JUDGMENT : S.N. PATHAK, J. Since the common questions of law and similar facts are involved in both these writ petitions, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Prayers 3. The petitioners have thrown challenge to the authority of the respondents, in particular respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short JPSC), whereby the JPSC has declined to accept the candidatures of the petitioners in the reserved category (B.C.-I / B.C.-II) while publishing results. The prayers of the petitioners are that to quash and set aside such decision of the respondent-JPSC and hold and declare that the petitioners are entitled for reservation in the category of B.C.-I/B.C.-II for the post of Deputy Collector pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2005. The facts of W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2023 4. The petitioner Ram Prakash Ram was issued caste certificate dated 24.09.1999 by District Magistrate, Gaya in the undivided State of Bihar, which fully certifies that the petitioner belongs to B.C.-I category. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the district of Dumka on 20.05.2000 under the extremely backward class (BC-I) category. The service book was opened and such e-service book mentioned his category as B.C.-I. The JPSC issued Advertisement No. 05/2005 for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector through Limited Departmental Examination. The advertisement stipulates that an employee, who is serving in the State of Jharkhand on a Class-III post for five years, is entitled to apply and participate in the selection process. The petitioner being eligible applied for such appointment on the post of Deputy Collector. The candidature of the petitioner was found to be in order and hence, he was issued admit card, whereby the examination was scheduled to be held on 29.12.2019, but the date was later on shifted to 03.01.2020 by issuing appropriate corrigendum. The petitioner participated in the examination and the result thereof was published by JPSC, as per which, the petitioner obtained 133 marks, but he has been shown ‘not selected’ as his candidature was considered under unreserved category. The cut-off marks was uploaded by the JPSC and as per which, the last selected candidate in BC-I category has scored 125 marks i.e. much less than the petitioner. The facts of W.P.(S) No. 2394 of 2023 5. The cut-off marks was uploaded by the JPSC and as per which, the last selected candidate in BC-I category has scored 125 marks i.e. much less than the petitioner. The facts of W.P.(S) No. 2394 of 2023 5. The petitioner Hare Ram Singh was issued caste certificate on 16.9.1994 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagdishpur in the district of Bhojpur (Bihar), which certifies that he belongs to Backward Category (BC). He was appointed on 07.10.1994 as Assistant Teacher in the district of Hazaribagh in the undivided State of Bihar which now falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand. The service book of the petitioner was opened and it has duly been mentioned therein that he belongs to BC category. The existing State of Bihar was bifurcated on 15.11.2000. The Successor State of Jharkhand thereafter issued Advertisement No. 05/2005 for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector through Limited Departmental Examination. Clause 9 of the Advertisement duly stipulates that the candidates who are claiming reservation are required to submit their application form through their Controlling Officer, otherwise the benefit of reservation would not be admissible. The State of Jharkhand issued a Circular contained in Memo No. 3198 dated 18.04.2016 which defines “Local Resident of Jharkhand”. As per this circular, the employee working in the State of Jharkhand or Central Government or his wife or children are entitled for benefit of local resident of Jharkhand. Considering this aspect, the petitioner was issued local resident certificate on 7.2.2017. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra has issued caste certificate also in his favour duly certifying that he belongs to BC-II category on 22.3.2017. The JPSC demanded caste certificate on 29.10.2018, which this petitioner duly submitted and the JPSC also gave the receipt thereof to the petitioner. E-service book of the petitioner further certifies that he belongs to BC-II category. The petitioner being eligible applied and participated in the selection processes for which admit card was issued to him. Though in the admit card, date of examination was mentioned as 29.12.2019, but was actually held on 03.01.2020 by issuing corrigendum by the JPSC. The result was thereafter published by JPSC, as per which, the petitioner got 128 marks. The cut off marks was also uploaded by JPSC on its website and as per which, the cut off marks for BC-II category was 128 marks. The result was thereafter published by JPSC, as per which, the petitioner got 128 marks. The cut off marks was also uploaded by JPSC on its website and as per which, the cut off marks for BC-II category was 128 marks. The petitioner could not secured appointment for the simple reason that he was treated in the unreserved category. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners 6. At the very outset, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel submits that the issue involved in the present writ petitions is no more res integra, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akhilesh Prasad Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 510 : 2022 (2) JBCJ 206 (HC). Mr. Tandon submits that llimited departmental examination affords an opportunity for persons who are already in service at a lower level to have accelerated promotion depending upon the merit of such candidates. He further submits that avenue of promotion is not available to persons from the open market. In order to encourage meritorious candidates who may be comparatively junior in service, a window of opportunity is opened through limited departmental examination. Those who pass the examination are entitled to have an accelerated promotion. This procedure does not change the character of movement to the higher post and it continues to be a promotional channel. Mr. Tandon fortifies his arguments by placing reliance on this judgment in the case of Akhilesh Prasad (supra) to the effect that the employees who have opted for service under the Successor State after reorganization, their existing service conditions would not be varied to their disadvantage and would stand protected by virtue of Section 73 read with Section 72 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. He submits that only condition is that such person would not be entitled to claim the benefit of reservation simultaneously in both the successor States, but they would certainly be entitled to participate in the subsequent competitive examination for the benefit of reservation. Mr. Tandon, further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Mr. Tandon, further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 616 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the service conditions of those who are working in the State of Jharkhand by virtue of statutory instruction, their service conditions stand protected and became entitled to claim privilege and benefit to which the members of reserved categories are entitled for in terms of the reservation policy. Relying upon the said judgment, learned counsel submits that the scheme of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 postulates that employees who are working immediately on or before the appointed date, in the State of Bihar, has either domicile of the districts that formed part of State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of the Act or opted or joined being junior in their respective seniority, stands absorbed in the successor State of Jharkhand. In this view of the matter, those who were appointed prior to bifurcation of the State of Bihar and continued in the State of Jharkhand are entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand more particularly in the limited departmental examination. 7. While taking to the facts of the present cases, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not in dispute that both the petitioners were appointed in the undivided State of Bihar which now falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. It is pointed out that their service books duly mention that they belong to reserved category. The advertisement duly stipulated that five years of continued service in Class-III post in the State of Jharkhand was the requirement. It was further stipulated that this five years includes even those period when the employee served in the State of Bihar. It is, therefore, submitted that only those are entitled to participate in the selection process who are the employees of the State of Jharkhand and even if the petitioners are treated as member of reserved category, the provisions of 2000 Act would become otiose. The only terms and conditions in the advertisement was that those who are claiming reservation has to submit their applications through their Controlling Officer / Head of the Department. The only terms and conditions in the advertisement was that those who are claiming reservation has to submit their applications through their Controlling Officer / Head of the Department. If the Controlling Officer does not certify that he belongs to reserved category candidate, the candidate would not be entitled for reservation. It is also pointed out that their applications were duly forwarded by their Controlling Officer, namely, District Superintendent of Education, who duly certified that the petitioners belong to BC-I/BC-II category candidates. Hence the applications were submitted in terms of the advertisement and the petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process, but at one fine morning, the JPSC cannot be permitted to reject their candidatures and treat them in unreserved (UNR) category on the ground that they belong to the State of Bihar. It is further pointed out that the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2023 (Ram Prakash Ram) has scored 133 marks whereas the last selected candidate in B.C.I category has scored 125 marks. It is, therefore, argued that more meritorious candidates have been ousted from the purview of selection and less meritorious persons have been appointed, which violates the provisions enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. As far as petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2394 of 2002 (Hare Ram Singh) is concerned, learned counsel points out that he has scored 128 marks whereas the last selection has been made in his category at 128 marks only. The petitioner was senior in age than the last selected candidate, who has been made party as respondent no. 5 (Shravan Kumar Bhagat) and hence, he had every right to get appointment. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC 8. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC referring to the counter affidavit points out that since the caste certificate was not submitted in the prescribed format issued by the State of Jharkhand, the petitioners were treated as unreserved category candidates. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to come with the certificate showing themselves to be in the reserved category of BC-I/BC-II duly issued by the Competent Authority of the State of Jharkhand. In absence of the said certificate, rightly the claim of the petitioners was rejected in the reserved category and they were considered in unreserved category. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to come with the certificate showing themselves to be in the reserved category of BC-I/BC-II duly issued by the Competent Authority of the State of Jharkhand. In absence of the said certificate, rightly the claim of the petitioners was rejected in the reserved category and they were considered in unreserved category. He submits that since the petitioners never bothered to submit the valid caste certificate, there was no occasion to consider them in reserved category even if they have scored more marks than the last selected candidate. He has also pointed out that the JPSC has already declared the result and the name of selected candidates has been recommended to the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for their appointments. Mr. Abhay Prakash, therefore, argues that after the selection process is over, at this stage, no interference is warranted by this Court. It is pointed out that as far as vacancy is concerned; it is for the State of Jharkhand to apprise this Court above the same. He prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-State 9. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to learned Advocate General representing the respondent-State, by referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit, submits that the selection process was conducted by the JPSC and the reservation policies are required to be followed in its true letter and spirit. The Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department has no direct role in conducting the examination and publishing the result. The JPSC may apprise this Court regarding the factual position as to why the petitioners were not considered. The State is mere a formal party in the writ petition. While referring to para-11 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2023, it is pointed out that in case, a candidate does not join within the prescribed time limit or the vacancy cannot be filled due to other reasons such vacancy will be carried forward to the other next requisition. It is, therefore, submitted that as per the resolution dated 27.11.2012, the left over vacancy has to be carried forward to the next advertisement. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Analysis of the Court 10. It is, therefore, submitted that as per the resolution dated 27.11.2012, the left over vacancy has to be carried forward to the next advertisement. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Analysis of the Court 10. The facts which are admitted on records are that both the petitioners were appointed in the undivided State of Bihar i.e. before bifurcation of the existing State of Bihar on 15.11.2000 and the Successor State of Jharkhand coming into existence. It is also not in dispute that both the petitioners were appointed in the reserved category in BC-I / BC-II category. The JPSC published advertisement for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector through limited departmental examination, as per which the candidates claiming reservation were required to submit their application form through their Controlling Officer / Head of the Department. Both the petitioners submitted their application forms through their Controlling Officers i.e. District Superintendent of Education. Their Controlling Officers duly certified that these petitioners are belonging to the reserved category. This, therefore, was sufficient compliance to claim reservation in terms of the advertisement issued by the JPSC. 11. The facts further revealed that petitioner Ram Prakash Ram of W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2023 was issued caste certificate by the State of Bihar. As far as petitioner (Hare Ram Singh) in W.P.(S) No. 2394 of 2023 is concerned, he was also issued caste certificate by the undivided State of Bihar and therefore, both the petitioners were appointed in the reserved category on the post of Assistant Teacher in the district of Dumka and Hazaribagh respectively. Petitioner Hare Ram Singh was also issued local resident certificate and he, in fact, has been issued the caste certificate also by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra on 22.03.2017. In this view of the matter, there was no reason for the JPSC to reject the candidatures of the petitioners in the reserved category and treated them as unreserved category candidates, when the advertisement itself stipulates to submit the application form through the Controlling Officer, as far as reserved category candidates are concerned and such condition was fulfilled by the petitioners. As such, the action of the JPSC to reject their candidatures in the reserved category candidates is per se arbitrary and whimsical. Arbitrariness is anathema to the trust laid down in the Indian Constitution. As such, the action of the JPSC to reject their candidatures in the reserved category candidates is per se arbitrary and whimsical. Arbitrariness is anathema to the trust laid down in the Indian Constitution. The respondent-JPSC is a creature of the Constitution and it is supposed from the Constitutional Authority to act in the manner known to law. 12. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner Ram Prakash Ram in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2023 has secured 133 marks whereas the last selected candidate in his category has scored only 125 marks. Denying appointment to a candidate who has scored 133 marks and appointing those who have scored 125 marks is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the respondent JPSC and the same violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. The respondent-JPSC and the respondent-State are trying to unsettled the settled things. This is also quite well settled that the employees who are working in the State of Jharkhand and particularly those who were appointed prior to the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000 and continued to remain in the State of Jharkhand are entitled to the benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. Their status as reserved category cannot be changed by the respondents. From perusal of the documents enclosed as Annexure-10 in W.P.(S) No. 2361 of 2023 to the rejoinder, which is a circular issued by the State of Jharkhand, being Circular No. 4722 dated 14.8.2008 unequivocally stipulates that those employees who were appointed in the reserved category in the State of Bihar shall continue to avail such benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand also and the status of their reserved category would remain unaffected as they shall be treated as reserved category employee. Though from perusal of the whole circular, it appears that such provision has been made for the purpose of promotion to one or other employees. The limited departmental examination is nothing, but a kind of promotion. The only difference is that the candidates have to appear in the departmental examination to bring their merit and then only they can get acceleration in his service career. Therefore, a person who belongs to reserved category and working in the State of Jharkhand is entitled for reservation in the limited departmental examination. 14. The only difference is that the candidates have to appear in the departmental examination to bring their merit and then only they can get acceleration in his service career. Therefore, a person who belongs to reserved category and working in the State of Jharkhand is entitled for reservation in the limited departmental examination. 14. The similar issue in question fell for consideration in the case of Akhilesh Prasad (supra) whereby the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that serving employees in reserved category is entitled for appointment in the reserved category in the limited departmental examination. This case originally belongs to this State where the Writ Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State of Jharkhand to appoint him in the reserved category for which advertisement was issued through limited departmental examination. The matter went before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 609 of 2017. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the letters patent appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Writ Court. The matter was carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court by petitioner Akhilesh Prasad and the Hon’ble Apex Court placing reliance upon the case of Pankaj Kumar (supra) held that by very nature, the promotion to the next higher level is from and amongst those who are at a lower level in the service. For ready reference, paragraphs-22 and 23 of the said judgment are extracted herein below:- “22. However, in order to have clarity in the matter, it must be noted that the benefit of reservation was claimed in the limited departmental examination for the purpose of promotion to the next higher level. It must therefore be relevant to consider the nature of such limited departmental examination and what it seeks to achieve as against direct recruitment from the open market, where a person who was not part of the concerned service, gets a chance to offer his candidature and enter the service under a State for the first time. Limited departmental examination affords an opportunity for persons who are already in service at a lower level to have accelerated promotion depending upon the merit of such candidates. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India., the issue was considered in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under: “27. Limited departmental examination affords an opportunity for persons who are already in service at a lower level to have accelerated promotion depending upon the merit of such candidates. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India., the issue was considered in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under: “27. Another question which falls for consideration is the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary. While we have accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in the pay scales of the subordinate judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the judicial officers, hard-working as they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both written and viva voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an objective method of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. Furthermore, there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however, of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned : 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose, the High Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limited departmental competitive examination for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in this regard. 28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be: (1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test; (b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years' qualifying service; and (c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts. (2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Courts as early as possible.” (Emphasis added) 23. By very nature, the promotion to the next higher level is from and amongst those who are at a lower level in the service. The avenue of promotion is not available to persons from the open market, which talent is to be garnered through direct recruitment. By very nature, the promotion to the next higher level is from and amongst those who are at a lower level in the service. The avenue of promotion is not available to persons from the open market, which talent is to be garnered through direct recruitment. The promotion as a channel to reach the higher level is only available to the persons already belonging to the service. In normal circumstances, the promotion would go by the concept of merit linked with seniority subject to suitability. In order to encourage meritorious candidates who may be comparatively junior in service, a window of opportunity is opened through limited departmental examination. Those who pass the examination are entitled to have an accelerated promotion. This process does not change the character of movement to the higher post and it continues to be a promotional channel. The Single Judge of the High Court was therefore right in allowing the writ petition. The underlined portion from the order passed by the Single Judge shows that the matter was considered in the correct perspective. The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in concluding that limited departmental examination was nothing but direct recruitment from the open market.” [Emphasis supplied] 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar (supra) also held that those who are serving in the State of Jharkhand in the reserved category are entitled for the benefit of reservation in the State of Jharkhand. It would be highly unfair and pernicious to their interest if the benefits of reservation with privileges and benefits flowing thereof are not being protected in the State of Jharkhand after he is absorbed by virtue to Section 73 of the Act 2000. It was also hold that the collective readings of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 makes it apparent that such of the persons whose place of origin/domicile on or before the appointed day was of the State of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which form a successor State, i.e., State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of the Act, 2000 became ordinary resident of the State of Jharkhand. It would be more profitable to quote what was held in paragraphs- 52 to 55 of the said judgment:- “52. It would be more profitable to quote what was held in paragraphs- 52 to 55 of the said judgment:- “52. There is a fundamental dichotomy in the submissions made by the counsel for the State of Jharkhand that the existing service conditions including benefit of reservation in the promotional cadre post shall not be varied to his disadvantage but he shall be considered to be a migrant to the State of Jharkhand while participating in public employment to compete in open/general category and asked to seek the benefit of reservation in the neighboring State of Bihar, to hold different status in his parent State of Jharkhand after he became a member of service of the State of Jharkhand, serving for sufficient long time on and after the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 in the State is unsustainable in law and in contravention to the scheme of the Act 2000. 53. It will be highly unfair and pernicious to their interest if the benefits of reservation with privileges and benefits flowing thereof are not being protected in the State of Jharkhand after he is absorbed by virtue to Section 73 of the Act 2000 that clearly postulates not only to protect the existing service conditions but the benefit of reservation and privileges which he was enjoying on or before the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 in the State of Bihar not to be varied to his disadvantage after he became a member of service in the State of Jharkhand. 54. 54. The collective readings of the provisions of the Act, 2000 makes it apparent that such of the persons whose place of origin/domicile on or before the appointed day was of the State of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which form a successor State, i.e., State of Jharkhand under Section 3 of the Act, 2000 became ordinary resident of the State of Jharkhand, at the same time, so far as the employees who were in public employment in the State of Bihar on or before the appointed day, i.e. 15th November, 2000 under the Act 2000, apart from those who are domicile of either of the district which became part of the State of Jharkhand, such of the employees who have submitted their option or employees who are junior in the cadre of their seniority as per the policy of the Government of India of which a reference has been made, either voluntarily or involuntarily call upon to serve the State of Jharkhand, their existing service conditions shall not be varied to their disadvantage and stands protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act, 2000. 55. In our considered view, such of the employees who are members of the SC/ST/OBC whose caste/tribe has been notified by an amendment to the Constitution(Scheduled Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 under Vth and VIth Schedule to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act 2000 or by the separate notification for members of other backward class category, benefit of reservation including privileges and benefits flowing thereof, shall remain protected by virtue of Section 73 of the Act 2000 for all practical purposes which can be claimed (including by their wards) for participation in public employment.” 16. It has been brought on record by the respondents that left over vacancy has to be carried forward in the next recruitment process. Reliance has been placed by the State Government on the Resolution dated 27.11.2012, which is nothing but a circular / Government Instructions. The respondent-State has relied upon paragraph-3 of sub-para (xv) thereof which reads thus:- ^^fdlh mEehnokj ;k mEehnokjksa }kjk fu/kkZfjr le;&lhek ds vUnj ;ksxnku ugha nsus ;k vU; dkj.kksa ls fjfDr;k¡ Hkjh ugha tk ldus dh fLFkfr esa ,slh fjfDr;k¡ vxyh vf/k;kpuk ds fy, vxz.khr dh tk;sxhA** 17. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court of Munja Praveen Vs. State of Telangana & Ors., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 797 . The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court of Munja Praveen Vs. State of Telangana & Ors., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 797 . While interpreting the para materia of the circular of the State of Telangana being GOMs No. 81/22.2.1987, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph-9 and 12 as follows:- “9. According to us, the High Court has totally misconstrued the above GOMs. The portion of the GOMs quoted above clearly lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy should be notified again. This portion of the GOMs admits of only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downwards. This is also clear from Clause 9 of the GOMs, which also clarifies that fallout vacancies due to relinquishment or non-joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is issued. 12. Even otherwise also, we are of the view that this is the only logical way to interpret the GOMs. The GOMs obviously has been issued, keeping in mind a single selection process. Here, we are dealing with a multiple selection process for different Corporations. The more brilliant candidates were selected in more than one of the Corporations. They obviously cannot join in more than one Corporation. Therefore, if the top four candidates have been selected in all four Corporations, they could only join one of the Corporations and twelve posts would remain vacant, if the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted. This would lead to a position where large number of vacancies would not be filled up.” 18. Therefore, if the top four candidates have been selected in all four Corporations, they could only join one of the Corporations and twelve posts would remain vacant, if the interpretation given by the High Court is accepted. This would lead to a position where large number of vacancies would not be filled up.” 18. There is nothing on record placed either by the respondent-JPSC or by the respondent-State that the appointments letters were issued and the persons have not joined and therefore, such vacancy shall be carried out to the next selection process. The Circular of the State of Jharkhand dated 27.11.2012 would apply only in a case where the appointment letters were issued and thereafter the candidates resigned or do not join. No such material has been placed as on date and hence, the stand taken by the respondent-State as well as respondent-JPSC has no legs to stand. 19. Moreover, the said circular dated 27.11.2012 duly stipulates in paragraph-3 (xiii) which reads as follows:- ^^lEcfU/kr vk;ksx }kjk ,d ckj vuq'kalk Hkst nsus ds ckn mls ifjofÙkZr ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA ijUrq] dfri; fof'k"V dkj.kksa] ;Fkk&foHkkx }kjk vuq'kalk okil fd;s tkus@U;k;ky;ksa ds laxr vkns'kksa ds vkyksd esa vk;ksx dh vuq'kalk esa ;Fkksfpr la'kks/ku fd;k tk ldsxkA** 20. Therefore, the circular itself comes out to an exception to the effect that in an appropriate case and in view of the decision of the Court, such recommendation by the JPSC is bound to be amended. In view thereof, the respondents are bound to do the needful in the matter. 21. This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioners are entitled for appointment and the respondents are bound to appoint the petitioners on the post of Deputy Collector through limited departmental examination pursuant to Advertisement No. 05/2005. Conclusions 22. In view of the aforesaid observations and the logical sequitur, the respondent-JPSC is directed to send the recommendation of both the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent-State is directed to issue appointment letters to them within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such recommendation from the respondent-JPSC. The petitioners shall be appointed with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that if there is no vacancy, the State shall create supernumerary posts and appoint the petitioners against those posts. 23. The petitioners shall be appointed with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that if there is no vacancy, the State shall create supernumerary posts and appoint the petitioners against those posts. 23. Both the writ petitions stand allowed, with no order as to costs.