ORDER : Budi Habung, J. Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Nani Anju, learned Standing Counsel, APPSC for the State respondent. 2. The appellant is a person with locomotor disability and is wheelchair-bound. She is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 364 of 2025, whereby the writ petition was partly allowed and the punishment of debarment imposed by the State Public Service Commission vide order dated 24.07.2025, debarring the writ petitioner for a period of one year from appearing in all examinations conducted by the APPSC, was modified to the period already undergone as on the date of delivery of the judgment. 3. The relevant operative portion of the said judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced below: “ Para-41 -Having said that it must also be kept in sight that the petitioner is the person with benchmark Locomotor disability and is wheel-chair bound. The portioner is a young citizen of State of Arunachal Pradesh and although she has fairly admitted in her reply that she did posses the mobile phone during the period of examination but there being no materials placed by the APPSC to show that the petitioner had used mobile phone during the course of the examination within the examination hall or even outside, therefore, this Court considers the imposition of punishment of debarment for a period of one year to be harsh. 42. As held in Om Kumar (supra) that where the situation demands, the quantum of punishment can be suitably moulded by the writ Court although it is primarily within the domain of the administrative authority as the Writ Court is well empowered to decide on the question of quantum of punishment; while for the reasons discussed, this Court rejects the contentions on behalf of the writ petitioner. However, this Court considers it appropriate to mould the relief to the extent that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment undergone so far in the opinion of the Court is considered be sufficient. The impugned order to the extent it imposes debarment for a period of one year is therefore modified to the extent of the period undergone by the petitioner till the date of delivery of the judgment. The impugned order to the extent it imposes debarment for a period of one year is therefore modified to the extent of the period undergone by the petitioner till the date of delivery of the judgment. The impugned order of debarment of one year is accordingly suitably modified in terms of the above. The petitioner will now be able to appear for any such examination conducted by the APPSC subject to fulfillment of provisions of law.” 4. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, although the learned Single Judge found the punishment of one-year debarment to be harsh, the relief was moulded by adopting the date of pronouncement of the judgment, i.e. 04.12.2025, instead of the date on which arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved, i.e. 02.09.2025. This resulted in the denial of an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process conducted by the APPSC, despite the appellant having applied by filing an interlocutory application seeking interim permission. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal has been preferred. 6. The grounds urged by the appellant, in brief, are that although the learned Single Judge held the punishment of debarment to be harsh and grossly disproportionate, the relief granted was not made fully effective inasmuch as the period of debarment was restricted only until the date of pronouncement of the judgment, i.e. 04.12.2025, instead of the date on which the matter was finally heard and reserved for judgment, i.e. 02.09.2025. 7. According to the appellant, continuation of the debarment until 04.12.2025 effectively amounted to an extension of the punishment for reasons beyond her control and deprived her of the opportunity to participate in the recruitment examinations notified vide Advertisement No. APPSC/1/2025 for the post of Assistant Engineer and Advertisement No. APPSC/5/2025 for the post of Junior Engineer (E & M), despite the finding that she had already undergone sufficient punishment. 8. It is contended that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge became illusory, as the recruitment processes had already closed by the time the judgment was delivered. 8. It is contended that the relief granted by the learned Single Judge became illusory, as the recruitment processes had already closed by the time the judgment was delivered. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that recruitment to engineering posts in the State of Arunachal Pradesh is infrequent, with such examinations being conducted only once in about 8–9 years, and that denial of participation in such a rare opportunity to a person with locomotor disability would cause irreparable prejudice to her future career prospects, particularly as she is approaching the upper age limit for such examinations. 9. It is also urged that the impugned judgment does not record any finding of cheating, dishonest intention, moral turpitude, or deliberate use of unfair means in the said examination. The allegation against the appellant/writ petitioner is confined to possession of a mobile phone during the examination. Therefore, according to the appellant, once the debarment was interfered with on the ground of disproportionality, it ought not to operate as a stigma or adverse character finding against the appellant affecting her future examination or employment opportunities. 10. Further, by way of filing an additional affidavit, the appellant brought on record that, pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.12.2025, she was permitted to participate in the Junior Engineer (E & M) Examination, 2025 conducted by the APPSC. Thereafter, the Commission declared the result of the said examination, wherein the appellant was declared successful on her own merit under the PwBD reserved category, and her name appeared at Serial No. 60 in the final select list published by the Commission on 09.04.2026. It is contended that the said subsequent development has created a substantive right in favour of the appellant and that, unless appropriate protection is continued, she may suffer prejudice at the stage of document verification, recommendation, appointment, or future recruitment solely on account of the impugned debarment, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 11. Ms. It is contended that the said subsequent development has created a substantive right in favour of the appellant and that, unless appropriate protection is continued, she may suffer prejudice at the stage of document verification, recommendation, appointment, or future recruitment solely on account of the impugned debarment, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 11. Ms. Anju, the learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC, while admitting that the interim order only permitted provisional participation subject to the sealed cover result, fairly submitted that the Commission nevertheless allowed the appellant to participate in the entire selection process, declared her result in the written examination, permitted her to appear in the interview/viva voce, and finally published the result of selection on 09.04.2026, wherein the name of the writ petitioner/appellant appeared at Serial No. 60 in the said result list under the PwBD reserved category. 12. It is in view of the above subsequent developments brought on record by way of the additional affidavit filed by the appellant, and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, that this appeal has been taken up for final disposal. 13. As seen above, it is not disputed that, by an interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2025, the appellant, who is a person with locomotor disability and is wheelchair-bound, was provisionally permitted to participate in the Junior Engineer (E&M) Examination, 2025 conducted by the respondent/Public Service Commission, subject to fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions and subject to the final outcome of the present writ appeal. The said interim protection was granted taking note of the prima facie observations already made by this Court regarding the nature of the punishment imposed and its consequences upon the future career prospects of the appellant. 14. Pursuant thereto, the appellant participated in the selection process. Though the interim order contemplated that the result of the appellant should be kept in a sealed cover, the respondent/ Commission not only permitted the appellant to participate in the written examination but also declared her written examination result, subsequently permitted her to appear in the interview/viva voce, and thereafter finally declared the result selecting her for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (E&M) under the PwBD reserved category. The final result has been published, and the appellant’s name admittedly appears at Serial No. 60 in the said select list. 15. The final result has been published, and the appellant’s name admittedly appears at Serial No. 60 in the said select list. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Commission has admitted the aforesaid factual position. 16. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the subsequent developments have materially altered the situation that existed at the time of grant of interim protection upon admission of the appeal. The provisional participation permitted by this Court has already culminated in the declaration and publication of the final result by the Public Service Commission itself. The Commission, having consciously carried the appellant through the entire selection process and published the final select list including her name at Serial No. 60 thereof, cannot now seek to place the appellant in a state of uncertainty on the basis of the very debarment order which is the subject matter of challenge and which had already been interfered with by the learned Single Judge on the ground of harshness and disproportionality. 17. It is also relevant to note that neither the original order of debarment passed by the Commission nor the judgment under appeal records any finding that the appellant was guilty of cheating, impersonation, dishonest conduct, moral turpitude, or deliberate use of unfair means during the examination. The allegation against the appellant was confined to possession of a mobile phone during the extra/compensatory time of the examination. The learned Single Judge himself found the punishment of one-year debarment to be harsh and accordingly modified the same. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, particularly considering that the appellant is a candidate with locomotor disability, is wheelchair-bound, and is an engineering graduate belonging to the PwBD category, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present appeal pending any further. 19. Accordingly, without entering into the merit of the case, we propose to dispose of this writ appeal with the following directions: i. The interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2025 permitting the appellant to participate provisionally in the Junior Engineer (E&M) Examination, 2025, shall stand merged with the final order. ii. 19. Accordingly, without entering into the merit of the case, we propose to dispose of this writ appeal with the following directions: i. The interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2025 permitting the appellant to participate provisionally in the Junior Engineer (E&M) Examination, 2025, shall stand merged with the final order. ii. The selection and inclusion of the appellant in the final select list dated 09.04.2026 published by the respondent/Public Service Commission pursuant to the Junior Engineer (E&M) recruitment process shall remain protected and shall not be disturbed solely on the basis of the impugned debarment order which forms the subject matter of the present appeal proceedings. iii. The impugned order of debarment, as modified by the learned Single Judge, shall not by itself be construed as involving moral turpitude, cheating, dishonest conduct, adverse character stigma, or deliberate use of unfair means so as to automatically disqualify the appellant from appointment or future recruitment processes, unless any such disqualification is specifically contemplated under the applicable statutory recruitment rules. iv. The respondent authority shall proceed with the candidature of the appellant, including document verification, recommendation, and appointment, strictly in accordance with law and subject to fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions, without giving effect to the impugned debarment beyond what has already been undergone. 20. It is, however, clarified that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent/Public Service Commission in having itself declared and published the appellant’s final result pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2025. Therefore, the same shall not be construed as a precedent. 21. Accordingly, this writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above directions. 22. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.