JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. G. Mamu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 as well as Mr. N. Taje, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. Aggrieved by the appointment order dated 28.08.2025,issued by the Secretary (In-Charge), Arunachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short, ‘APSERC’), Itanagar, whereby the petitioner is appointed as Secretary in APSERC to the extent of appointing him for a period of only one year, the petitioner has filed this present petition. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that pursuant to the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024, issued by the Secretary, APSERC, Itanagar, inviting applications for the post of Secretary on deputation on Foreign Service Terms Basis from officials of the Central, State Government, Public Sector Undertakings, Autonomous Bodies, etc., on contract basis for a period of two years, the petitioner applied for the said post. The advertisement/vacancy circular stipulated that the contract period of two years would be extendable on satisfactory performance. 4. The petitioner was issued a call letter and appeared in the interview on 22.11.2024, and thereafter, the respondent authorities published the selection list on 20.12.2024, wherein one Dr. Umakanta Panda was selected and the petitioner was placed at Waiting List No. 1. However, the said Dr. Umakanta Panda refused to join the post due to certain personal reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner was called by the respondent authorities and, after negotiation, it was finalized that the petitioner would be appointed as Secretary, APSERC, on a monthly salary of Rs.2,00,000/-.When no formal appointment order was issued, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for issuance of the appointment order. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities and as his representation was not responded to, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, being WP(C) No.376/2025. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities issued the appointment order dated 27.08.2025 appointing the petitioner for a period of one year, with a condition that the service of the petitioner shall stand terminated as and when any officer is deputed by the Secretary (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, before completion of one year period. Upon such appointment, the aforesaid writ petition was closed as infructuous. 5. Upon such appointment, the aforesaid writ petition was closed as infructuous. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his appointment for a period of only one year on contractual basis, contrary to the advertisement/vacancy circular which provided for a term of two years with an option of further extension based on satisfactory performance, has filed the present petition. 6. Mr. P. D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the appointment order dated 27.08.2025 is clearly in contradiction to the advertisement/vacancy circular, wherein it is stipulated that the appointment to the post of Secretary in APSERC shall be for a period of two years, with an option for further extension on satisfactory performance, as the petitioner has been appointed only for a period of one year, with a condition that he may be released before completion of one year in the event an officer is deputed from the Power Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, the appointment being in violation of the prescribed conditions in the advertisement/vacancy circular, the same warrants interference, and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to modify the appointment order by providing a tenure of two years strictly in terms of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024. 7. Mr. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the respondent authorities are not permitted to change or alter the terms and conditions of selection as stipulated in the advertisement after completion of the selection process, inasmuch as the advertisement/vacancy circular clearly provides for appointment for a period of two years on contractual basis, with an option for further extension on satisfactory performance. He submits that once the selection process is initiated and concluded on the basis of the terms contained in the advertisement/vacancy circular, the respondent authorities are bound by the same and cannot unilaterally reduce the tenure of appointment to one year or incorporate additional conditions contrary to the advertisement. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. , reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 . 8. Mr. In support of his submissions, Mr. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. , reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 . 8. Mr. N. Taje, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, while narrating the facts and supporting the case of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed for a period of two years in terms of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024. 9. Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3, submits that considering the paramount interest of the Commission and recognizing the urgent need for an experienced regular senior officer to streamline the administrative and establishment works in harmony with the rules and regulations of the State Government, the respondent authorities deliberated with the Secretary (Power) Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. On the basis of such deliberation, the respondent authorities requested the Government to depute an officer in the rank of IAS or a senior APPSC officer, as are being done in other Commissions in the State. 10. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not selected initially, but was placed in the waiting list. Upon non-acceptance of the offer by the selected candidate and after negotiation, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 27.08.2025. He further submits that in the process of deliberation and consideration for appointment, a considerable time had elapsed after completion of the selection process, therefore, the petitioner has been appointed for a period of one year with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.2,00,000/- per month in terms of the advertisement/vacancy circular, purely in the interest of the Commission. Since the petitioner was not the selected candidate but was offered the post being a wait-listed candidate, is not entitled to claim that his appointment should be for two years to a post which is purely on contractual basis. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. Pursuant to the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024, one Dr. Umakanta Panda was selected and an appointment order was issued vide order dated 23.12.2024 by the Secretary (I/c), APSERC. Owing to non-acceptance by the said Dr. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 12. Pursuant to the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024, one Dr. Umakanta Panda was selected and an appointment order was issued vide order dated 23.12.2024 by the Secretary (I/c), APSERC. Owing to non-acceptance by the said Dr. Umakanta Panda, the case of the petitioner, who was placed at Waiting List No. 1 was considered. After negotiation, the respondent authorities decided to appoint the petitioner on negotiated terms and conditions, including a consolidated remuneration of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) per month. Accordingly, the petitioner has been issued with the appointment order dated 27.08.2025 for a period of one year, effective from the date of joining as Secretary, APSERC, inter alia, providing that the appointee may exercise the option either to receive pay minus pension as admissible under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh rules applicable to retired Government employees, or to opt for a consolidated remuneration of Rs.2,00,000/- only per month inclusive of all allowances. The Note to the appointment order reflects that in case the Secretary (Power), Government of Arunachal Pradesh forwards and deputes an official for the post of Secretary, the contractual appointment of the petitioner shall stand terminated by serving one month’s notice in advance or by payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof, even before completion of the stipulated one-year term, upon the appointment/joining of a regular Secretary to APSERC by the Government. 13. The advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024 lays down various terms and conditions, including that the selected candidate shall be taken on deputation basis initially for a period of two years with an option for further extension based on satisfactory performance and as may be deemed fit by the Commission. It further stipulates that the contractual service shall initially be for a period of two years and thereafter may be extended on a year-to-year basis depending upon the performance of the contractual officer/official. 14. A perusal of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024 clearly shows that the selection and appointment to the post of Secretary on deputation shall be initially for a period of two years with an option for further extension based on satisfactory performance. 14. A perusal of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024 clearly shows that the selection and appointment to the post of Secretary on deputation shall be initially for a period of two years with an option for further extension based on satisfactory performance. Thus, the petitioner, although a wait-listed candidate, having been appointed after completion of the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement/vacancy circular as Secretary, APSERC, is entitled to be appointed as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024, which includes a tenure of two years. The respondent authorities, having appointed the petitioner only for one year with a condition that, in case the Government deputes an officer for the post of Secretary, the contractual appointment of the petitioner shall stand terminated before expiry of the one-year term, would be in violation of the terms and conditions of the said advertisement/vacancy circular pursuant to which the petitioner has been appointed. 15. The case of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), as relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. D. Nair, has been perused. In the said case, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while accepting the principle that once a recruitment process commences, the State or its instrumentalities cannot tinker with the rules of the game insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned, and considering that whether that should apply also to the procedure for selection and doubting the correctness of the earlier decision in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 , for not having noticed an earlier decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha , reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220 had referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the subject. The Constitutional Bench, after considering all the earlier decisions, concluded as follows, which is reproduced hereinunder: “65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha. Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; 65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved:on the recruiting body; 65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non- existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” 16. Upon careful consideration of the aforesaid authority, I am of the considered view that the same does not support the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said decision primarily deals with alteration of the selection procedure/criteria after commencement of the recruitment process, whereas in the present case, the issue pertains to issuance of an appointment order contrary to the specific tenure stipulated in the advertisement/vacancy circular. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 17. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner. 17. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Secretary, APSERC for a period of two years, in terms of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024, wherein the post of Secretary, APSERC is to be filled up on deputation basis initially for a period of two years, with an option for further extension based on satisfactory performance. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary, APSERC for a period of only one year, with a condition of termination in the event the Government deputes a regular officer, would be in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024. Consequently, the impugned appointment order dated 27.08.2025, to the extent it restricts the tenure of appointment to one year and incorporates the aforesaid condition, cannot be sustained in law. 18. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to issue a fresh appointment order appointing the petitioner strictly in terms of the advertisement/vacancy circular dated 27.09.2024, with effect from 27.08.2025. 19. Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms above. 20. No order as to cost(s).