with the statutory or constitutional scheme. Any such executive fiat is not only unconstitutional but also a direct breach of the separation of powers. Learned counsel for petitioner highlights that the use of vague language in the advertisement and the respondents’ shifting stand, as revealed through RTI and official communications, amounts to adopting subterfuge and camouflage tactics to evade compliance with the judgment of the Court. The deliberate non-mention of the reservation percentage reflects an intent to circumvent judicial authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the well-established legal principle, as laid down in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and reiterated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 , that when a statute prescribes the manner in which something is to be done, it must be done in that manner or not at all. The respondents’ deviation from the prescribed method is therefore without authority and illegal. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. On the one hand, the State claims status quo on reservation, while on the other, the Public Service Commission proceeds with the recruitment in complete contradiction to it. Such inconsistent conduct violates the Doctrine of Approbation and Reprobation, which bars a party from taking contradictory stands in law. Due to the uncertainty and contradictory stand of the authorities regarding the applicability of reservation, genuine candidates like the petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category, are left in a state of doubt and disadvantage. The recruitment process, being conducted under such ambiguity, defeats the principles of transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity. In light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the intervention of this Court to safeguard the sanctity of its own judgment,
