Judgment Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. The sole writ petitioner/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 18th October, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3416 of 2007 is in appeal. The appellant was a candidate for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the department of Public Health and Engineering (hereinafter referred to as 'P.H.E.D' for short) under Advertisement no. 12 of 2002-03 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'J.P.S.C 'for short'). Admittedly, 5 vacancies were shown without any break up of unreserved post or for various reserved categories (Annexure-2). However, it stipulated that reservation was to be provided for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward categories as per government norms. The petitioner being interested and holding the eligibility criteria applied within time. The written exam could not be held thereafter and corrigendum was issued showing the number of vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) as 9. 2. It is not in dispute that a model roster issued on 9th November, 2002 had been superseded with another model roster by notification dated 20th November, 2003, Annexure3. The written exams could still not be held and in July, 2005 another advertisement no. 8/2005 was issued by J.P.S.C for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Water Resources Department and also Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Road Construction Department, apart from advertising certain posts of Junior Engineer in the respective categories in the aforesaid two departments with which we are not concerned in the present case. This advertisement however provided a break up of vacancies for unreserved and reserved posts in different categories. The advertisement stipulated that post advertised could increase or decrease and benefits of reservation would be available to those, who are residents of Jharkhand State, provided requisite certificates issued by the competent authority were furnished. The department of P.H.E.D informed the J.P.S.C on 14th July, 2006 that steps be taken to fill up 7 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) by direct recruitment for which roster clearance has been provided by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand. This communication was in the context of earlier indent made to the J.P.S.C for filling up 5 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) through direct recruitment under advertisement no. 12/2002-03. This communication was in the context of earlier indent made to the J.P.S.C for filling up 5 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) through direct recruitment under advertisement no. 12/2002-03. The break up of 7 posts indicated through instant letter, Annexure6 shows 1 post each for extremely Backward Class and Scheduled Caste, while 5 posts were shown for Scheduled Tribe. J.P.S.C issued Admit Card, Annexure-7 to the respective candidates such as petitioner for appearing in written exam being conducted under both advertisement i.e. 12/2002-03 and 8/2005 with clear stipulation that those who have applied against both the advertisements and have been issued two separate Admit Cards, can appear in any one of the examination centre allotted. The other Admit Card automatically will be treated as cancelled. The petitioner had not applied under advertisement no. 8 of 2005 as per the clear statement made at para 4 of the writ petition. He however appeared in the written exam held between 22nd September 2006 to 24th September, 2006, giving his first option for Drinking Water & Sanitation Department and second option for Water Resources Department. In the written test published in March, 2007, he came out successful and was called for interview with option to apply under either of two advertisements vide Annexure-9; he exercised his option as aforesaid vide Annexure-9/1. J.P.S.C however issued a corrigendum on 26th April, 2007, Annexure-10 giving break up of the post notified under advertisement no. 12/2002-03 showing nil vacancy against unreserved category and 1 vacancy each against Scheduled Caste and extremely backward category while 5 vacancies for Scheduled Tribe category. By the said corrigendum, break up of the vacancies under advertisement no. 8/2005 was also shown. The petitioner having applied under advertisement no. 12/2002-03 and had given first option for P.H.E.D, being unreserved category could not be selected as per final result published (Annexure-11) in May, 2007 as vacancies for unreserved category has been shown as nil. 3. By the said corrigendum, break up of the vacancies under advertisement no. 8/2005 was also shown. The petitioner having applied under advertisement no. 12/2002-03 and had given first option for P.H.E.D, being unreserved category could not be selected as per final result published (Annexure-11) in May, 2007 as vacancies for unreserved category has been shown as nil. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the writ court in W.P. (S) No. 3416 of 2007, inter alia, seeking (a) for quashing of the corrigendum and amendments in roster so far it related to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department (b) for quashing of the result for the said post in P.H.E.D which showed nil vacancies for unreserved category (c) for commanding the respondent to declare revised result on the basis of the roster which existed prior to its amendment and/or as existing on the date of advertisement, examination and interview. The petitioner also asked for stay of operation of corrigendum dated 26th April, 2007 as also publication of the results, so far as it related to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in P.H.E.D. The selected candidates were also impleaded as private respondents and are also before this Court in the present appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge did not accede to the submission made by the writ petitioner and dismissed the writ petition holding that since there was no vacancy for general candidates on the said post in P.H.E.D., the action of the authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or suffering from illegality. The learned Single Judge also refuted the contention of the petitioner that a different criteria other than the criteria laid down under advertisement issued in the year 2003, had been adopted for filling up of the said post. It also found that as the common written test was held under both the advertisement of 2003 and 2005 and the successful candidates had been asked to exercise option for either Water Resources Department or Drinking & Sanitation Department, the publication of the result after conscious exercise of such option by the writ petitioner for P.H.E.D for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) did not suffer from any defect. 5. 5. In the present appeal, the impugned judgment is primarily assailed by unsuccessful writ petitioner on two grounds i.e., (i) the respondent-State and J.P.S.C have changed the rules of game as they have introduced a model roster on 20th November, 2003 in supercession of earlier model roster of 9th November, 2002 in existence at the time of advertisement, which is impermissible in law, after the last date for making application under any advertisement. He has relied upon the judgments reported in (1990) 2 S.C.C. 669 in the case of A. P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another Vs. B. Sarat Chandra and others ; (2007) 10 S.C.C 627 in the case of Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others; (1990) 3 S.C.C 157 in the case of N.T. Devin Katti and others Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others and a judgment of Allahabad High Court reported in (2007) 6 ADJ 384 (DB) in the case of Parvati Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (ii) it is the appellant's contention that after bifurcation of Parent State of Bihar and allocation of post to the successor State in P.H.E.D Department also, those posts which stood filled prior to bifurcation should be treated under closed roster register and consequently post advertised by the State of Jharkhand should determine the vacancies in respective categories by application of first transaction theory. As per the appellant going by the said procedure even if 5 posts were originally advertised and were to be allocated under roster dated 9th November, 2002, 4 would go to unreserved and even if the number of posts is treated as 7 as per subsequent model roster notified on 20th November, 2003, 3 unreserved vacancies were available while under the earlier roster it would be 6. The petitioner/appellant has asserted that this approach has been adopted in other departments of the respondent State of Jharkhand while it is only the P.H.E.D where the notification of vacancies has not been done in an uniform manner which has prejudiced the case of the writ petitioner/appellant and denied him appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in P.H.E.D. The petitioner therefore has submitted that since he is the lone candidate for unreserved category fighting out his case, and the selected candidates are already appearing as private respondents, this court should direct that the last selected candidate be removed while the petitioner should be appointed, as the appointment of others were done during the pendency of the writ petition in which an observation was made that such appointment shall be subject to the result of the writ petition vide order dated 22nd August, 2007. Otherwise, the appellant now prays that he should be considered as selected and be adjusted against vacancies created subsequent to the main result/appointment by moulding the relief. 6. The Respondent State has contested the case of the petitioner primarily on the plea of non-availability of any vacant post for unreserved category in the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), PHED. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given fair option to exercise his preference for being appointed for the same post in either of the departments i.e. Water Resources Department and P.H.E.D. The joint written exams were held for both the advertisement of 2003 and 2005, though the writ petitioner had not applied for the subsequent advertisement no. 8/05. They have contended that the petitioner consciously gave his first option for P.H.E.D and second option for Water Resources Department. Since there were no vacancies for unreserved category for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in Drinking Water and Sanitation Department (P.H.E.D), the petitioner could not come in the final meritlist. The respondent State has also taken a stand that the advertisement of 2003 made clear that rules of reservation applicable within the State of Jharkhand shall apply to this recruitment process. The respondent State has also taken a stand that the advertisement of 2003 made clear that rules of reservation applicable within the State of Jharkhand shall apply to this recruitment process. Therefore, if the new model roster notified on 20th November, 2003 had superseded the earlier model roster dated 9th November 2002, this would not amount to change in the rules of game as on the date of advertisement only the vacancies were notified and no break up of the posts under different categories were shown. It is the case of the respondent that there was no change in policy contrary to the terms of advertisement no. 12/2002-03 therefore the writ petitioner/appellant had no case. The respondent-J.P.S.C. has also adopted the same stand and submitted that the written exam under both advertisements were conducted as per rules with equal and fair opportunity granted to all appearing candidates including the petitioner. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the recruitment process. The private respondents have also contested the case of the petitioner-appellant on similar grounds. 7. We have considered the rival submission of the parties in the factual back drop of the instant case to arrive at a considered opinion as to whether the plea of the writ petitioner/appellant merits acceptance. We are however of the view that both the grounds urged by the appellant are without substance and fit to be rejected. Admittedly, no eligibility criteria as prescribed under Advertisement no. 12/2002-03 have been changed to render the petitioner ineligible after issuance of the said advertisement. On the contrary as per the terms of the said advertisement, rules of reservation as are prescribed by the State Government would govern the post advertised for the purposes of giving reservation to respective categories of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes. An application of model roster which was issued on 20th November, 2003 in supercession of the earlier model roaster on 9th November, 2002, therefore, would not amount to change in the rules of the game. On this point even the judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not support his case as is evident from para 11 of the judgment passed in the case of Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in (2007) 10 S.C.C. 627 . On this point even the judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not support his case as is evident from para 11 of the judgment passed in the case of Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in (2007) 10 S.C.C. 627 . In the said case, admittedly, while inviting applications, the respondents had advertised the number of vacancies required to be filled under various categories. Following the view taken in the case of N.T. Devin Katti and others Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others reported in (1990) 3 S.C.C 157 as also the decision rendered in the case of P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the office memorandum dated 6th November, 2003 could not have any retrospective effect as on the date on which the applications were invited exchange of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates were permissible. The case of the appellant, Sonia was earlier rejected by Insurance Company acting upon office memorandum dated 6th November 2003 by which permission of exchange of reservation between scheduled caste and scheduled tribe was withdrawn. 8. In the instant case, looking at it from a different perspective, the appellant, who applied under advertisement of 2003 was not denied fair opportunity in the recruitment process, as the written test was held jointly for both the advertisement of 2003 and 2005, though the petitioner had not specifically applied under the advertisement of 2005. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner, urged as additional grounds incorporated by way of I.A. No. 3945 of 2010, that P.H.E.D department had not undertaken an uniform approach in determination of the vacancies to be filled up for the post advertised by it in line with the other department for the simple reason that even in the year 2006 much after coming into force of new model roster on 20th November, 2003, the department had consciously conveyed to JPSC on 14th July, 2006 that there were no vacancies available in the Unreserved category as per break up of the vacancies which was approved by the department of Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand itself. Equality of opportunity was once again not denied to the appellant as even at the stage of interview he was given option to give preference for either of the two departments i.e. Water Resources Department and P.H.E.D for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). The petitioner consciously chose to give his option for P.H.E.D where admittedly vacancies were nil. In such a recruitment exercise, if the State and the recruiting body has acted in a fair manner by giving due equal opportunity to all eligible candidates who are guided by the same model roster on 20th November, 2003 and had consciously participated in the written test and were also offered option to exercise preference, no illegality or arbitrariness can be found in the acts of the respondent in the final preparation of meritlist. Merely by making an application under advertisement no. 12/2002-03, no vested right is created in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, a candidate who applied pursuant to an invitation to offer by way of such advertisement, can at best have a right to be considered. The petitioner as has been found hereinabove was not disentitled from undertaking the exam. In the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 S.C.C. 47 , it has been held as under by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.” Mere participation in recruitment process does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post unless the action of the State is found to be arbitrary and contrary to the rules. In the instant case obviously when vacancies were nil for the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in P.H.E.D., the petitioner could not claim any right much less a vested right to be selected and appointed to such post. 9. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge. Consequently, the L.P.A. being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.