https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184414 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. en-us Wed, 02 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2016 18:44:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184414 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 May 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184414