http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: PRAKASH CHANDRA AGARWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/08/1985

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1709            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 693  1985 SCC  (4) 105        1985 SCALE  (2)377

ACT:      Bihar  Civil   Service  (Judicial  Branch)  Recruitment Rules, 1955,  Rules 15  and 19  - Selection by State Service Commission Qualifying  marks for  being called for interview fixed at  40% in  consultation with  High Court  - Later  on Commission refixed  the marks  at 38%  in consultation  with High Court  - Candidate   obtaining  38.8% marks  called for interview but not appointed Whether justified.

HEADNOTE:      The Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955  vests the  Bihar Public  Service Commission  by clause (a)  of Rule 15 the power to fix the qualifying marks in any  or all  the subjects  at the written examination for the posts  of Munsiffs  in the  Bihar Judicial  Service  but before doing  80 the  Commission has  to  consult  the  High Court. Rule 17 of the Rules provides that if a candidate has secured  less   than  the  prescribed  qualifying  marks  as required under Rule 15 he would not be eligible for the viva voce test,  while under  rule 19  the marks  obtained at the viva voce  test are to be added to the marks obtained at the written examination.      The appellant appeared at the 19th Competitive Judicial Service Examination  and obtained in all 416 marks including the marks  obtained at  the  viva  voce  test.  However,  he secured only 38.8 per cent marks at the written examination. At the  first instance,  83  candidates  were  appointed  as Munsiffs. Later on, the commission submitted another list of 38 candidates  to the  Government  for  being  appointed  as Munsiffs, but  it did  not iuclude the name of the appellant even though  it had included at Serial Nos. 36, 37 and 38 of the names  of candidates  who had  secured lower  marks than what the  appellant had  obtained.  Aggrieved  by  the  non- inclusion of  his name in the list of successful candidates, he filed  a writ  petition  in  the  High  Court  which  was dismissed.      The  appellant  contended  in  his  appeal  before  the Supreme Court  that the  Commission hat  in exercise  of its discretion fixed  38 per cent marks in the written papers as the qualifying marks 694 under Rule  15(a) after consultation with the High Court and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the exclusion  of his  name  from  the  list  of  successful candidates prepared  under Rule  19 was, therefore, contrary to the  Rules. The respondent, however, argued that the name of the  appellant was not included in the list of successful candidates prepared under Rule 19 on the ground, that he hat obtained less  than 40  per cent marks in the written papers which were the qualifying marks fixed under Rule 15 (a).      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1.  The entire approach adopted by the High Court is wrong.  The High  Court should  have  first  decided  the question whether  the Commission had fixed 40 per cent marks as qualifying   marks  or  38%  as  it  is  claimed  by  the appellant and  then  it  should  have  proceeded  to  decide whether the name of the appellant has been properly excluded from the li-t prepared under Rule 19 of the rules or not. It was in  error in  holding that  the Commission hat fixed the qualifying marks  at 40  per cent  merely because it had not included the  names of  any candidates  who hat secured less than 40 per cent qualifying marks in the list prepared under rule 19.  Such  non-inclusion  by  itself  and  without more does not  amount to  a decision  made by the Commission. The Commission did  not actually plead that it hat made any such fresh determination. It appears to be a new case mate out by the High Court to support the action of the Commission which has contrary  to its own decision fixing the qualifying arks at 38  per cent.  It may  be that,  in fact,  there  was  no candidate belonging  to  the  unreserved  category  who  bad secured less  than 40  per cent  marks in the written papers amongst the  first  batch  of  83  candidates  but  what  is relevant is  the standard  which was  applied when  the said list was prepared. That list must have been prepared without any doubt  in the light of the qualifying marks fixed by the Commission at 38 per cent for the unreserved category on the basis of  which the  viva voce  test of  all the  candidates belonging to  both the  batches including  the appellant had been held.  That standard  could not be varied when the next list was  prepared. The  High Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of tho case. [703 A,E-F, 704 A-C]      2.  The  Commission  had  fixed  38  per  cent  as  the qualifying marks  under Rule  15 (a)  of the  Rules for  the candidates belonging  to  the  unreserved  category.  Having fixed 38  per cent  as the qualifying marks, it was not open to the Commission to exclude the name of a candidate who had secured 38.8  per cent marks in the written examination only because the High Court had earlier 695 recommended that  40 per cent marks should be the qualifying marks   when it  was consulted by the Commission. As long as fresh determination is made, every candidate who has secured 38 per cent marks and above in the written examination would be entitled  to appear  at the  viva voce  test  and  to  be included in  the list prepared under Rule 19 of the Rules in the order  of merit  on the  basis of  the  aggregate  marks obtained in  the written  examination and  in the  viva voce test. [703 B-E]      In the  instant case,  admittedly  the  two  candidates whose names  are shown  against Serial  Nos. 36  and 37  had secured 415  marks in  the aggregate and the candidate shown against Serial  No. 38  had  secured  413  marks  while  the appellant had  secured 416  marks. The name of the appellant should have,  therefore, been included in the list submitted by the Commission to the Government under Rule 19 by placing it above  the name  of the candidate at Serial No.36. By not doing 80  the Commission  had violated  the Rules  and  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Articles 14  and 16  of  the  Constitution.  Therefore,  the decision is  directed to  submit to the Government a revised list showing  the name  of the  appellant above serial No.36 and the State Government is directed to consider the case of the appellant  for appointment  as Munsiff  under Rule 21 of the rules  as if his name had been shown above the candidate whose name  is shown  against Serial  No.36. It  is  further ordered that  on his  appointment, the  appellant  shall  be placed above the candidate shown against Serial No.36 in the seniority list  and he shall be given all increments etc. as if he  had been appointed on the date on which the candidate at Serial No.36 was appointed. 704 D, F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4011 of 1985.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  16.4.1985 of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1449 of 1984.      Petitioner in person.      Jaya Narain and U.S. Prasad for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  This is  an appeal  by special leave filed against  the judgment  of the  High Court  of Patna in Civil Writ  Jurisdiction Case  No. 1449  of 1984 dated April 16, 1985  by which  the High  Court declined  to  grant  the prayer of the appellant for 696 the  inclusion  of  his  name  in  the  list  of  successful candidates  at   the  19th   Competitive  Judicial   Service Examination held  in  December  1979  by  the  Bihar  Public Service  Commission   (hereinafter  referred   to  as   ’the Commission’). The  facts of  the  case  are  briefly  these. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Commission in the month  of   October,  1979  calling  for  applications  from eligible candidates  to fill up the posts of Munsiffs in the Bihar Judicial  Service, the appellant filed his application before the  Commission  within  time.  He  appeared  at  the Competitive  Judicial  Examination  held  in  the  month  of December, 1979,  the Roll  No. allotted  to him  being  388. Thereafter on  July 27,  1981 he  appeared at  the viva voce test held  by the  Commission. The appellant obtained in all 416 marks  including the  marks obtained  at the  viva  voce test. He,  however, did not receive any order of appointment although a  candidate who had secured in the aggregate lower marks than  what  he  had  secured  had  been  appointed  as Munsiff. Aggrieved  by the  non-inclusion of his name in the list of  successful candidates  he filed the above said Writ Petition in the High Court of Patna under Article 226 of the Constitution  which  ultimately  came  to  be  dismissed  as mentioned above.  This appeal  by  special  leave  is  filed against the judgment of the High Court.      At the  first instance,  the Government  had decided to appoint 83  candidates as Munsiffs. Later on, it was decided to appoint in all 139 candidates as Munsiffs. After the list of successful  candidates was  submitted by  the Commission, the  Government   appointed  on   September  16,   1982,  83 candidates as  Munsiffs. Later  on by its order dated May 3, 1983, 14  more candidates who belonged to the ’Most Backward Classes’  were   appointed.  These   14  appointments   were challenged by  some of  the candidates in two Writ Petitions filed before  the High  Court, i.e.,  C.W.J.C. 1868/l983 and C.W.J.C. 2209/1983.  The High Court allowed these petitions, quashed the  appointments of  the said  14 candidates on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

basis of  reservation and directed the Commission to forward the names  of successful  candidates in  accordance with the Rules. Then a further list containing names of 18 candidates was submitted  by  the  Commission.  After  a  petition  for contempt was filed in M.J.C. No. 600 of 1983 before the High Court, another  list containing  names of  20 candidates was submitted. In  the consolidated  list of these 38 candidates the Commission  did not  include the  name of  the appellant even though it had included at serial Nos. 36, 37 and 38 the names of  candidates who  had secured  lower marks than what the appellant  had obtained.  In this  appeal we  are called upon to  examine whether  the exclusion  of the  name of the appellant from that list was justified or not. 697      The recruitment  to the  Judicial Branch  of the  Bihar Civil A  Service is  regulated by  the Bihar  Civil  Service (Judicial Branch)  (Recruitment)  Rules,  1955  (hereinafter referred to  as ’the  Rules’) promulgated by the Governor of Bihar under  Article 234  of the Constitution of India after consultation with  the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the Commission.  Rule 2(a)  of the  Rules provides  that the recruitment to  the posts  of  Munsiffs  shall  be  made  in accordance with  the Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules requires the Governer to  decide in  each year the number of vacancies in the cadre of Munsiffs to be filed by appointments to be made on a  substantive basis  or on a temporary basis or both. On such determination  being made the Commission is required by rule 4 of the Rules to announce in each year, in such manner as it  thinks it,  the number of vacancies to be filled that year by  direct recruitment  on the results of a competitive examination. The  Commission is  required by  the  Rules  to invite applications from candidates eligible for appointment as Munsiffs.  The competitive  examination is required to be conducted by  the Commission.  The  qualifications  which  a candidate for the post of Munsiff should possess are set out in rule 6 of the Rules. The competitive examination is to be held in  accordance with  the syllabus specified in Appendix ’C’ to  the Rules.  The relevant part of Appendix ’C’ to the Rules reads as follows:      Subjects                                      Marks      1.   Compulsory-           (1)  General Knowledge (including        150                current affairs)           (2)  Elementary General Science          100           (3)  General Hindi                       100           This compulsory paper will be a qualifying subject           in which  all  candidates  shall  be  required  to           secure a minimum of 30 marks but the marks secured           in this paper will not be added for the purpose of           determination of merit.      2.   Optional.- Candidates must appear in subject No. 4           and select  any three  out of  the remaining  five           subjects-           (4)  Law of Evidence and Procedure       150           (5)  Constitutional Law of India and                England                             150 698           (6)  Hindu Law and Muhammadan Law 150           (7)  Law of Transfer of Property and                Principles of Equity including Law                of Trusts and Specific Relief.       150           (8)  Law of Contracts and Torts           150           (9)  Commercial Law                       150      3.   Viva Voce test 200           Rule 15  of the  Rules which  18 material  for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    purpose of this case reads a follows:           "15. (a)  The Commission  shall have discretion to           fix  the  qualifying  marks  in  any  or  all  the           subjects   at    the   written    examination   in           consultation with the Paten High Court.           (b) The  minimum qualifying  marks for  candidates           belonging  to   the  Scheduled   Castes  and   the           Scheduled Tribes  shall not  be  higher  than  35%           unless the number of such candidates qualifying at           the  written   test  according  to  the  standards           applied for  other candidates  is considerably  in           excess of  the number  of candidates  required  to           fill all  the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled           Castes and the Scheduled Tribes;           Provided that  in determining the suitability of a           particular candidate  for appointment,  the  total           marks obtained  at the written examination and not           the marks  obtained in  any particular  subject or           subjects, shall be taken into consideration.           (c) There  shall be  no qualifying  marks for  the           viva voce test."      Clause (a)  of rule  15 of  the rules  vests  with  the Commission the  power to  fix the qualifying marks in any or all the  subjects at  the  written  examination  but  before exercising its  discretion in this regard the Commission has to consult  the Patna  High Court. We are not concerned with clause (b)  of rule 15 of the Rules in this case. Clause (c) of rule  15 provides that there shall be no qualifying marks for the viva voce test. Rule 17 of the rules reads thus: 699           "17. On  the basis  of the  marks obtained  at the           written examination,  the Commission shall arrange           for viva  voce test  of the  candidates  who  have           qualified at  the written examination according to           rule 15:           Provided that  in  exceptional  circumstances  and           with  the   prior  approval   of  Government,  the           Commission  may,   at  their   discretion,   admit           candidates  of   the  Scheduled   Castes  and  the           Scheduled Tribes to the viva voce test even though           they may  not have obtained the minimum qualifying           marks at the written test.           It is  clear from  rule 17  of the Rules that if a candidate has  secured less than the marks prescribed as the qualifying marks  under rule 15 he would not be eligible for the viva  voce test.  Rule 19  of the  Rule  lays  down  the procedure to  be followed  in the  preparation of  the final list  of  successful  candidates  to  be  submitted  by  the Commission to the Governor. It reads thus:           "19. The  marks obtained  at the  viva  voce  test           shall be  added  to  the  marks  obtained  at  the           written examination.  The names of candidates will           then be  arranged by  the Commission  in order  of           merit. If  two or  more candidates  obtained equal           marks  in   the  aggregate,  the  order  shall  be           determined in accordance with the marks secured at           the written  examination. Should the marks secured           at  the  written  Examination  of  the  candidates           concerned be  also equal  then the  order shall be           decided in  accordance with  the total  number  of           marks obtained  in the  optional papers.  From the           list of  candidates  80  arranged  the  Commission           shall nominate such number of candidates as may be           fixed by  the Governor  in order of their position           in the  list. The  nominations so  made  shall  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

         submitted to  the Governor  by such  date in  each           year as the Governor may fix.      In the  instant  case  it  is  not  disputed  that  the appellant had  secured 38.8  per cent  marks at  the written examination and  that he  had also appeared at the viva voce test conducted by the Commission. It is stated that his name was not  included  in  the  list  of  successful  candidates prepared under  rule 19  of the  Rules on the ground that he had obtained  less than  40 per  cent marks  in the  written papers which according to the High Court were the 700 qualifying marks  fixed under  rule 15  (a). The case of the appellant, however,  is that  the Commission had in exercise of its  discretion fixed  38 per  cent marks  in the written papers as  the qualifying  marks under  rule  15  (a)  after consultation with  the High  Court and  the exclusion of his name from  the list  of successful candidates prepared under rule 19 was contrary to the  Rules.  m e  decision in this case, therefore, turns on the answer to  the question  whether the Commission had fixed 40 per cent as mini = qualifying marks under rule 15 (a) of the Rules or  38 per  cent as it is claimed by the appellant. In Paragraphs 5,  6 and  8 of  the counter-affidavit  filed  by Nilamani Prasad  Srivastava, an  Assistant in  the office of the Commission  before  the  High  Court  it  is  stated  as follows:-           "5.  That   the  Bihar   Civil  Service  (Judicial           Branch)(Recruitment) Rule 15 (a) provides that the           Commission shall have discretion to fix qualifying           marks in  any or  all the  subjects at the written           examination in  consultation with  the Patna  High           Court.           6. mat  in view  of the  above rule the Commission           consulted Hon’ble  Patna  High  Court  for  fixing           qualifying marks  for the  written Examination  of           19th  Judicial  Service  Examination,  Patna  High           Court vide  their letter  No. 14265 dated 8th Oct.           80 said  among other  things that  the  qualifying           marks for  viva voce  test for the Scheduled Caste           and Scheduled  Tribe candidates  should be 30% and           for the  rest 40%.  The High  Court also  did  not           accept various  categories for  reservation  meant           for  the  candidates  belonging  to  the  Backward           Classes.           ............................................           8. That  since the  Government did  not revice the           number of  vacancies fixed  earlier category  wise           including various  categories of  Backward Classes           the Commission ultimately had to fix the following           as qualifying marks at the written examination for           calling   the   candidates   for   interview,   in           accordance with law.           The qualifying  marks as  fixed by  the Commission           are indicated as follows:-           Unreserved                             38%           Backward Class                         38% 701           Most Backward Class                    25%           Economically Weaker (Ladies)           25%           Economic Backward Class                25%           (Non-SC/Non-SC/Non-MBC)           S.T.                                   25%           S.C.                                   25%      It is  seen from  the above  extract  of  the  counter- affidavit filed  on behalf  of the  Commission that the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Court had  no doubt  stated that  the qualifying  marks  for candidates  other  than  the  candidates  belonging  to  the Scheduled Castes  and the  Scheduled Tribes should be 40 per cent when  it was consulted by the Commission as required by the Rules  but  the  Commission  had  ultimately  fixed  the qualifying marks  at 38 per cent for the unreserved class of candidates after  taking into  consideration the  opinion of the High Court. We are not concerned in this appeal with the cases of  candidates belonging  to the other classifications referred to  in Paragraph  8. The  appellant  was  no  doubt treated   as   a   Backward   Class   candidate   but   such classification did  not find  favour with  the High Court in one Of the judgments rendered by it. But having secured 38.8 per cent  marks in  the written  papers  the  appellant  was eligible to  appear at  the viva  voce test  as a  candidate BELONGING to  the unreserved  category as  he satisfied  the qualifying marks  PRECLUDED for  the candidates belonging to that category. The Commission having fixed 38 per cent marks as the  qualifying marks  after consulting the High Court it was not permissible for the commission refuse to follow that decision and to decline to include the name of the appellant in the  list of  candidates which was forwarded by it to the Government under  rule 19. Dealing with the above contention of the  appellant in  the course  of its  judgment the  high Court has observed thus:           "learned counsel for the petitioner Submitted that           the expression ’consultation’ occurring in rule 15           does not  mean concurrence.  In other  words,  the           Commission is  not bound  by the  advice given  by           High Court  in respect  of fixation  of qualifying           marks at  the written  examination. In  support of           this contention learned counsel purported to refer           to different cases of the 702           Supreme Court  where the expression "consultation"           has been examined. In my opinion, in the facts and           circumstances    of  the present  case there is no           necessity of  examining the scope of rule 15 as to           whether the Commission has to set according to the           advise  of   the  high   Court  while  fixing  the           qualifying marks  at the written examination. That           question could  have arisen  if the Commission did           not according  to the advice of the High Court. In           the  instant   case,  the   Commission  has  acted           according to  advice  given  by  the  High  Court.           Merely because  the candidates having secured less           than 40%  marks were  called for  interview, in my           view, it  shall not  clothe them with any right to           be  selected   for  appointment.  I  have  already           pointed out  that in  the counter-affidavit it has           been  explained  as  to  why  at  that  stage  the           Commission had  decided to call for interview even           the candidate who had secured 38% marks. But while           recommending the  names for appointment, a list of           successful  candidates   had  been   prepared  ret           strictly in accordance with Rules 19 and 20 of the           Rules.   Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the           petitioner had to admit that no candidate has been           recommended for  being appointed by the Commission           who had secured less than 40% marks at the written           examination. In  that view  of the matter there is           no scope for an agreement  that the petitioner has           been discriminated in any manner."      The High  Court, with great respect, has tried to avoid the question  which squarely arose Before it. The High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

has observed  that on  the facts and in the circumstances of the present  case there was no necessity for examination the scope of  rule 15  of the Rules as to whether the Commission had to  act according  to the advice of the High Court while fixing the  qualifying marks  at the written examination and that the  said question  would have arisen if the Commission had not acted according to the advice of the High Court. The High Court  has further  observed that  merely  because  the Commission had  interviewed candidates  who had secured less than 40  per cent  marks the appellant would not be entitled to claim  any right  to be selected for the appointment. The High Court  has further  upheld the action of the Commission by observing  that since  the Commission had not recommended any candidate who had secured less than 40 per cent marks at the  written   examination  there   was  no  scope  for  the contention  that   the  appellant   had  been  discriminated against. With 703 great respect, the entire approach adopted by the High Court is  wrong. The Court  should have first decided the question whether the  Commission had  fixed  40  per  cent  marks  as qualifying marks  or 38%   as it is claimed by the appellant and then it should lave proceeded to decide whether the name of the  appellant has  been properly  excluded from the list prepared under  rule 19  of the Rules or not. It is admitted in the  counter-affidavit filed  on behalf of the Commission that the  Commission had fixed 38 per cent as the qualifying marks under  rule 15(a)  of the  Rules  for  the  candidates belonging to  the unreserved  category. Having  fixed 38 per cent as  the qualifying  marks,  it  was  not  open  to  the Commission to  exclude the  name  of  a  candidate  who  had secured 38.8  per cent marks in the written examination only because the  High Court  had earlier recommended that 40 per cent marks  should be  the  qualifying  marks  when  it  was consulted by  the Commission. In the counter-affidavit there is no  reference to  any fresh  fixation of qualifying marks made by  the Commission after it had once taken the decision to fix  38 per  cent marks as the qualifying marks in regard to the  candidates belonging  to the  unreserved category at the 19th  Competitive Judicial  Service Examination. As long as such  fresh determination is not made every candidate who has secured  38 per  cent marks  and above  in  the  written examination would  be entitled  to appear  at the  viva voce test and  to be  included in the list prepared under rule 19 of the  Rules in  the order  of merit  on the  basis of  the aggregate marks  obtained in  the written examination and in the viva  voce test.  The High Court was in error in holding that the Commission had fixed the qualifying marks at 40 per cent merely  because it  had not  included the  names of any candidates who  had secured less than 40 per cent qualifying marks in  the list  list prepared  under rule  19. Such non- inclusion by  itself and  without more  does not amount to a decision made  by the  Commission. The  Commission  did  not actually plead  that it had made any fresh determination. It appears to  be a  new case  made out  by the  High Court  to support the  action of  the Commission which was contrary to its own decision fixing the qualifying marks at 38 per cent.      The acceptance of the view of the High Court would also lead to  the anomalous  result of  prescribing two different qualifying marks  at two  different stages in respect of the same examination.  i.e.  One  for  the  first  batch  of  83 candidates  appearing  in  the  same  examination  who  were appointed on  September 16,  1982 before  any dispute  arose about the  appointments in question and another for the next batch of  38 candidate  whose names  were forwarded  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Governor after the judgement in the Writ Petitions C.W.J.C. 704 No. 1868  of 1983  and C.W.K.C..  NO.  2209  of  1983.  This INCONGRUITY cannot be allowed to remain in existence. It may be that  in fact  there was  no candidate  belonging to  the unreserved category  who had  secured less  than 40 per cent marks in  the written  papers amongst  the first batch of 83 candidates but  what is  relevant is  the standard which was applied when  the said list was prepared. The list must have been  prepared  without  any  doubt  in  the  light  of  the qualifying marks  fixed by the Commission at 38 per cent for the unreserved  category on the basis of which the viva voce test of  all the  candidates belonging  to both  the batches including the  appellant had  been held. That standard could not be  varied when  the next  list was  prepared. The  High Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case.      Having regard  to the  material before  us we hold that the Commission had fixed 38 per cent as the qualifying marks for the unreserved category and had not subsequently altered it. Admittedly  the two  candidates whose  names  are  shown against Serial  Nos. 36  and 37 had secured 415 marks in the aggregate and the  candidate shown against Serial No. 38 had secured 413 marks while the appellant had SECURED 416 marks. The name  of the  appellant   should have,  therefore,  been included in  the list  submitted by  the Commission  to  the Government under rule 19 by placing it above the name of the candidate at  Serial No.  36. By not doing so the Commission had violated  the Rules  and also  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.      The Judgments  of the  High Court is, therefore, liable to be  set aside  and we accordingly set it aside. We direct the Commission,  to submit  to the Government a revised list showing the name of the appellant above Serial No. 36 and we further direct  the State Government to consider the case of the appellant  for appointment  as Munsiff  under rule 19 of the Rules  as if his name had been shown above the candidate whose  name   is  shown   against  Serial   No.36.  On   his appointment,  the   appellant  shall  be  placed  above  the candidate shown  against Serial No. 36 in the seniority list and he  shall be given all increments etc. as if he had been appointment on the date on which the candidate at Serial No. 36 was appointed.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  respondents 1 and 2  are directed  to comply  with  the  above  directions within one  month. The  appellant is  entitled to  the costs which we quantify at Rs. 3,000. M.L.A. 705