Merit list and selection cut-off in judicial recruitment: no right to appointment to all vacancies, and higher standards may be set.

A merit list for judicial service recruitment did not by itself confer a legal right to appointment against all available vacancies, because the rules required appointment only if the Government chose to fill posts and then in merit order. In the absence of a statutory duty to appoint every qualified candidate, mandamus could not be issued. The Court also held that the State could prescribe 55% marks as the selection standard even though Rule 8 fixed 45% as the qualifying minimum, since the higher cut-off applied at the later selection stage and was treated as a valid administrative policy not inconsistent with the rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether qualified candidates whose names appeared in the merit list had a legal right to be appointed to all available vacancies under Rule 10(ii) of Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Services Rules; (ii) Whether the State Government could fix 55% marks as the minimum standard for selection despite Rule 8 prescribing 45% marks for qualification.

Issue (i): Whether qualified candidates whose names appeared in the merit list had a legal right to be appointed to all available vacancies under Rule 10(ii) of Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Services Rules.

Analysis: The merit list prepared after the competitive examination only identified candidates who had qualified and ranked them in order of merit. The mere existence of vacancies, or inclusion of a candidate in the list, did not create an enforceable right to appointment. The rules required the Government, if it chose to make appointments, to do so strictly in the order of the list, but they did not compel the Government to fill every vacancy or appoint all candidates on the list. Mandamus could not issue without a statutory duty and a corresponding legal right.

Conclusion: No legal right to appointment to all vacancies arose in favour of the respondents, and mandamus could not be granted on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government could fix 55% marks as the minimum standard for selection despite Rule 8 prescribing 45% marks for qualification.

Analysis: Rule 8 fixed the minimum marks for eligibility to be considered in the examination, while Rule 10(ii) dealt with the later stage of selection for appointment. The Government was entitled, in the interest of maintaining judicial standards, to adopt a higher cut-off for actual selection than the minimum required for qualification. This was treated as a matter of administrative policy, and the fixation of 55% marks was not regarded as arbitrary or inconsistent with the rules.

Conclusion: The State Government was competent to prescribe 55% marks as the selection standard, and this did not contravene the rules.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Government's decision failed, the mandamus granted by the High Court was unsustainable, and the appellants succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A merit list qualifying candidates for consideration does not itself confer a right to appointment, and in the absence of a statutory duty to fill all vacancies, the appointing authority may adopt a higher selection threshold than the minimum eligibility mark prescribed by the recruitment rules.

---