ORDER : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department. 2. In this petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint her to the post of Post Graduate Subject Teacher (English) in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School, Nagaon in terms of the final merit list prepared by the authorities in respect of the said school in which the name of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 2. The person who had been selected for appointment to the said post, namely, Dimple Talukdar being at serial no. 1 of the merit list, joined another school on being selected for the said school also. 3. The case of the petitioner is that since Dimple Talukdar, who had been also recommended for appointment to the said post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School, had been appointed in another school, namely, P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School, Nalbari, the appointment of the petitioner in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School may be considered. The plea of the petitioner for appointment is based on the fact that she being eligible had taken part in the recruitment process of Subject Teacher (English) in terms of the advertisement dated 08.02.2003, for recruitment to various school specific posts. The petitioner by virtue of her merit and performance in the selection process was placed in the second position in the final merit list prepared by the authorities for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School. The said Dimple Talukdar was placed in the first position in the merit list for the said school. As far as these facts are concerned, there is no dispute from the authorities. 4. As provided under the said advertisement which offered candidates to apply for more than one school, it seems the said Dimple Talukdar applied for the two schools, namely, Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School as well as P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School and on the basis of her performance she was recommended and selected for appointment to the post of Subject Teacher (English) in both the schools, though it was never contemplated and not possible that she could have been appointed in both the Schools even if she was selected for appointed to both the Schools. Be that as it may, said Dimple Talukdar having exercised the option for appointment in the said P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School obviously did not accept the offer of appointment to the Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School. As a result, the said post of Subject Teacher (English) advertised for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School remained vacant. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has made the claim for appointment to the said vacant post on the basis of her merit as she was placed in the second position in the merit list as prepared by the authority for appointment to the said school, namely, Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School. 5. The claim of the petitioner, however, has been resisted by the State Authorities primarily on the ground that since the appointment sought to be made by the advertisement was school specific and since, the name of the petitioner was not finally recommended by the competent authority for appointment to the said School, the petitioner does not have any accrued right to be appointed to the said post. It is the contention of the State that only such person whose name finds place in the final select list notified for that purpose vide notification dated 06.04.2013, could have laid any claim for appointment to the post of teacher and nobody else. In the present case the name of the petitioner does not find place in the said notified final select list According to the State authorities, if there is any vacancy after acting upon the select list notified, it would be required to be advertised and the recruitment process initiated afresh under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that under normal circumstances once a select list is acted upon, obviously any vacancy occurring after implementation of the select list has to be filled up by way of a fresh recruitment process. It has been submitted that, however, in the present case, the situation is otherwise and indeed peculiar, in respect of the said recruitment process, which aspect had also been considered by this Court in the case of Shewali Kakoti & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, (2016) 5 GLT 266, when such a similar situation had arisen in the said case, this Court made the following observation: "...................... 37. Vs. State of Assam, (2016) 5 GLT 266, when such a similar situation had arisen in the said case, this Court made the following observation: "...................... 37. Regarding selection of one candidate in more than one school, such a situation can be tackled and has been tackled by offering the choice of school to the selected candidate. Once the selected candidate opted for a particular school, vacancies in the other school(s) where he/she was also selected would be filled up by the next candidate in order of merit, subject to reservation." 7. This Court was thus seized of such a situation and accordingly, made the observation as quoted above that where a selected candidate, who had applied for more than one school, had opted for a particular school, vacancies in other schools may arise, where he/she was also selected and in such an event, such vacancy can be filled up by the next candidate in order of merit, subject to reservation. 8. The same situation is prevailing in this case also. The said Dimple Talukdar had applied for the both the Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School as well as the P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School and after exercising her option, she opted to be appointed in P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School thus, leaving the post of English Subject Teacher vacant in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School. This Court in the aforesaid referred case of Shewali Kakoti (Supra) did take note of such a situation, where one candidate had been selected for more than one school. Where the candidate had been offered to exercise the option to get appointment in the school of her choice, and where the corresponding vacancy arises, it can be filled up by the next candidate in order of merit. 9. Under these circumstances, the issue raised in this petition is in what manner the said vacancy had arisen in the second school i.e. Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School, where the said Dimple Talukdar had also applied but did not seek appointment, has to be filled up. Though this Court in the case of Shewali Kakoti (Supra) has already made observation that such vacancy can be filled up by the next candidate in order of merit, this Court would like to clarify the matter further as follows. 10. Though this Court in the case of Shewali Kakoti (Supra) has already made observation that such vacancy can be filled up by the next candidate in order of merit, this Court would like to clarify the matter further as follows. 10. Normally, whenever a vacant post is advertised for appointment, only the recommended and selected candidate for that post would have an accrued right to claim for the post and no one else. In the present case, even though as per the guidelines in the advertisement, a candidate could apply for more than one school, obviously the appointment has to be made in respect of only in one school and vacancy would occur in other school where the particular candidate had been also selected for appointment. Under such circumstances, it is bounden duty on the part of the authorities to ensure that as and when a vacancy arises in the other schools due to non-joining of a selected candidate by virtue of being selected and joining in any other school, certain provisions are made for filling up the said vacant posts arising due to non-joining by the candidate concerned, who had been selected for both/all the schools. It is for the reason that the recruitment process is for appointment to all the posts/schools mentioned in the advertisement and is a lengthy process where the candidates try their best by putting enormous efforts for being selected. Under such circumstances, whenever such a situation arises where there could be a vacancy on account of non-joining by the selected candidate, who may have been selected for more than one school, the authorities ought to make an arrangement to select the next meritorious candidate available rather than resorting to a fresh recruitment process. 11. As mentioned above, the said Dimple Talukdar was recommended for appointment in the two schools and it was within the knowledge of the State authorities when the initial school wise merit list was notified one of the schools will remain unfilled. She could be appointed only against one vacant post and the authorities ought to have taken necessary steps for filing up the other vacant post from the next meritorious candidate available in the said recruitment process. That would have been the most ideal situation/course of action to be taken by the authorities. She could be appointed only against one vacant post and the authorities ought to have taken necessary steps for filing up the other vacant post from the next meritorious candidate available in the said recruitment process. That would have been the most ideal situation/course of action to be taken by the authorities. It would have been a different matter if the said vacancy occurs after being filled up by the selected candidate on account of his/her resignation after joining the post by the selected candidate as in the case where Dimple Talukdar had applied only for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School and after she had been appointed resigned thereafter. In such an event, the authorities can well say that once the select list has been acted upon and the person below the select list cannot make any claim for appointment. That is not the situation in the present case. The situation in the present case that the vacancy in the Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School has arisen because the said Dimple Talukdar was never appointed in that school which could have been easily contemplated by the authorities themselves. Instead of taking a very technical view that the petitioner was not recommended or selected for appointment to the said post and as such, cannot be given appointment to the said post, the authorities themselves ought to have offered the post to the petitioner being the most meritorious candidates after the said Dimple Talukdar. 12. This Court holds this view for the reason that had the said Dimple Talukdar not applied for the Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School or if the rules permitted to apply for only one school, in such an event, the petitioner would have been the most meritorious candidate. 13. This Court is of the view that this course of action proposed by this Court is in consonance with the right of equal opportunity in providing public employment/public service to the most meritorious candidate as provided under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had taken part in the selection process and was found to be eligible and suitable oh all counts, except for the fact that she was placed below the said Dimple Talukdar in the merit for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School in which the said Dimple Talukdar was never appointed. 14. The petitioner had taken part in the selection process and was found to be eligible and suitable oh all counts, except for the fact that she was placed below the said Dimple Talukdar in the merit for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School in which the said Dimple Talukdar was never appointed. 14. The fact that the option given to the candidates to opt for more than one school and also consequential situation which might arise on a particular candidate being selected for more than one school and thus, creating vacancies in some schools was a matter which was within the clear knowledge and contemplation of the authorities and it cannot be a mere case of conjecture. In such a situation, the ideal situation in consonance with the Constitutional mandate of equal opportunity would have been that after publishing the merit list and after allowing the candidates to make their respective final options for a particular preferred school, the authorities ought to have published the final select list by appointing those candidates who opted for appointment in their preferred school and recommending the next most meritorious candidates in terms of the merit list in the other schools where the candidates chose not to opt for. This process of selection would have offered equal opportunity to all the meritorious candidates for being appointed. This procedure would not in any way compromise with the merit of the candidates, merit being the prime consideration for appointment to public employment. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees that there shall be quality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. This guaranteed fundamental right of equal opportunity, that too based on merit, would be frustrated in the event the vacancies are kept unfiled though meritorious candidates are already available as determined in the selection process. The right to be considered for appointment would be frustrated merely because some candidates had made options for multiple schools but did not opt for appointment to the particular schools where such vacancies arise. In such a situation, should the right of the candidate be made dependant on the choice of certain candidates? The right to be considered for appointment would be frustrated merely because some candidates had made options for multiple schools but did not opt for appointment to the particular schools where such vacancies arise. In such a situation, should the right of the candidate be made dependant on the choice of certain candidates? The occurrence of vacancy in such cases is not because of lack of availability of meritorious candidates, but merely because it was kept as 'reserved' for a candidate, who had applied for more than one school and also got selected for all the schools applied. This 'reserved' vacancy would, however, cease to be 'reserved', once the candidate makes his/her option for a particular school. Because of the mandate of law under the Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, denial of opportunity to the next most meritorious candidate to be considered for appointment to such 'reserved' vacancies can certainly amount to denial of equal opportunity. This Court holds this view for the reason that where a candidate had been given option to opt for more than one school and once that option is exercised in favour of any particular school, in respect of the other schools where the candidate has not made the option, it will be 'deemed' that the candidate had not applied for the vacant post in that school and such 'deemed' vacant post ought to be filled up by the most meritorious candidate available for that particular school in issue. In the present case once the said Dimple Talukdar had given the option for appointment to P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School, it will be "deemed" that she had not applied for appointment in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School and a regular vacancy remains in the said school which ought to be filled up by most meritorious candidate available. This Court holds this view for the reason that the law never contemplates that a person can be appointed against two vacant posts. It can never be held that the vacant post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary school was also occupied by the said Dimple Talukdar at any point of time. This Court holds this view for the reason that the law never contemplates that a person can be appointed against two vacant posts. It can never be held that the vacant post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary school was also occupied by the said Dimple Talukdar at any point of time. Even if the said Dimple Talukdar had initially shown her interest for appointment in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School, since she had opted for another school, namely, P.B. Dhirudatta Higher Secondary School, where she was ultimately appointed, it can be also deemed that she had 'never' applied for the said Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School. This fictional and deeming position that the said Dimple Talukdar had never applied for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School does not militate against the factual position obtaining on the ground. In such an event, denying appointment to the petitioner, who is found to be the most meritorious candidate as far as Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School is concerned, can be treated to be violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. It may be also noted that the practice of allowing candidates to apply for more than one post is not unknown. But in such situation, alternative arrangements are put in place to deal with such situation. It is well established in matters relating to appointment under the All India Services that the candidates are given appointment to the respective Service based on the options made and all the vacancies are filled up based on corresponding merit positions of the candidates. Similarly, in the matter of admission to professional institutions, the candidates are given admission after counseling the candidates of the respective choice course or institution and thereafter, final select list is prepared based on such options. Thus, in proposing this course of action, it is in consonance with the prevailing practices as well. 16. This Court would examine this issue also from the perspective of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 abhors arbitrariness, unreasonableness. In the present case, the authorities are denying appointment to the petitioner against the vacant post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School on the ground that some other person was selected and not the petitioner. 16. This Court would examine this issue also from the perspective of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 abhors arbitrariness, unreasonableness. In the present case, the authorities are denying appointment to the petitioner against the vacant post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School on the ground that some other person was selected and not the petitioner. As already discussed above, if the said Dimple Talukdar had not applied for the Dhing KB Higher Secondary School, the petitioner by virtue of her meritorious position would have been selected. Because of the initial option made by Dimple Talukdar, the vacant post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School had been kept 'reserved' for Dimple Talukdar. But she chose not to be appointed to the said school but in some other school. If the said Dimple Talukdar had chosen for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School, this issue would not have arisen. But once Dimple Talukdar has opted for another school, how could the petitioner be deprived of the fruits of her labour? Merely because Dimple Talukdar opted for another school, does the meritorious performance of the petitioner gets wiped out? There is apparently no nexus with the meritorious performance of the petitioner with the option of Dimple Talukdar, so as not to acknowledge the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner has been denied the right to be considered for appointment in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School merely because it was initially kept 'reserved' for Dimple Talukdar who did not on any later period of time occupy the 'reserved' post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School, thus keeping it vacant. This situation arising, this Court finds it to be highly unreasonable and arbitrary and thus, denying the opportunity to the petitioner for appointment to the said vacant post, which was earlier 'reserved', thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. This situation arising, this Court finds it to be highly unreasonable and arbitrary and thus, denying the opportunity to the petitioner for appointment to the said vacant post, which was earlier 'reserved', thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. Accordingly, this Court having regard to the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid case of Shewali Kakoti (Supra) and also for the reasons discussed above, holds that the petitioner would have a right to be appointed to the said post in Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School by virtue of her meritorious performance in the said selection process as she was placed in the second position in the merit list prepared for Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School and accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to do the needful for processing the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Subject Teacher (English) in the Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School. 18. This Court has also noted that while admitting this petition on 04.04.2014, this Court had passed an interim order to the effect that one post of Subject Teacher in English in the said School shall not be filled up, if the same was still lying vacant and it has been clarified by the respondent no. 2 in his affidavit-in-opposition filed on 21.01.2016 that one post of English Teacher in the Dhing K.B. Higher Secondary School is still lying vacant in view of the Court's order and accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there should not be any difficulty on the part of the authorities to give appointment to the petitioner to the said vacant post. This exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent authorities within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.