The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to give up the waiting list was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates of the Combined Lower Subordinate examination, 1998, held by U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad challenge office memorandum dated 15th November, 1999 issued by Secretary, Karmik Anubhag-4, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, issuing direction to give up preparation of waiting list and reshuffling, in all the selections to be made by U. P. Public Service Commission, except where there is single post in the cadre.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, for petitioners Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for U. P. Public Service Commission, as well as learned standing counsel for state Government.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are, that an advertisement No. A-2/e-1/98-99 was issued on 6th September, 1998 for holding Combined Lower Subordinate State Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1998. The petitioners, who are eligible and qualified, applied and appeared in the examination. They were found successful in preliminary examination allowed to appear in the main examination and were declared to have qualified. Interviews were held between 1. 11. 1999 to 4. 12. 1999. During this period, while the interviews were in progress, the impugned office memorandum was issued to give up preparation of waiting list. A select list equal to the number of posts requisitioned by State Government from U. P. Public Service commission, was declared on 19. 12. 1999. A corrigendum was declared, amending the list on 26. 6. 2000 and recommendations were sent to the State Government on the same day.

( 4 ) IT is submitted that a number of selected candidates did not join, on account of which equal number of vacancies remained unfilled, during the year of selection and that in case a waiting list was prepared, the petitioners had a fair chance to be considered for recommendation and appointment against the vacant posts, left to be filled up for the next selection, which has not been held so far. These vacancies were required to be filled up in the year of selection and that all candidates should have been given a fair opportunity to be considered for appointment. The purpose of waiting list is to fill-up the vacancies in the event the selected candidates did not join. There is no object or purpose to be achieved in allowing the vacancies to be carried forward to next selection and that on these grounds, the office memorandum dated 15th November, 1999, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) SRI B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Commission, submits that Commission does not initiate action suo motu with regard to the sending names of substitutes by reshuffling. It only recommends on receipt of proposals from State Government by sending names of candidates on the basis of combined examination for vacancies which are forwarded by the State Government. The State Government has neither informed the Commission with regard to such vacancies nor demanded substituted candidates. The State Government has stopped the process of preparation of waiting list and reshuffling through office memorandum dated 15. 11. 1999. In Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 36512 of 2001. Petitioner Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were not selected. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 found their places in the final result but after manual checking, it was found that some candidates were not allotted their due position and thus a revised list was declared on 24. 6. 2000 in which petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not declared successful. Petitioner No. 2 has also filed a civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29477 of 2000 in which counter-affidavit has been filed.

( 6 ) LEARNED standing counsel defended the impugned office memorandum dated 15th November, 1999 for the reasons stated in the counter-affidavit of Sri D. K. Verma, Special Secretary, Karmik vibhag, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of this counter-affidavit, it has bee