Raj Bahadur Singh vs State of Punjab

N.K. Sodhi, J.—In this bunch of 4 writ petitions similar questions of law and facts arise for our determination.

CWP 11874 of 1999.

Recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) (for short the Service) is governed by the Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) (Class-1) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Service consists of such number of posts as the Government may from time to lime determine keeping in view the requirements of the service. All appointments to the service are made by the Government in consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) and these appointments arc made from amongst the accepted candidates whose names have been duly entered in accordance with the Rules in the Registers of accepted candidates which are maintained by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Punjab. We are concerned with Register A-II in these writ petitions in which are entered the names of temporary members of Class-II and members of Class-111 services serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab and holding ministerial appointments. According to the Rule 10 of the Rules each of the authorities specified in the table contained therein is to nominate such number of persons as specified in the second column of the table from amongst the temporary members of Class-II service and members of Class-III service holding ministerial appointments and working in its office or in the offices subordinate to it. The nomination rolls are submitted to the Government which are forwarded along with the service record of the candidates to the Commission which considers the merits of each such candidate and recommends such of them as are considered suitable for appointment to the Service. The names of persons recommended by the Commission are then entered in Register A-II in the order in which they are recommended. The State Government proposed to fill up 50 vacancies to the Service which included 9 vacancies to. be filled from Register A-II and sent a requisition in this regard to the Commission on 4.6.1993. In pursuance to this requisition, a circular dated 24.6.1993 was issued to the concerned authorities to recommend the names of the suitable and eligible candidates in the prescribed form. Petitioner who is working as a Private Secretary in the Public Civil Secretariat at Chandigarh since 5.7.1995 was nominated by the then Minister of State for Rural Development and Panchayats. The names of all the nominated candidates including that of the petitioner were forwarded to the Commission for being considered for appointment to the Service and they were interviewed on 27th and 28th September, 1994. The Commission considered the merits of all the nominated candidates and prepared a merit list on the basis of marks secured by each of them. The result of the interviews was declared on 11.10.1994 and the list of selected candidates was displayed on the notice board. The first 9 candidates in the merit list as prepared by the Commission were recommended to the Government for appointment and the 9 vacancies as notified to the Commission were then filled up. A copy of that merit list is Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 12 on this merit list. It will be noticed that two candidates, namely, Gurjit Singh and Harjinder Singh Sodhi are at serial Nos. 10 and 11 of the merit list and are immediately above the petitioner. Even before the result of the selection was declared by the Commission the State Government sent another requisition on 27.9.1994 proposing to fill up another 14 vacancies in the Service out of which 3 were to be filled up from Register A-II. The specified nominating authorities were requested to make nominations of eligible persons as per circular letter dated 24.3.1995. These vacancies pertained to the year 1995. The contention of the petitioner is that the 3 additional vacancies having arisen within six months from the date of the recommendations made by the Commission or even before that, the State Government ought to have filled up those vacancies from the merit list prepared by the Commisison on the basis of the result declared on 11.10.1994 in regard to the earlier selection and his grievance is that this has not done and, therefore, the Government acted in contravention of the instructions issued by the composite State of Punjab on 22.3.1957 which were then in force. According to the petitioner, if the State Government had filled up the additional vacancies from the earlier merit list prepared by the Commission, he would have been one of the. persons who''would have been selected as his name figures at serial No. 12 of that list as is clear from Annexure P-3. Petitioner is said to have represented to the State Government on 3.9.1996 and again on 24.3.1997 but there was no response from the side of the Government. Another representation was made on 19.5.1999 bringing to the notice of the State Government the decision of the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another 1999(2) SCT 652 (SC) : 1999(2) SLR 191. Since the Government did not respond favourably the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 18.8.1999 challenging the action of the Government in not appointing him against one of the 3 additional vacancies as, according to him, he was the 3rd on the merit list after the first nine candidates, had been appointed against nine vacancies notified earlier. The writ petition came up for hearing on 24.8.1999 when not ice of motion was issued at the respondents and it was ordered that the appointments, if any, made during the pendency of the writ petition would be subject to its final outcome.

Before we deal with the reply filed by the respondents, it is necessary to mention that Gurjit Singh who was at serial No. 10 on the merit list had filed civil writ petition No. 12294 of 1996 in this court challenging the nomination of Gurdeep Singh who was appointed to the Service in pursuance to his name having been recommended for appointment by the Commission. He also sought a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him to the service against one of the three additional posts which became available even when the process of selection for preparation of the select list was going on and for which a requisition had been sent to the Commission on 27.9.1994. As already noticed, these three additional vacancies pertained to the year 1995. He relied upon the Government circular dated 22.3.1957 which, according to the petitioner therein, entitled him to be considered for appointment against any additional vacancies occurring within six months which were not intimated to the Commission. The writ petition was dismissed on 16.1.1997 by a Division Bench of this court holding that the petitioner therein did not acquire a right to be appointed against one of the three posts which became available subsequently. According to the Division Bench the right of the petitioner therein to be considered for appointment was confined to the posts for which a requisition was sent in the year 1993. The learned Judges of the Division Bench took the view that the recommendations in excess of the advertised posts could not ordinarily be made and the waiting list prepared by the Commission or other selecting agencies could be utilised only for the making appointments against the posts which remain unfilled due to non-joining of the selected candidates. A SLP filed against this judgment was dismissed by the Apex Court on 5.12.1997 and their Lordships observed as under :

"In the affidavit filed by Mr. Anurag Agarwal, Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab, it is categorically stated that the nine vacancies for which requisition had been made in 1993 alone were filled up and that so far as the subsequent three vacancies are concerned, the process for consideration of filling those vacancies is on. It is asserted that those three vacancies have not so far been filled up and in case the petitioner is found suitable, he is likely to be selected. The petitioner, therefore, cannot have grievance at this stage as admittedly he was not in the list of first 9 candidates. The special leave petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed."

Harjinder Singh Sodhi whose name appeared at serial No. 11 of the merit list had also filed civil writ petition No. 4882 of 1995 in this Court challenging the appointment of all the 9 candidates who had been selected for appointment to the service in pursuance to the circular dated 24.6.1993. He also made a prayer in the writ petition that he be appointed against one of the three posts which had been notified to the Commission by the State Government as per its letter daled 27.9.1994. He too relied on the Government circular dated 22.3.1957 and urged before this court that since the additional vacancies had occurred within six months of the recommendations made by the Commission in pursuance to the circular dated 24.6.1993, he was entitled to be considered for appointment against one of those three additional posts. This writ petition was also dismissed by a Division Bench on 29.1.1996, it being held by the learned Judges that the petitioner had not been nominated for the vacancies which were notified on 27.9.1994 and, therefore, his claim could not be considered against any of those vacancies. After referring to the Government instructions dated 22.3.1957 the learned Judges observed that the petitioner therein could not derive any advantage from those instructions and rejected his claim for appointment against any of the three additional vacancies in the following words :

"In the first place, the Commission has not declared the petitioner as suitable for appointment to the service. His name is not even alleged to have been included in any waiting list. Secondly, all the selected candidates have been found to be of a higher merit than the petitioner. They have already joined the service. Thirdly, the nominations for the vacancies which had occurred in the year 1994 were invited from the respective authorities vide letter dated March 24, 1995. Various eligible persons have a right to be considered for recruitment to these vacancies. The petitioner cannot claim a preferential right."

A SLP filed by Harjinder Singh Sodhi against this judgment was also dismissed by the Apex Court on 23.9.1996.

In response to the notice of motion issued by this court, the respondents have filed their reply. Shri Satinder Pal Singh, Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel has admitted on behalf of the State Government that as per inslructions dated 22.3.1957 a time limit of six months has been prescribed for filling up out of the names duly recommended by the Commission additional vacancies which were not intimated to it when inviting recommendations. It is stated that the time limit of six months would not apply to a case where a candidate had declined to accept the post offered to him against a vacancy which was intimated to the Commission. Such vacancy, according to the State Government, could be filled up even alter the expiry of six months ot the approved list of candidates initially received from the Commission. It is pleaded that the name of the petitioner had never been recommended by the Commission and that the time limit of six months expired on 10.4.1995 because the names of the nine selected can didates were recommended by the Commission on 11.10.1994. It is further pleaded that since none of the selected candidates declined to accept the post the question of offering any post to the petitioner after the expiry of six months did not arise. While referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda''s case (supra), it is averred that the same is applicable prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively to the recruitment process which stood finalised in the year 1994 particularly when the plea ot the applicability of the instructions dated 22.3.1957 to the said recruitment had been negatived by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the Gurjit Singh and Har- jinder Singh Sodhi. Reference has also been made to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules and it is stated that the Commission is required to recommend such of the candidates as are found suitable for appointment to the Service and since nine candidates were recommended it has to be presumed that the others including the petitioner were not found suitable for appointment. The Commission in its reply has stated that the petitioner was a candidate for appointment to ihe service from Register A-II in the year 1994 and that his name was among the candidates who had not been selected. It is submitted that two other candidates who were higher in merit than the petitioner had already urged their claim before this court and their cases were dismissed and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. According to the commission, the selection process came to an end as soon as the advertised vacancies were filled up and the vacancies which occurred thereafter have to be filled up by a separate process of selection. It is contended that if the same list was to be kept alive for the purpose of filling up the vacancies that arise later, it would amount to deprivation of rights of other candidates who would become eligible subsequently. Reliance in this regard is placed on some judgments of the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the writ petition Sarvshri Gurjit Singh and Harjinder Singh Sodhi moved Civil Miscellaneous No. 3426 of 2001 under Order 1 Rule 8-A of the CPC seeking permission of this Court to intervene and take part in the proceedings. The prayer was granted and they were allowed to intervene.

We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioner was nominated by the Minister of Rural Development and Panchayats in pursuance to the circular dated 24.6.1993. He alongwith other nominated candidates were interviewed by the Commission on 27/28.9.1994 and the result of the selection was declared on 11.10.1994. Nine candidates were selected and their names were displayed on the notice board. Petitioner was not amongst the selected candidates. He filed the present writ petition in August, 1999 almost five years after the result of the selection was declared. No explanation much less satisfactory has been furnished for this inordinate delay. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. To say that the petitioner was making representations is no answer to the long delay in approaching this court. Even the filing of the representations has been denied by the respondents and there is nothing on the record to show that a representation was ever made. Even otherwise, making a representation on one''s own is not a statutory remedy and that, in our opinion, is not an explanation for the delay in filing the writ petition. As already noticed, Gurjit Singh and Harjinder Singh Sodhi who were higher in merit than the petitioner in the merit list had approached this court in the two writ petitions referred to above making a claim to appointment to the three additional vacancies and they placed reliance on Government instructions dated 22.3.1957. Their claim was rejected and the judgments of this court were upheld by the Apex Court inasmuch as the Special Leave Petitions filed against those judgments were dismissed. It was only after the decision of the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda''s case (supra) that the petitioner thought of filing the present writ petition and by that time enough delay had been caused so as to non-suit him. It is true that in Virender Singh Hooda''s case (supra) the learned judges of the Supreme Court while interpreting the Goverment instructions dated 22.3.1997 have observed that when vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of the recommendations of the Commission they have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by it but this does not mean that the petitioner can approach this court after a delay of almost five years.

There is yet another reason why the pelitioner must fail. According to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules the Commission is required to consider the merits of each nominated candidate and recommend to the State Government such of the candidates as are considered suitable for appoinlment to the service. The names of persons recommended by the Commission are then entered in Register A-II in the order in which they are recommended and appointments are made accordingly. In terms of this Rule the Commission prepared a merit list of all the nominated candidates in which the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 12. Gurjit Singh and Harjinder Singh Sodhi who figure at serial Nos. 10 and 11 and are above the petitioner had made a claim for appointment against the three additional vacancies for which a requisition was sent on 27.9.1994 and they failed. Their writ petitions were dismissed and those orders have been upheld by the Apex Court. The petitioner who is lower in the merit than Gurjit Singh and Harjinder Singh Sodhi cannot, therefore, be given appointment. The Rule does not permit the merit to be disturbed. In this view of the matter also the petition must fail.

Civil Writ Petitions No. 5982, 6354 of 2000 and 1113 of 2001

By a circular letter dated 24.3.1995 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, three vacancies in the service were proposed to be filled up from Register A- II for the year 1995 and all the nominating authorities were requested to recommend in the prescribed form the names of eligible persons from amongst the temporary members of Class-11 services and members of Class-111 services holding Ministerial appointments and working in their offices or in the offices subordinate to them. The nominations were required to reach the Government within one month from the date of issue of the circular letter. The last date for receipt of nominations was later extended upto 15.5.1995. Thereafter, the Slate Government decided to permit relaxation in the upper age limit from 45 years as prescribed in the Rules to 48 years in respect of nominations to the service from various registers including Register A-II and a circular letter dated 15th/16th May, 1995 was issued in this regard con vey-ing the government decision. It was stated in this letter that the nominating authorities should consider such persons as had then become eligible with the relaxation in the condition of upper age limit. The nominating authorities were informed that they could change their previous recommendations if they so desired and the last date fixed for receipt of nominations was further extended upto 25.5.1995. The decision of the State Government to allow the nominating authorities to change their recommendations was challenged by one Khushhal Singh Thakur in Civil writ petition No. 1995 of 1996 which was allowed by a Division Bench on 29.7.1996 and the circular letter dated 15th/16th May, 1995 quashed. The respondents were directed to consider only those candidates who wee nominated in pursuance to the circular letter dated 24.3.1995. Petitioners in all these cases were nominated by different nominating authorities for appointment to the service by nomination and their names alongwith their service record were forwarded to the Commission. Petitioners alongwith other nominated candidates were interviewed by the Commission on 28th and 29th July, 1999 and the result of the selection was declared on 16.3.2000. The Commission prepared a merit list of all the nominated candidates and after determining their inter-se merit recommended the first three candidates against the three vacancies notified by the State Government. Soon after the declaration of the result. the petitioners represented on 21.3.2000 to the State Government that there were eight more vacancies in the service which were to be filled up from Register A-II and since those vacancies were existing at the time of the declaration of the result, the same should be filled up from the merit list already prepared by the Commission. They placed reliance on the Government instructions dated 22.3.1957 and also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda''s case (supra). It was pointed out to the State Government that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had interpreted the Government instructions dated 22.3.1957 and held that if the Commission makes recommendations regarding a post to the Department and additional vacancies occur in the Department within a period of six months of the receipt of the recommendations, the vacancies which occur later have to be filled up from amongst the additional candidates recommended by the Commission. Since they did not receive any response from the State Government, they filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus direct ing the Commission to forward to the State Government the names of all the candidates who were considered for appointment to the service from Register A-II. A further direction has been sought to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the service from Register A-II against the vacancies which occurred within six months of the declaration of the result on 16.3.2000. Incivil writ petitions No. 5982 of 2000 and 1113 of 2001, the appointment of Jasbir Singh (respondent No. 4 in these petitions) has been challenged on the ground that he was nominated in pursuance to the circular dated 15th/16th May, 1995 which had been quashed by this Court on 29.7.1996 in civil writ petition No. 1995 of 1996 and that he had been given the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit and he could not, therefore, be nominated.

In response to the notice of motion issued by (his court, the State of Punjab has filed its reply. It is admitted that eight vacancies pertaining to the recruitment process of the year 1996 were notified to the Commission on 16.12.1996 and that the specified nominating authorities had been requested by letter dated 28.7.1997 to send their nominations. It is also stated that the instructions daled 22.3.1957 have been withdrawn by the Slate Government as per its letter dated 15.5.2000. It is further submitted that the three vacancies which were sought to be filled up in pursuance to the circular dated 24.3.1995 and which were notified to the Commission on 27.9.1994 could not be clubbed with the eight vacancies of subsequent recruitment process of the year 1996 and that separate recruitment had to be made for the vacancies pertaining to each year. As regards Jasbir Singh respondent No. 4, it is pointed out that his application for nomination had been received in the General Administration Department on 17.4.1995 in pursuance to the circular letter dated 24.3.1995 and not in pursuance to any subsequent letter. It is further submitted that he was less than 45 years of age when he applied and he was therefore, eligible for being nominated for appointment to the service. It has been denied that the application of respondent No. 4 had been received in pursuance to the circular letter dated 15th/16th May, 1995. The Commission has also filed a short affidavit stating that most of the averments made in the writ petitions relate to the State Government and that it has no concern in the matter. As regard Jasbir Singh respondent No. 4, it is submitted that he had not attained the age of 45 years on 1.11.1994 and that he was eligible for appointment to the service.

We have heard counsel for the parties in these cases as well and it is their common case that the result of selection for the three vacancies notified on 24.3.1995 was declared by the Commission on 16.3.2000 and that by that time eight vacancies had already been notified to the Commission pertaining to the year 1996. In order words, the eight vacancies were in existence when the result of the earlier selection was declared. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are right in contending that in terms of the Government instructions dated 22.3.1957 those vacancies had to be filled up from the merit list prepared by the Commission. These instructions were considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda''s case (supra). In this case, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised in the year 1989 twelve posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch), seven in general category and five in reserved category. The appellants in this case submitted their applications. The Public Service Commission held the, written examination and after interviewing the candidates declared the final result on 19.6.1992. One of the appellants had secured rank at serial No. 8 in the general category but he could not be selected as there were only seven vacancies in that category. By the time the State Government had already issued an advertisement in the year 1992 for recruitment to nine posts in Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) in general category. The appellants contended that they be appointed against the additional posts advertised in 1992 and placed reliance on the Government instructions daled 22.3.1957 issued by the composite Slate of Punjab and also on similar instructions issued by the State of Haryana on 26.5.1972. The claim of the appellants was not accepted and they filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench holding that the Administrative instructions could not be read as making it obligatory for the appointing authority to appoint candidates in excess of the advertised posts and that claim for the directing the Slate to make appointments against the posts which became available after the initiation of the process of recruitment was not justified. Feeling dis-satisfied with the decision of this Court, the matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court which was allowed. The learned Judges accepted the contention of the writ petitioners (appellants therein) and after referring to the Government instructions dated 22.3.1957 observed that when vacancies arise within six months from the receipt of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, they have to be filled up out of the waiting list maintained by it. The learned Judges observed as under :

"It is also made clear that if the Commission makes recommendations regarding a post to the Department and additional vacancies occur in the Department within a period of six months on the receipt of the recommendations, then the vacancies which occur later on can be filled in from amongst the addjtional candidates recommended by the Commission."

In Suvidya Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others 1999(3) SCT273 (P & H)(DB) : Civil Appeals No. 6976 and 6977 of 1999 decided by the Apex Court on 6.12.1999 the Haryana Public Service Commission had advertised 18 posts of Principals in the Senior Secondary Schools and the result of the selection was declared on 1.10.1993. The Commissionrec-ommended the names of 30 persons for appointment to the State Government. A learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the appointments on the ground that the selection and recommendations of the candidates beyond the number of posts which had been advertised was illegal and the judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. The argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that additional posts had become available prior to the declaration of the result and, therefore, the Commission should have recommended the names of the suitable persons for appointment against the available posts were rejected. The matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court where it was conceded that the additional vacancies had become available by the time the result of the earlier selection was declared. In this view of the matter, the learned Judges of the Apex Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition holding that the recommendations made by the Commission were in accordance with law and, therefore, all the 30 names recommended were entitled to be appointed.

In Sandeep Singh v. State of Haryanu and another, Civil Appeal No. 7422 of 1999 decided by the Supreme Court on 9,11,2000 the Haryana Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement on 24.12.1992 inviting applications for a certain number of posts in HaryanaCivil Services (Executive Branch). The interviews were held from January to March, 1996 and between the date of the advertisement and the holding of the interviews several other posts in the service fell vacant. The Public Service Commission recommended the names for appointment equal to the number of posts initially advertised. Sandeep Singh and others who were applicants contended that the State Government should make appointments even in respect of those vacancies which had arisen after the issuance of the advertisement. They filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed and the matter was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court. Here again, the learned Judges after referring to the Government circulars of 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 held that the vacancies available upto the date of the interview should be filled up from amongst those selected in the earlier test rather than to carry forward the vacancies for the next test. They relied on the judgment in Virender Singh Hooda''s (supra) and observed as under:

"That apart, even on first principle, it appeals to us to commend that the vacancies available in any par-'' ticular service till the date of interview atleast should be filled up from the very same examination unless there is any statutory embargo for the same. In the case in hand, no statutory embargo has been pointed out to us. In this view of the matter, the judgment of this court in Virender S. Hooda and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, should apply to the facts and circumstances."

From the above discussion it has to be accepted that it is settled law that the vacancies which occur within six months from the date of the recommendations made by the Commission are to be filled up from amongst the candidates found suitable by the Commission in the immediate last selection.

Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, learned counsel appearing for the Commission strenuously urged before us that the instructions dated 22.3.1957 do not provide for the filling up of the additional vacancies within six months from the date of the immediate last selection and that those instructions referred to some earlier letter of the Public Service Commission dated 12.7.1937 the contents of which are neither known nor available. It was further contended that the parties were remiss in not properly presenting the case before the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda''s case (supra). We are unable to accept this contention. The circular letter dated 22,3.1957 was directly under consideration before the Supreme Court and their Lordships relying on the same have held that the additional vacancies occurring within six months from the date of the recommendations of the Commission are to be filled up from amongst the candidates found suitable in the immediate last selection. We cannot take a different view.

Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondents then vehemently contended that the petitioners could not be appointed against the additional vacancies as their names have not been recommended by the Commission for appointment to the service. They referred to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 or the rules to contend that only such candidates can be appointed to the service who have been recommended by the Commission as suitable for appointment. In order to deal with this contention, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Rule 10 which deals with the selection of candidates to the service from Register A-II. Sub-rule (1) authorises the specified authorities to nominate such number of persons as specified against their names in the second column of the table contained in this sub rule. Sub- rule (2) lays down the eligibility conditions which are to be fulfilled by the candidates before they could be nominated for appointment to the service. Sub- rules (3) and (4) which are relevant for our purpose are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :

"(3) The nomination rolls submitted under sub-rule (1) alongwith the service record of the candidates shall be forwarded to the Commission which shall consider the merits of each such candidate and recommend such of the candidates as are considered suitable for appointment to the service."

"(4) The names of persons recommended by the Commission under sub- rule (3) shall be entered in Register A-II in the order in which they are recommended by the Commission."

A plain reading of sub-rule (3) makes it clear that the nomination rolls of the candidates alongwith their service record is to be forwarded to the Commission which is required to consider the merits of each such candidate and recommend such of them as are considered by it suitable for appointment to the service. In terms of this Rule, the Commission is enjoined to first determine the interse merits of all the nominated candidates and prepare a merit list. Thereafter, it has to undertake yet another exercise to judge their suitability. The persons nominated by different specified authorities may be all eligible for appointment to the service but whether they are suitable or not is to be judged by the Commission. For judging the suitability of the candidates, it may be necessary to prescribe a minimum standard on some reasonable criteria keeping in view the nature of the job for which the selection is to be made. After the Commission has judged the suitability, it will recommend the names of all those persons found suitable. The number of candidates found suitable may be less than, equal to or more than the vacancies notified to the Commission. Once (he candidates found suitable are recommended, their names shall be entered in Register A-II in the order in which they are recommended by the Commission. Appointments would then follow in the same order which cannot be disturbed. In the cases before us, (he Commission has determined the interse merit of all the nominated candidates by preparing a merit list which was produced before us in a sealed cover and we have perused the same. That list does not give any indication whether the Commission had further examined the suitability of any of those candidates. We, therefore, directed the Commission to file an affidavit whether .suitability of any of the candidaies was judged. In pursuance to our order dated 11.5.2001, the Secretary of the Commission has filed a short affidavit stating that it recommended the candidates against the advertised vacancies and no extra name was recommended nor the result beyond the advertised posts was declared. It has referred to its earlier resolution dated 21.1.1983 whereby it resolved not to recommend the extra names beyond the advertised vacancies. The Commission has categorically stated that after determining the interse merits of the candidates (he Commission does not undertake any further exercise to judge the suitability of the candidaies any further and it recommends the candidates equal to the number of the vacancies notified to it. This procedure, in our opinion, is not correct in the context of sub-rule (3) of the Rule 10 of the Rules. As already observed, the Commission has not only to determine the interse merits of the candidates but also to judge their suitability on the basis of some reasonable and rational criteria and then recommend the names of only such persons who have been found suitable. It appears that the Commission recommends the names from the merit list equal to the number of notified vacancies in a mechanical manner which is not the right procedure. In a given case a candidate on the merit list within the notified number of vacancies may be still unsuitable. Does it mean that the Commission would recommend the name of such a candidate for appointment. The answer has to be in the negative. Once the suitability has been judged and the name of suitable persons recommended, it will then be for the Government to make appointments in accordance with law. In the present case since the Commission has not determined the suitability of the candidates and recommended the first three candidates from the merit list against the three vacancies notified on 24.3.1995, (he procedure followed by it is not in accordance with sub-rule (3) of the Rule 10 of the Rules. Since the recommendations made by the Commission in regard to these three candidates is not under challenge before us, it is not necessary for us to make any further comment. Be that as it may, the Commission was bound to judge the suitability of all the nominated candidates and since this has not been done, we have no hesitation in issuing a direction to it to undertake that exercise now and complete the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that the candidates found suitable will be recommended leaving it for the Government to make appointments from amongst them in accordance with law.

Now coming to the challenge made to the appointment of Jasbir Singh respondent No. 4. It is alleged that he was nominated by the Chief Secretary in pursuance to the circular letter dated 15th/16th May, 1995 by which relaxation was given to the candidates in the upper age limit from 45 years to 48 years in respect of nominations to the service from various registers including Register A-II. The argument is that the circular dated 15th/16th May, 1995 had been quashed by this court and, therefore, this respondent who was given the benefit of relaxation was inetigible to be nominated. In order to verify the averments made in regard to Jasbir Singh, we directed the learned Deputy Advocate General to produce the original records before us. We have perused the same and find that the allegations made by the petitioners are without any basis. The original circular letter was issued on 24.3.1995 by which the process for filling up three vacancies to the service from Register A-II was initiated and the specified nominating authorities were requested to send their nominations. This letter was circulated to the Head of Offices under the Administrative control of the Chief Secretary as per letter dated 6.4.1995. In response to the original circular letter, applications were received from various applicants including Jasbir Singh respondent No. 4. His application was received on 17.4.1995 and the same was diarised at serial No. 2702. The last date for receipt of nominations was 23.4.1995 which was extended upto 15.5.1995. It was thereafter that the Government decided to relax the upper age limit from 45 to 48 years and invited fresh nominations. As already observed, this action of the Government was quashed by this court in civil writ petition No. 1995 of 1996. It is, thus, clear that Jasbir Singh applied for appointment to the service in pursuance to the original circular letterdated 24.3.1995. It is also clear from the record that he was 41 years of age at the time when he filed his application. He did not take the benefit of relaxation granted by the circular, letterdated 15th/16th May, 1995. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that he was ineligible for being nominated for appointment to the service. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners in this regard.

In the result, CWP 11874 of 1999 is dismissed whereas CWPs 6982, 6354 of 2000 and 1113 of 2001 are partly allowed and the Commission is directed to determine suitability of all the nominated candidates whose service record was sent to it and recommend to the State Government the names of all such persons who are found suitable leaving it to the Government to make appointments in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.