upon any specific rules or law, which may desist the petitioner from claiming such benefit in 2nd time under the sports quota. 14. The respondent No.5 urged before the court that as he had duly obtained required certificate from the Karate-Do Association, so, his appointment to the post being legal cannot be interfered with or cancelled by any authority. In this context, the reply of the respondent No.3 is also noteworthy, who has in their counter affidavit vide paragraph 11, it has been admitted that the name of Shri Chuku Saha (person selected for Constable T& E Serial No.3 in the II.(A) recommendations for the post of Constable (T&E) was recommended for appointment twice under meritorious sportsmen quota due to lack of knowledge. 15. So, apparently, it is found to be true that although the case of the petitioner was not considered for granting certificate, as sought for, for the 2nd time but the same has been issued to the another person who has availed the appointment twice against the sportsmen quota. Then, how the appointing authority can over look such aspect is another serious matter. Then, how the appointing authority can over look such aspect is another serious matter. Over and above, it is also noted that the impugned appointment letter has been issued on the recommendations of the same by the DPC conducted on 23.1.2013, then, on what basis, they choose to alter the name of the petitioner and inserted the name of other person in the appointment letter is nowhere mentioned. If at all appointment was made on the recommendations of the DPC, then, how such changes occurred beyond the recommendations of the DPC is not reflected. The appointing authority cannot pick and choose and ignore the recommendations so made by the DPC as we found the person, who was at the waiting column, has been appointed as Inspector (Tax & Excise) along with another recommended person at Serial No.2. 16. Similarly, for the post of Constable (T&E), the name of Chuku Saha was also recommended by the DPC, who availed the 2nd chance for appointment against sports quota but while extending the same benefit by the DPC to the petitioner, the same has been denied by the appointing authority, which is per se not appears to be just and proper. At the behest of respondent No.5, who challenges the DPC and the matter was pursued in the Department of law and accordingly, on the basis of the opinion of the Secretary (Law), who has opined that such 2nd time benefit given to the some other person, the appointment of the petitioner was not given effect too and instead of respondent No.5 who was in waiting list has been appointed. The opinion of the Secretary (Law) to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh cannot have force of law. The Commissioner (T&E) after receipt of such information from the Secretary (Law) would have referred the matter to the DPC for reconsideration of the matter instead of issuing such appointment letter to the private respondent No.5. 17. There is no mention in the O.M and instructions of Government of India that a person cannot be sought for sports qupta for the 2nd time, the guideline are silent in that regard. 17. There is no mention in the O.M and instructions of Government of India that a person cannot be sought for sports qupta for the 2nd time, the guideline are silent in that regard. According to the petitioner, as per O.M. No.14015/1/76-Estt.(D) dated 4.8.1980 (Annexure 1 of the affidavit in reply) issued by the Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Manatralaya, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform, New Delhi regarding appointment of meritorious sportsmen to Group 'C' and 'D' posts in relaxation of the procedure, it has been mentioned in sub-section (c) to the provision of section 2 that a meritorious sportsmen can be considered for appointment under sub-para (a) above, notwithstanding the fact that he is already, in the service of the Government. Section 2. : Posts to which applicable is reproduced below : "2. Posts to which Applicable (a) Appointments of meritorious sportsmen can be made to any post in Group 'C' or Group 'D' which under the Recruitment Rules applicable thereto, is required or permitted to be filled by direct recruitment, otherwise than through the Union Public Service Commission. (b) No such appointment shall be made to any post in Group 'A' or Group 'B' by direct recruitment. (c) A meritorious sportsmen can be considered for appointment under sub-para (a) above, notwithstanding the fact that he is already, in the service of the Government. (d) In making appointments to any post under the Govern by promotion, no preference shall be given to meritorious sportsmen though that fact may be taken into a unit in assessing the overall merit." 18. In the instant case, the appointing authority has flouted the findings of the DPC while the DPC was held in presence of Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs) being Chairman, Deputy Commissioner (T & E) and Joint (Director (Sports & Y.A) as Members of the DPC, who have recommended the name of the petitioner as serial No.1 after going through the relevant records forwarded by the nodal department of the Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar and the application received by the Department of Tax & Excise, and after-scrutinizing all the relevant documents. But the Commissioner (Tax & Excise) has issued the appointment letter by changing the recommendation so made as has been reflected in the appointment letter. 19. But the Commissioner (Tax & Excise) has issued the appointment letter by changing the recommendation so made as has been reflected in the appointment letter. 19. Coupled with the above fact, it can be found that the rule is silent about the 2nd time appointment against the sports quota of the same person and on the strength of the certificate issued by the respondent No.3, Arunachal Karate-D Association one other employee has already availed the benefit of 2nd time appointment to the higher post. The Commissioner (T&E) after receipt of such information from the Secretary (Law), would have referred the matter to the DPC for reconsideration of the matter instead of issuing»such appointment letter to the private respondent No.5. Although the finding of DPC is advisory in nature and the appointing authority can differ from it but it is the incumbent upon the respondent authority to incorporate proper reason for rejecting the finding of such DPC. The assessment made by the DPC can only be interfered into if it is perverse and suffered from illegality or arbitrariness. 20. In the case of Union of India, etc. v. N.P. Dhamania, AIR 1995 SC 568 , it has been held that recommendations of DPC are advisable in nature and it is open to the appointing authority to defer from recommendations in public interest but reason has to be given for so differing to act upon the same. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 choose to defer without assigning any reason and, therefore, the name of the petitioner cannot be arbitrarily dropped. As we found in the given case, the appointing authority has accepted the DPC but has deviated from the recommendations in respect of the petitioner without assigning any reason and as such, the same is bad in law and has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 has acted foul-play while not forwarding the application of the petitioner but they duly forwarded the application of the respondent No.5, and he is not an expert to hold the view that a person cannot availed the sports quota for 2nd time. 21. Law and Justice demand fair-play of the Government Instrumentalities and any deviation from the statute, standard form of rules, etc. will vitiate the finding of such authority. 21. Law and Justice demand fair-play of the Government Instrumentalities and any deviation from the statute, standard form of rules, etc. will vitiate the finding of such authority. Nobody can be permitted to deviate from the standing rules and statute and no official can sit over the statute to decide certain aspect in its own manner, which is perverse to the law and exactly the same has happened in the case while issuing the appointment letter by the respondent No.1. So, the same is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is remanded back to the respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh having regard to the recommendations so made by the DPC as indicated above. He will refer the matter to the DPC for deciding the matter afresh. 22. The whole exercise shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost. -