The court emphasized that judicial review is intended to protect against abuse of power and is not concerned with the correctness or wisdom of the policy or the exercise of management powers. The decision-making process, not the decision itself, is the focus of judicial review.

1. The Kerala Public Service Commission (the "Commission)" is the appellant. By a common judgment in O. P. Nos. 8652 of 1984 and 10575 of 1984, the learned judge held that the reasons stated by the Commision for the cancellation of the ranked list dated 5-3-1983 by publication of a subsequent ranked list dated 7-6-1985 was not 'correct'. The learned judge directed the Commission to treat the earlier ranked list as valid until the completion of three years from the date of its publication, namely, 5-3-1983.

2. The petitioners in the two Original Petitions (the contesting respondents) were persons who had been placed on the first ranked list, but who could not be appointed to the existing vacancies as their ranks were relatively low. On 7-6-1985, the second list was published pursuant to a notification of the Commission dated 3-5-1983. With the publication of the second list, the original list stood cancelled. This is because R.13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure provides to that effect.

3. One of the principal contentions of the petitioners before the learned judge was that the Commission acted arbitrarily when it issued a notification on 3-5-1983 calling for fresh applications within two months after the publication of the first ranked list. It was contended that, in view of that notification, fresh applications were received by the Commission at a time when persons already placed on the earlier list were on the point of becoming overaged for the purpose of making fresh applications as per the second notification. The petitioners pointed out that until the persons on the existing list were fully absorbed, it would be totally irrational to call for fresh applications by means of the subsequent notification.

4. It was also contended that R.13 in terms of which the notification and the list were published was arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore invalid. This contention was considered and rejected by the learned Judge. He upheld the validity of the Rule. That contention is no longer available to the present contesting respondents, for they have not challenged that finding. Their counsel Shri. Joseph fairly admits that the validity of R.13 is no longer in doubt,

5. The learned judge, however, held that the reasons stated for the publication of the second list on 7-6-1985 pursuant to the notification of 3-5-1983 were not "correct" in so far as it was unnecessary to publish the same on the ground relied on by the Commission. The contention of the Commission before the learned judge was that, in view of the fact that a number of persons who had not been placed in the first ranked list were on the point of crossing the maximum age to apply for the post, it was thought necessary and reasonable that a notification followed by a fresh list should be published before they became overaged. The learned judge held that that purpose could be equally well served by a mere notification calling for applications, but a new list pursuant to the notification was uncalled for to subserve that purpose. The learned judge, therefore, found that while it was open to the Commission to issue a notification calling for fresh applications and entertain the applications received in response to it, those applications ought to be kept in cold storage until the expiry of three years during which R.13 permitted the existing list to operate.

6. The respondents' counsel Shri. Joseph admits that R.13 is perfectly valid, but, according to him, publication of the list, although in terms of the Rule, is arbitrary in so far as persons on the cancelled list, who have crossed the age limit, are denied an opportunity to be considered for appointment.

The appellant's counsel, Shri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, contends that there is no whisper in the Original Petitions to the effect that the publication of the second list was as such arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. The only contention was that the notification calling for applications was