JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.— Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted in SLP Nos. 12608 and 16418 of 1992.

2. The appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowing a special appeal preferred by the State of Jammu and Kashmir against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein. The matter pertains to approval and publication of the select list of District Munsifs prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission.

3. On May 28, 1984 the High Court intimated the Government of ten vacancies in the category of Munsifs and requested the Government to initiate appropriate steps for selection of candidates. The Government wrote to the Public Service Commission and the latter issued the notification and put the process in motion. Written test was held in the year 1985. Viva voce was also held. At that stage, the High Court requested the Government (with a copy forwarded to the Public Service Commission) to select twenty candidates in the place of ten. This was done on December 10, 1985. The Government, in turn, requested the Public Service Commission on December 27, 1985 to select twenty candidates. On March 11, 1986 the Public Service Commission sent three select lists, one containing twenty candidates, the other containing three Scheduled Castes candidates and a waiting list of ten candidates.

4. From the record placed before us by the learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it appears that the Government received several complaints against the selection process. The Government appears to have been satisfied prima facie with some of those complaints and was toying with the idea of scrapping the entire list and asking for a fresh selection. The select list sent by the Commission was kept pending without being approved as required by Rule 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Meanwhile, the High Court had been pressing for approval of the names in view of a number of vacancies and the consequent accumulation of work. Number of courts were without presiding officers. In particular, the High Court said, there was urgent need for at least thirteen Munsifs. In the circumstances, the Government approved, on December 23, 1986, the names of thirteen persons out of the list recommended by the Public Service Commission and published the same. They were appointed on December 30, 1986. Meanwhile, a writ petition had been filed in the High Court for a direction to the Government to approve and publish the list recommended by the Public Service Commission. On December 30, 1986, the Advocate General for the State stated before the court that the Government has already approved thirteen names and that the question of approval of the remaining persons in the list was under the active consideration of the Government. Recording the said statement, the writ petition was dismissed as settled. The Government, however, did not approve any of the other names in the lists, evidently in view of the very same reasons for which they were disinclined initially to approve the said lists. Meanwhile, the candidates in the select list below serial No. 13 were pressing the Government to approve and publish the list. The High Court was also addressing the Government from time to time to approve the list in view of certain vacancies arising since the appointment of the thirteen Munsifs aforementioned. Since no further names were being approved by the Government, the writ petition, from which these appeals arise, was filed on September 14, 1988. The writ petition was allowed on July 11, 1990 by a learned Single Judge and a direction was issued to the State Government to approve and publish the list of the remaining candidates submitted by the Public Service Commission to it for appointment as Munsifs immediately in accordance with the rules of 1967 and to consider