JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 14.07.2004 passed by the Chief Manager (Personnel & HRD), opposite party no.3 rejecting his representation stating that his name did not appear in the final select list and therefore, he did not get a call letter to join the Bank and further seeking for a direction to appoint him as Armed Guard declaring him as selected candidate under his zone pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-1. 2.The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the State Bank of India having its local head office, at Bhubaneswar issued an advertisement for recruitment of Guards (Ex-serviceman) for its various offices and Branches in Orissa fixing the criteria mentioned therein. Clauses 8 & 9 of the advertisement stipulate as follows: “8. No. of vacancies In the modules: Bhubaneswar-71 Guards, Sambalpur-64 Guards, Berhampur-50 Guards. 9. Reservation for S.C./ S.T./ O.B.C. as per norms. SC-15%, ST-23%, OBC-12%.” 3. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for Sambalpur Module addressing to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nayapara, Samablpur. The selection process continued simultaneously at all centres. The application of the petitioner being an incomplete one, returned to him by opposite party no.3 on 05.12.2000 to allow him to submit the application form along with passport size photograph within a fortnight or latest by 10.01.2001, otherwise, his candidature would not be considered. On 01.06.2001 the petitioner was also Intimated vide Annexure-3 that .he has been found suitable for appointment In Bank’s service subject to satisfactory medical report and verification of character and antecedents as an Armed Guard and he was called to appear before them on 13.06.2011 so as to obtain letter of introduction to the Bank’s doctor and also he was instructed to bear the fees of the medical doctor payable by him. He was also intimated that he must come with necessary documentary evidence In original in support of his candidature and It was also clarified that the said letter is not the appointment order, but on the basis of the satisfactory medical report and verification of character and antecedents, certificates/ testimonials, the Bank may prepare to offer an appointment on probation. He was also intimated that he must come with necessary documentary evidence In original in support of his candidature and It was also clarified that the said letter is not the appointment order, but on the basis of the satisfactory medical report and verification of character and antecedents, certificates/ testimonials, the Bank may prepare to offer an appointment on probation. Pursuant to such letter, the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority on the date fixed and produced all the required documents as per the list mentioned therein for verification. Since the petitioner belongs to OBC category, he can avail the benefit of reservation fixed for OBC, i.e. 12% as per the advertisement in Annexure-1. After verification of the original documents and medical fitness certificate, 64 candidates in total were selected in respect of the vacancies under opposite party no.3 where the petitioner’s name found place at SI.No.57. Accordingly, he was advised to wait for his appointment/ placement, but no appointment order was issued in his favour for quite long time and therefore, he made a representation to the opposite parties. In response to such representation, the opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 14.07.2004 gave its reply through registered post that his name did not appear in the final select list and therefore, he did not get a call to join the Bank. Hence, this petition. 4.Mr. S. Prusty, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the petitioner’s name found place in SI. No. 57 of the merit list prepared by the authorities out of 64 candidates, he should have been given appointment letter under the reserved category meant for OBC candidates and non-issuance of appointment letter on the ground that his name does not find place in the final select list is an out-come of non-application of mind by the authorities. It is further urged that after final select list/ test, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have changed the reservation quota violating the declaration/ conditions mentioned in the advertisement in Annexure-l. He further submitted that the reservation quota fixed for OBC, which was advertised as 12% has been reduced and the reservation quota for SC and ST candidates has been increased at the time of appointment. It is further urged that 43 candidates under opposite party no.3 have been appointed on 04.02.2002 and 19 candidates have got appointment on 14.11.2002 and two posts were lying vacant till the date of filing of the writ petition. Despite final selection list, the petitioner has not been issued with any appointment order for which he has been deprived of reasonable opportunity of joining the post pursuant to the selection done by the authority. It is further urged that reduction of reservation quota for the OBC after. the selection process Is over pursuant to the advertisement is not permissible and as such, the petitioner’s case is covered by the ratio decided by this Court in Mrs. Madhumita Das and another v. State of Orissa and others, 100 (2005) CLT 465. 5. Mr. D.K.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Bank states that though the advertisement stipulates that 12% of the advertised posts are to be filled up by the OBC candidates, but the same should be In consonance with Clause 9 of the advertisement, meaning thereby it should be followed by the norms and norms means 100 point roster applicable to the Bank. It is further urged that 100 point roster if applicable, then six nos. of posts would have to be filled up by the candidates of OBC category and that apart, the petitioner is in 8th position In the OBC category and he could not be given appointment because of the norms followed by the Bank. In that view of the matter, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the local head office of SBI issued advertisement In Annexure-1 fixing the criteria mentioned therein. Admittedly, the petitioner, who belongs to OBC category submitted his application for consideration for recruitment of Armed Guards (Ex-servicemen) pursuant to the advertisement in Annexure-1. But due to submission of incomplete application, the same was returned by opposite party no.3 to the petitioner calling upon him to file complete application by providing all the information along with passport size photograph vide Annexure-2. But due to submission of incomplete application, the same was returned by opposite party no.3 to the petitioner calling upon him to file complete application by providing all the information along with passport size photograph vide Annexure-2. In response to such letter, the petitioner submitted all the required documents and complete application form well within the time specified, which has been taken into consideration by the authority and after the application form was found in order, he was called upon to appear at the medical test. In response to the same, the petitioner appeared before the Bank’s doctor for his medical examination. He having satisfied all the requirements, his name has been enlisted in the merit list prepared by the Bank and out of 64 candidates, who have been found suitable in the merit list, to be considered for issuance of appointment letter, the petitioner’s name finds place at sl. No. 57. So far as reservation category is concerned, his name finds place in sl.No.8 of the OBC category. In the advertisement, the numbers of vacancies In the modules are, Bhubaneswar-71, Sambalpur-64, and Berhampur-50. The petitioner is an applicant for Sambalpur Module wherein 64 nos. of posts were available. Against Clause No.9 of the advertisement In Annexure-l “reservation for SC/ ST/ OBC” is concerned, it is stated that vacancies will be reserved for SC/ ST/ OBC as per norms (SC-15%, ST-23%, OBC-12%)” and on simple percentage wise calculation, the sanctioned vacancies available for reservation for SC, ST and OBC are 15, 09, and 8 respectively. The petitioner’s name having found place at serial no.8 of the reserved category for OBC, he is to be appointed against the said post. Therefore, the petitioner has got every legitimate expectation that following percentage quota for reservation pursuant to Clause-9 of the advertisement issued in Annexure-1, he will get an appointment order. But no appointment order has been issued in his favour. Therefore, finding no other way out, he has approached this Court by filing the present application. 7.As it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party-Bank, as per Clause-9 of the advertisement, vacancies reserved for SC, ST and OBC as per norms are to be filled up. But no appointment order has been issued in his favour. Therefore, finding no other way out, he has approached this Court by filing the present application. 7.As it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party-Bank, as per Clause-9 of the advertisement, vacancies reserved for SC, ST and OBC as per norms are to be filled up. It is stated that norms means percentage of reservation of posts based on 100 points roster provided by the National Commission for Schedule Casts/ Schedule Tribes accepted and followed by the State Bank of India and all Public Sector Financial Institutions. Applying the said 100 point roster on the basis of the vacancies available being 64, so far as Sambalpur Module Is concerned then reservation of posts in respect of different categories would be SC-10, ST-16, OBC-6 and unreserved-32. Since the reservation available for OBC is 6, and the petitioner’s name finds place in serial no. 8 as per the calculation made pursuant to the advertisement Issued, he has not been favoured with any appointment order. It is stated that as per the norms if 100 point roster is applicable to the Bank and following the same allocation of reservation is made so far as SC, ST and OBC is concerned it comes to 10, 16 and 6 respectively. Therefore, the petitioner having stood at serial no. 8 of the merit list in respect of OBC category, he has not been given appointment order by the authority. Therefore, the sole contention before this Court is whether the authority can fill up the vacancies contrary to the advertisement issued vide Annexure-1. If reservation as per Clause-9 of the advertisement in Annexure-1 is taken into consideration, the number of vacancies available in Sambalpur Module being 64, the allocation of posts has to be made i.e. S.C.-15%, ST-23% and 0BC-12%, the posts available to be filled up is 15, 9 and 8 respectively. So far as applicability of 100 point roster is concerned the same has neither been notified nor communicated to the applicant and keeping the same in dark, if the authorities have undergone the selection process basing on the said roster point, it should have been mentioned in the advertisement itself. So far as applicability of 100 point roster is concerned the same has neither been notified nor communicated to the applicant and keeping the same in dark, if the authorities have undergone the selection process basing on the said roster point, it should have been mentioned in the advertisement itself. If any action is taken contrary to the advertisement itself, then due opportunity is to be given to the petitioner and if such opportunity has not been given, then any action taken contrary to the advertisement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8.Argument has been advanced that determination has been made as per the norms which means an ideal standard binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control or regulate proper and. acceptable behaviour. Therefore, the norms referred to in Clause-9 of the advertisement only relate to the reservation so far as ST-23%, SC-15% and OBC-12% and on calculation being made it would come to 15, 9 and 8 posts respectively. Therefore, all the examinees having come to know the fact that vacancies are to be filled up pursuant to Clause-9 of the advertisement and since the petitioner’s name finds place as against serial no. 8 of the reservation category belonging to OBC, he is entitled to get appointment order. Depriving him to get such order of appointment amounts to arbitrary, and unreasonable exercise of power inasmuch as the applicability of 100 point roster having not been brought to notice of the candidates, the same cannot be taken into consideration in view of the law laid down by Mrs. Madhumita Das (supra). In the said case this Court dealt with the provisions of Orissa Judicial Service (Special Scheme) Rules, 2001 and selection made under the said Rules. The question before this Court was that once the norms were published in the advertisement for notice of all whether it could be changed at a later stage without notice to any of the candidate and general public and without Issuing any corrigendum of the advertisement in question. This Court held that once the advertisement issued to fill up the post, it is duty of the recruiting authority to give necessary information to all in a precise and clear manner. This Court held that once the advertisement issued to fill up the post, it is duty of the recruiting authority to give necessary information to all in a precise and clear manner. Applying the said ratio to the present context, the applicability of the 100 point roster having not been brought to the notice of any of the candidates or general public in the advertisement itself in Annexure-1, any action taken contrary to Clause-9 of the advertisement in Annexure-1 is arbitrary unreasonable exercise of power by the authority. 9.In course of hearing this Court gave an opportunity to opposite parties to obtain instruction whether the petitioner’s case can be considered for such engagement if vacancies are available. But by way of an affidavit filed on 03.04.2015 it is stated that bank having followed 100 point model roster and the petitioner having not fitted in, he could not be appointed. In that view of the matter 100 point roster may be applicable to the bank but so far as the present case is concerned applying the said 100 point roster no determination can be made as it will be contrary to the Clause-9 of the advertisement in Annexure-l and also is contrary to the judgment rendered by this Court in Mrs. Madhumita Das (supra). 10.Considering the case from all angels, this Court directs the opposite parties to give appointment to the petitioner against one of the reserved vacancies meant for OBC in consonance with Clause-9 of the advertisement issued in Annexure-l in the Sambalpur module within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.