Select list approval must rest on recorded reasons, but stale claims and expiry of the list can still defeat relief.

The State could not lawfully approve a select list in part and reject the remaining names on the same grounds, because recruitment rules and the constitutional role of the Public Service Commission require bona fide, recorded reasons for refusing approval. Mere inclusion in a select list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, and approval does not itself confer immediate appointment. However, relief was unavailable because the select list had expired under the rules and the claim was pursued after substantial delay, making any direction for approval or appointment ineffective and inequitable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government, under the applicable recruitment rules and constitutional scheme, could partially approve a select list and refuse approval of the remaining names without acting mechanically on the Commission's recommendation. (ii) Whether the claim for approval and appointment was defeated by expiry of the select list period and the petitioners' delay in seeking relief.

Issue (i): Whether the Government, under the applicable recruitment rules and constitutional scheme, could partially approve a select list and refuse approval of the remaining names without acting mechanically on the Commission's recommendation.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme under Articles 320 and 323 treats the Public Service Commission as an independent body, and Rule 39 of the 1967 Rules has to be construed in that light. The Government is not vested with an absolute or arbitrary power to pick and choose from a duly prepared select list. If the selection is found to be vitiated on lawful grounds, the Government may refuse approval, but such refusal must be for recorded reasons and cannot be exercised by approving part of the list and rejecting the rest on the same objections. Mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, yet the State must act fairly and cannot nullify the recruitment process without bona fide reasons. Rule 41 shows that approval of the list does not itself create immediate appointment, only a continuing right during the life of the list.

Conclusion: The Government could not lawfully approve the list in part and disapprove it in part on the same grounds; the refusal of the remaining names was unsustainable in principle.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for approval and appointment was defeated by expiry of the select list period and the petitioners' delay in seeking relief.

Analysis: Even though the Government's partial disapproval was not justified in law, no vacancy arose during the operative life of the list after approval of the first thirteen names, and the list lapsed after one year under Rule 41. The request for approval of the remaining names was made only after the list had become inoperative. The petitioners also approached the court after a substantial delay, despite the earlier proceedings and the passage of time, and this delay materially affected the availability of effective relief. In these circumstances, directing approval of the stale list would be futile and inequitable.

Conclusion: Relief was barred by expiry of the select list and by laches.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Government's action succeeded in principle, but no effective relief could be granted because the select list had lapsed and the claim was stale; the proceedings were therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A State may not arbitrarily pick and choose from a select list prepared by the Public Service Commission, and any refusal to approve the list must rest on bona fide recorded reasons; however, relief may still be denied where the list has expired and the claim is defeated by delay.

---