Promotion selection under statutory recruitment rules cannot be altered by adding candidates unless the selection itself is shown to be unlawful.

Recruitment to the Munsiff cadre was governed by statutory rules under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309, with separate procedures for direct recruitment and promotion. For promotion, the Commission had to assess suitability on merit by considering service record and prescribed factors. The Court held that the High Court could not uphold the existing selection list and at the same time direct insertion of the six petitioners merely because they had approached the Court; it could either quash an unlawful selection or leave it undisturbed. The promotion list was not shown to have been based on the later viva voce test, and participation of some candidates in both processes, or the alleged change in the examining body, did not by itself vitiate the promotion selection. The direction to include the petitioners was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in directing inclusion of the six petitioners in the promotion list and in holding that the Public Service Commission's selection for promotion and direct recruitment was vitiated by alleged irregularities in the viva voce process and in the method of fixing qualifying marks.

Analysis: Recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs was governed by statutory rules framed under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The rules prescribed separate methods for direct recruitment and promotion, and for promotion the Commission was required to assess suitability on merit, taking into account the relevant service record and other prescribed factors. The Court held that the High Court could either quash an unlawful selection or leave it undisturbed, but it could not uphold the existing list of selected candidates and simultaneously compel the Commission to insert additional names merely because the petitioners had approached the Court. The Court further held that the promotion selection made in 1961 was not shown to have been based on the later viva voce test in 1962, and the mere fact that some candidates participated in both processes did not establish illegality in the promotion list. The alleged variation in the composition of the examining body also did not vitiate the promotion selection on the record before the Court.

Conclusion: The direction of the High Court requiring inclusion of the six petitioners in the promotion list was unsustainable and was set aside; the petitions challenging that part of the selection failed.

---