JUDGMENT : 1. The Nagaland Public Service Commission (‘NPSC’) issued Advertisement No. NPSC-1/2016 dated 20.6.2016 inviting applications for filling up of various vacancies in different Departments, under the Government of Nagaland. Therein, at Item No. 23, one post of PGT-Computer Science under the Department of School Education was advertised and the same was reserved for the Backward Tribe of Chang. The petitioners being qualified in terms of the educational qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement applied for the post of PGT-Computer Science. In the meantime, the NPSC issued another Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 in continuation of the Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 inviting application for filling up 4 (four) different posts which included another one post of PGT-Computer Science thereby increasing the number of the post of PGT-Computer Science to two posts. Thereafter, the petitioners were issued Admission Certificate for the Common Educational Services Examination, 2016. The written examination was conducted by the NPSC on 13th and 14th December, 2016. After conclusion of the written examination and before declaration of the result for the written examination, the NPSC again issued an Addendum dated 8.2.2017 in continuation of the Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 and Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 increasing the post of PGT-Computer Science under the Department of School Education at Item No. 23 from two to four posts. Thereafter, the result of the written examination was published by Notification dated 24.3.2017 wherein, amongst the qualified roll numbers for Viva-Voce, the Roll Numbers of the petitioners were included. The petitioners were thereafter, issued call letters on 1.4.2017. The NPSC published the final select lists on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the written examination, academic weightage and Viva-Voce and in respect of Item No. 23, two persons were recommended for appointment. After completion of the selection process, the NPSC published another Notification dated 12.5.2017, declaring the Roll Numbers of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to have qualified for the Viva-Voce on the basis of marks secured in the written examination and academic weightage in respect of the Notification dated 24.3.2017 and Addendum dated 8.2.2017. In the said Notification, it was also indicated that Viva-Voce would be held on 25.5.2017 and that one post of PGT-Computer Science shall be re-advertised due to non-availability of eligible candidate. In the said Notification, it was also indicated that Viva-Voce would be held on 25.5.2017 and that one post of PGT-Computer Science shall be re-advertised due to non-availability of eligible candidate. As the said Notification dated 12.5.2015 was issued declaring three persons to have qualified for the Viva-Voce after the process of selection was complete, the petitioners are before this court challenging the same and also with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to recommend their names for appointment to the 2 posts of PGT-Computer Science under the Department of School Education. 2. Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. Inaholi, learned Government advocate appearing for the State, respondent Nos. 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 despite service of notice. 3. Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the final select list published by the Notification dated 4.5.2017 had recommended only two persons, one for the backward tribe, Chang and one for the unreserved category. The petitioners having qualified and appeared before the Viva-Voce therefore, should have been recommended for appointment to the remaining two posts of PGT-Computer Science. Instead, the respondents have proceeded to issue the Notification dated 12.5.2017 after the process of selection was complete by inviting three other persons to appear before the Viva-Voce and further with a decision to re-advertise one post of PGT-Computer Science due to non-availability of eligible candidate. The action of the NPSC is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as, when the petitioners could have been considered for the remaining two posts, the NPSC has instead proceeded to issue the impugned Notification dated 12.5.2017 without any basis. He also submits that by the Notification dated 6.4.2017, four candidates including the present petitioners were called for the viva-voce for the four posts of PGT-Computer Science. Further, in the Notification dated 4.5.2017, no reasons have been assigned about the non-availability of eligible candidate for the post of PGT-Computer Science and, therefore, the present petitioners are entitled to be recommended for appointment in the Notification dated 4.5.2017. Further, in the Notification dated 4.5.2017, no reasons have been assigned about the non-availability of eligible candidate for the post of PGT-Computer Science and, therefore, the present petitioners are entitled to be recommended for appointment in the Notification dated 4.5.2017. He also submits that at Note 2 of the Notification dated 24.3.2017, it is clearly indicated that the ratio of candidates/vacancies as per the NPSC (State Civil and Other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008, under rule 15(4) cannot be maintained in some post in view of insufficient eligible candidate. Therefore, when only four eligible candidates were called for viva-voce for the 4 posts of PGT-Computer Science in terms of the Notification dated 6.4.2017 wherein, the names of the petitioners were also included, they should have been recommended for appointment along with the other two successful candidates. In that view of the matter, he submits that the Notification dated 12.5.2017 be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to recommend the names of the petitioners for appointment to the remaining two posts of PGT-Computer Science. In his support, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance in the case of State of Tripura vs. Dulali Rani Dutta, (2008) 5 GLR 841 : 2008 (2) GLT 412 and in the case of Dipak Babaria vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502 . 4. Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that the NPSC had inadvertently overlooked the two additional posts advertised by the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 while issuing the Notification dated 4.5.2017 by which the final select list was published. He also submits that there is nothing wrong in the Notification dated 12.5.2017 inasmuch as, apart from the three other persons indicated in the said Notification, the petitioners are also called for the viva-voce and thereafter, selection would be made. Learned counsel further submits that in the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 by which two additional posts of PGT-Computer Science was added, one post is reserved for the backward tribe, Khiamnuingan and the other for the unreserved category. Further, one post reserved for the Khiamnuingan backward tribe was decided to be re-advertised by the Notification dated 12.5.2017 inasmuch as, there were no candidates from the Khiamnuingan backward tribe. Further, one post reserved for the Khiamnuingan backward tribe was decided to be re-advertised by the Notification dated 12.5.2017 inasmuch as, there were no candidates from the Khiamnuingan backward tribe. It is submitted that out of the four persons short listed for the interview for the two posts of PGT-Computer Science, one from the unreserved category and one from the backward tribe of Chang were selected and, therefore, recommendations were made for the said two persons for the post of PGT-Computer Science. As there were some inadvertent errors, the NPSC has tried to correct the said inadvertence by way of issuing the Notification dated 12.5.2017 to fill up one more post for unreserved category in terms of the earlier Advertisement dated 20.6.2016, Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 and the Addendum, dated 8.2.2017. He submits that a mistake does not confer any right to any party and can be corrected and it is on this basis that the NPSC had issued the Notification dated 12.5.2017 and, therefore, no interference is required and that the NPSC should be allowed to proceed with the Viva-Voce in order to fill up one post of PGT-Computer Science in the unreserved category. In his support, learned counsel relied in the case of Union of India vs. S.R. Dhingra, (2008) 2 SCC 229 . 5. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that the Department had only sent for requisition for the posts and, therefore, she has nothing to say in the matter. 6. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 had advertised only one post of PGT-Computer Science under the Department of School Education. In the said advertisement, it is also reflected that the post of PGT-Computer Science is reserved for the backward tribe of Chang. Thereafter, the Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 was issued increasing the post of PGT-Computer Science to two posts. The post of PGT-Computer Science advertised in the Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 was for the unreserved category. It is not disputed that after the Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 and the Corrigendum/ Addendum dated 24.10.2016, the written test was conducted by the NPSC on 13th and 14th December, 2016. 8. The post of PGT-Computer Science advertised in the Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016 was for the unreserved category. It is not disputed that after the Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 and the Corrigendum/ Addendum dated 24.10.2016, the written test was conducted by the NPSC on 13th and 14th December, 2016. 8. This court has taken into consideration the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 by which the post of PGT-Computer Science under the Department of School Education was increased from two posts to four posts. A consideration of the addendum would clearly indicate that no applications were invited for filling up the two extra posts that was published therein. Further, there is no indication in the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 that one post is reserved for the backward tribe of Khiamnuingan. This court has also taken into consideration that the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 increasing the post of PGT-Computer Science was issued only after the written examination had concluded. In fact, the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 was issued after the selection process had commenced. 9. The NPSC had commenced the selection process by conducting the written test on 13th and 14th December, 2016 for the post of PGT-Computer Science. Once the examination process has commenced in terms of the Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 and the Corrigendum/Addendum dated 24.10.2016, the NPSC could not have included the two extra posts of PGT-Computer Science by the Addendum dated 8.2.2017. The issuance of Addendum dated 8.2.2017 does not invite any new applications for filling up the two extra posts of PGT-Computer Science nor was there any indication that one post is reserved for the backward tribe of Khiamnuingan. The explanation given by the NPSC in the affidavit that they had committed an inadvertent error by overlooking the two additional posts advertised by the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 while issuing the select list by Notification dated 4.5.2017 cannot be accepted inasmuch as, on a consideration of the Notification dated 4.5.2017 issued by the NPSC, there is clear indication of the Addendum dated 8.2.2017. Further, the ground taken by the NPSC that from amongst the two posts advertised by the Addendum dated 8.2.2017, one post is reserved for the backward tribe of Khiamnuingan has been considered. It is important to note that unless and until the reservation is mentioned specifically in the Addendum dated 8.2.2017, no applicants would be aware of such reservation. Further, the ground taken by the NPSC that from amongst the two posts advertised by the Addendum dated 8.2.2017, one post is reserved for the backward tribe of Khiamnuingan has been considered. It is important to note that unless and until the reservation is mentioned specifically in the Addendum dated 8.2.2017, no applicants would be aware of such reservation. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the NPSC to have mentioned such reservation in the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 and merely mentioning the same in the affidavit would not cure the defect. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 has held that “when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” 10. Having already come to the conclusion that once the selection process has commenced in terms of the Advertisement dated 20.6.2016 and the Corrigendum/ Addendum dated 24.10.2016, the NPSC could not have issued the Addendum dated 8.2.2017, this court is of the considered opinion, that the NPSC should have issued a fresh Advertisement for the other two posts of PGT-Computer Science by further indicating the reservation for the backward tribe of Khiamnuingan. 11. In terms of the discussions made herein above, this court is also unable to grant any relief to the petitioners for recommending their names to be appointed to the remaining 2 posts of PGT-Computer Science. 12. On consideration of all aspects of the matter, the Addendum dated 8.2.2017 is found to be illegal and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. Consequently, the Notification dated 12.5.2017 is also set aside and quashed. The NPSC is directed to re-advertise the two posts of PGT-Computer Science by indicating the reservation for the backward tribe of Khiamnuingan. 13. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.