The Public Service Commission has the authority to lay down criteria for shortlisting candidates based on the written test performance, and subsequent amendments to the recruitment rules can further justify the Commission's actions.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioners are the appellants. Common question arise in all these cases. We shall deal with the facts in O.P. 22276 of 1997. Kerala Public Service Commission published a notification in the Kerala Gazette dated 4.6.1996 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Gr. II in the Animal Husbandry Department. Petitioners applied for the post notified. They took the written test held on 30.5.1997 along with 487 candidates. After assessing the merits of the candidates in the written test, the Public Service Commission published a short list containing 268 candidates, out of which 211 candidates were included in the main list and 57 candidates were included in the various supplementary lists. Petitioners were not included in any of the lists. Aggrieved by the same these Writ Petitions were preferred seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to include the name of the petitioners also in the short list and to call them for interview for final selection to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Gr. II. Learned Single Judge did not grant any of the reliefs prayed for. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been preferred.

2. Counsel appearing for the appellants Sri. C.P. Sudhakara Prasad as well as Sri. Pirappancode V. Sreedharan Nair submitted that the Public Service Commission has committed a grave error in not including them in the short list. Counsel submitted as a matter of fact, at the time when the written test was conducted 526 vacancies of Veterinary Surgeon Gr. II in the Animal Husbandry Department including the vacancies occupied by the provisional hands were available. Relying upon circular No. 20/86 dated 20.9.1986 counsel submitted when a written test is conducted the number of candidates to be included in the short list should be twice or thrice the number of candidates advised during three previous years. Counsel submitted since only 438 persons were available for recruitment pursuant to Ext. P1 notification, Public Service Commission was duty bound to publish a short list containing all the 438 persons. Counsel submitted since Ext. P5 governed the field at the time when Ext. P1 notification was issued, Public Service Commission has a statutory obligation to conduct the selection on the basis of Ext. P5 circular.

3. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute, AIR 1984 SC 363 counsel contended that the PSC must be rigorously held to be standards by which it professes its action. Counsel also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission, AIR 1990 SC 1233 and contended that the petitioners have got a right to be considered on the basis of the terms and conditions prevailed at the time of the notification. Reference was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Upen Chandra Gogol v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381 and on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417, Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, (1987) 4 SCC 646 and in T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage BD and Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 282.

4. Counsel submitted when a procedure has been laid down by the Public Service Commission they are duty bound to follow the procedure. Any deviation from the said procedure, according to the counsel, would be arbitrary and negation of the rule of law. Counsel further submitted under R.4 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure when a selection is based on written test and interview, the Public Service Commission has to announce its procedure in the notification and the qualifications required of the candidates for the examination and the conditions of admission to the examination. Since Ext. P1 notification is silent with regard to the conduct of examination, counsel submitted,