Merit list recruitment rules require all qualified candidates to be forwarded; withholding a successful candidate was invalid.

The rules governing recruitment required a written test, viva voce, preparation of a merit list of all candidates who secured the prescribed minimum, and publication of the full result. The Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission's role was limited to assessing candidates and arranging all qualified candidates in order of merit; it could not withhold the names of successful candidates on the assumption that only a limited number of vacancies existed. Appointment was to be made by the Government from the complete merit list, subject only to a conscious and valid decision not to fill all vacancies. As the petitioner's name was wrongly omitted from the truncated list, she was entitled to inclusion in the select list and appointment as a Subordinate Judge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Public Service Commission was bound to forward the names of all qualified candidates in order of merit and whether the petitioner, having qualified under the rules, was entitled to selection and appointment as a Subordinate Judge.

Analysis: The rules required a written test, viva voce, preparation of a merit list of all candidates who secured the prescribed minimum, and publication of the result. The Public Service Commission's role was confined to assessing candidates and arranging them in order of merit; it had no authority to withhold the names of qualified candidates merely because it believed that only a limited number of vacancies existed. Selection for appointment was to be made by the Government strictly in the order of merit from the full list of qualified candidates, subject only to a conscious decision not to fill all vacancies for a valid reason. Since the Commission sent only a truncated list and the petitioner was among the qualified candidates omitted from it, the process failed to comply with the rules.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to be included in the select list and appointed as a Subordinate Judge, and the withholding of her name was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing rules require the full list of qualified candidates to be arranged in order of merit, the selecting authority cannot restrict the list arbitrarily or withhold successful candidates on the basis of assumed vacancy limits.

---