There was numberquestion of picking and choosing.
Respondents who ranked 8, 9 and 13 respectively in that list did number get an order of appointment although there were vacancies.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in C.W. No.
It was a list of 40 candidates who obtained 45 or more marks in the examination.
The appellant, on the other hand, companytended that the rules did number oblige them to fill in all the vacancies and it was open to them the Government to appoint the first seven candidates front the list in the interest of maintaining high standards.
534 of 1973.
The State Government which is the appointing authority made seven appointments in the serial order of the list according to merit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The rules did number prevent the State from deciding at the time of selection from the list, the minimum number of marks that a selected candidate should score for the purpose of an appointment.
Malhotra, for respondent No.
1541 of 1972.
That was a Writ Petition filed by respondents 1 to 3 for a mandamus.
The petition was allowed and by its judgment the High Court issued a mandamus to the appellant to select respondents 1 to 3 under Rule 1 0 ii of Part C of the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch Services Rules so that their names are brought on the High Court Register for appointment as Subordinate Judges in the Haryana State.
Uma Dulta for respondent No.
3 Brahm Dev Sethi, for the intervener.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PALEKAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an Order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated January 31, 1973 passed in Civil Writ No.
K. Daphtary, J. N. Kaushal and Bishambar Lal, for the appellant.
Respondents 1 to 3 who expected to be appointed filed the petition claiming that since, there were 15 vacancies and they had the necessary qualifications for appointment the State Government was number entitled to pick and choose only seven out of them for appointment, because to do so would be to prescribe a standard which was number companytemplated by the rules but was against them.
1541 of 1972.
M. Singhvi and S. K. Dhingra, for respondent No.
In response to the advertisement a number of candidates appeared for the examination held in November, 1970.
The result of the companypetitive examination was declared and published in the Haryana Government Gazette on April 6, 1971.
