JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY Notification No. 20/76, dated 4th December 1976, the Public Service Commission invited applications for recruitment to 33 or more temporary posts of Civil Judges. The relevant qualifications for eligibility, as mentioned in the notification are as follows : " (1) Candidate should be a Graduate in law of any University incorporated by a central Act or an Act of the Legislature of any State in India or of any other University recognised by the State Government or a Barrister at Law or a member of the Faculty of advocates in Scotland or an Advocate or an Attorney duly enrolled in India (2) Experience at the Bar shall be an additional qualification in that weightage will be given for each completed year, subject to the maximum of three years of practice. " Applications were to be made in a prescribed form obtained from the Public service Commission. Along with the application form, printed "general instructions to Candidates" were also supplied. Clause 8 of these instructions reads as follows: "the Commission will make preliminary selection on the basis of the material furnished by the candidates in their applications. The possession of the minimum qualifications prescribed will not automatically entitle a candidate to be called for the test or interview if better qualified candidates are available. "the Commission will reserve the right to place a reasonable limit on the total number of candidates to be called for interview in the light of the number of applications received in proportion to each category of posts advertised. Subsequent to the receipt of applications, and after vetting them, the Commission will determine the criteria (in respect of minimum academic standards, experience etc.) for calling candidates for interview. Consequently the Commission may, where necessary, evolve a criteria higher than the minimum essential qualifications prescribed, in order to impose a reasonable limit on the total number of candidates to be called for interview vis-a-vis the number of post/s advertised. Thus all eligible candidates fulfilling the essential qualifications as per the advertisement cannot claim the right to be necessarily called for interview, and only those candidates satisfying/fulfilling the criteria determined by the Commission will be called for interview. Thus all eligible candidates fulfilling the essential qualifications as per the advertisement cannot claim the right to be necessarily called for interview, and only those candidates satisfying/fulfilling the criteria determined by the Commission will be called for interview. " The summoning of a candidate for interview merely indicates that the Commission think it possible that he, with others, may be suitable for the post and conveys no assurance whatever that he will be selected or recommended. " ( 2. ) IN pursuance of the advertisement, 2367 applications were received by the Commission. The Commission made a preliminary selection for limiting the number of candidates to be called for interview. The Commission laid down certain criteria and candidates fulfilling the said criteria were alone called for interview. Candidates not fulfilling the said criteria were automatically rejected. The relevant order of the Commission laying down the criteria reads as follows : "the Public Service Commission, Madhya Pradesh, have decided that only those who fall within the following categories should be called for interviews for the posts of Civil judges in the Law and Legislative Affairs Department in response to their Advertisement no. 20 of 1976 and Notification dated 20th December 1976 : (1) All those who have passed LL. M. Examination and are otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement. (2) All those who have passed LL. B. Examination in the First Class and are otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement. (3) All those who have passed LL. B. Examination in the Second Class and possess at least years legal experience as practising Lawyers/asstt. Police Prosecutors (Police prosecutors lecturers in Law and are otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement. " ( 3. ) THE petitioner Jayant Kumar Chavhan was one of the candidates who applied in pursuance of the advertisement. The petitioner did not fall in any of the categories mentioned above. The petitioner was, therefore, not called for interview. An intimation was sent to the petitioner on 30th may 1977 informing him that it was not possible to call him for interview as he did not fall within the criteria fixed by the Commission vide paragraph 8 of the General Instructions to Candidates. Similar intimations were sent to other candidates who did not fall within the criteria. Only 839 candidates were called for interview, out of which 729 candidates appeared before the Commission. Similar intimations were sent to other candidates who did not fall within the criteria. Only 839 candidates were called for interview, out of which 729 candidates appeared before the Commission. The Commission consists of a Chairman and three Members. The interviews were held by an Interview Board consisting of the chairman and one of the Members Thirty three candidates were selected for the thirty-three posts. Twenty-five candidates were selected in reserve. The list containing the names of these candidates was signed by the Chairman and the other Member who participated in the interview on 12th August 1977. The list was placed before the remaining two Members on 13th August 1977 who made endorsements on the list as follows: "seen with the remarks that waiting list should not exceed one-third of the main list. " sd/- Ram Bihari Lal "i agree" sd/- O. R. Siddiqui. " the list was published on the notice board of the Commission on 13th august 1977. ( 4. ) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays that the criteria laid down by the Commission for calling candidates for interview should be quashed and the Commission should be directed to call the petitioner for interview. It is further prayed that the entire process adopted by the Commission in calling and interviewing the candidates be quashed. ( 5. ) THE petitioner himself argued his case before us. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that all the candidates who fulfilled the qualifications as mentioned in the notification ought to have been called for interview and that the Commission was not entitled to make a preliminary selection by laying down further conditions for being called for interview. ( 6. ) THE recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of a State is dealt with in Article 234 of the Constitution. This article provides that appointments of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial service of State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the state Public Service Commission and the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. In the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, were made. In the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, were made. After the formation of the new State of madhya Pradesh by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, these rules were not extended to the areas covered by the erstwhile States of Madhya Bharat, vindya Pradesh and Bhopal, which came to be included in the new State along with the Mahakoshal Region of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. In the absence of extension of these rules to the whole of the new State of madhya Pradesh, the rules remain in force only in the Mahakoshal Region under section 119 of the Act: [see P. H. Mawle v. State of A. P. ( AIR 1965 SC 1827 )]. This limited applicability of the rules is of no practical utility as there cannot be a judicial service for the Mahakoshal Region separately. The rules have thus become unworkable. No rules have been made in the new State under article 234 of the Constitution for recruitment of persons to the judicial service of the State. However, by executive instructions the new State has adopted the aforesaid rules of 1955 as a guide for recruitment to the judicial service of the State. The legality of this course was unsuccessfully challenged in Anant Kumar v. State of M. P. (1975 MPLJ 614) It was held in that case that it was open to the State Government to adopt the defunct rules in modified form in exercise of its executive powers even though no action had been taken for extending those rules to other regions of the new State. It is for this reason that the said rules are referred to in the advertisement issued by the Commission inviting applications. ( 7. ) RULE 21 (1) of the rules says that the Commission shall consider all the applications received and shall interview such candidates as it may consider suitable for appointment. We have earlier referred to clause 8 of the General Instructions to Candidates which provides for preliminary selection on the basis of material furnished by the candidates in their applications. ) RULE 21 (1) of the rules says that the Commission shall consider all the applications received and shall interview such candidates as it may consider suitable for appointment. We have earlier referred to clause 8 of the General Instructions to Candidates which provides for preliminary selection on the basis of material furnished by the candidates in their applications. By this provision, the Commission reserves the right to place a reasonable limit on the total number of candidates to be called for interview in the light of the number of applications received by determining the criteria in respect of minimum academic standards, experience etc. for calling the candidates for interview. Rule 21 referred to above does not require that all applicants, who fulfil the minimum qualifications for appointment, should be called for interview. The rule only requires that the Commission shall interview such candidates as it may consider suitable for appointment. This postulates a preliminary selection of the candidates so as to limit the number of candidates for being called for interview. Clause 8 of the General instructions thus is in line with rule 21. The petitioner contends that the procedure contemplated by clause 8 is not legal. In our opinion, there is no merit in this contention. It will make the task of the Commission extremely difficult, if not impossible, if all the candidates are to be called for interview. The Commission may then have to spend years before interviews are over. The procedure adopted by the Commission to make a preliminary selection for restricting the number of candidates to be called for interview is the only practical method for completing the selection within a reasonable time. If the criteria laid down by the Commission for calling candidates for interview are reasonable, no objection can be taken to the course adopted. Indeed, this point is covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Omprakash v. State of M. P. ( 1978 MPLJ 136 .) where it was observed as follows : "once the Public Service Commission is asked by the Government to make a selection, it is entirely in the wisdom and discretion of the Commission what mode or method it would adopt. This is subject to statutory provisions, if any. This is subject to statutory provisions, if any. Where minimum qualifications for eligibility are prescribed by a statute or by the Government, the Public Service Commission cannot select a candidate who does not possess those qualifications. However, the public Service Commission is free to screen the applicants, classify them in various categories according to their plus qualifications and/or experience. and call for interview only those candidates who fall within those categories, eliminating others who do not satisfy those criteria. Such classification does not tantamount to any hostile discrimination. Practicability may also require such categorisation. For instance, if for three posts there are 3000 applicants, all eligible, the Commission cannot afford to spend months together in selecting three out of 3000. " ( 8. ) THE petitioner next contended that there was hostile discrimination in not calling him for interview. We have already extracted the criteria adopted by the Commission in screening the candidates for being called for interview. The Commission decided not to call for interview candidates holding only LL. B. degree in II Division. The Commission required that such candidates should have one years experience in the field of law to enable them to be called for interview. The criteria appear to us to be reasonable having regard to the large number of applications and the object of selecting suitable candidates to the judicial service within a reasonable time. As the criteria adopted were reasonable, it cannot be said that there was any hostile discrimination infringing the right of the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon State of Mysore v. S. R. Javaram ( AIR 1968 SC 346 ) and State of Punjab v. Khan Chand ( AIR 1974 SC 543 ). These cases, which deal with infringement of Article 14, have no application here. As earlier pointed out by us, the duty of making selection is laid on the Commission and in exercise of its duty and from the point of view of practicability, it is open to the Commission to lay down criteria for preliminary selection. The power of the Commission is not unrestricted or unrestrained. The Commission has to lay down the criteria for preliminary selection having regard to the object of selecting best persons for the judicial service within a reasonable time. As already seen, the criteria which the Commission laid down for preliminary selection are reasonable. The power of the Commission is not unrestricted or unrestrained. The Commission has to lay down the criteria for preliminary selection having regard to the object of selecting best persons for the judicial service within a reasonable time. As already seen, the criteria which the Commission laid down for preliminary selection are reasonable. The petitioner did not fulfil the criteria for being called for interview and was thus rejected in the preliminary selection. In our opinion, the petitioner cannot make any grievance of hostile discrimination by the course adopted by the Commission. ( 9. ) THE petitioner further submitted that the letters of rejection were issued by the Commission on 13th May 1977 although the criteria for preliminary selection was laid down on 17th May 1975. It is argued that this shows that the rejection proceeded on arbitrari grounds without reference to the criteria which were later settled by the Commission. The petitioner has not placed before us the letter of rejection received by him. He has referred to annexure A-4, which is a letter of rejection sent to another candidate, namely, ramchandra V. Vinchurkar. This letter appears to have been issued on 13th may 1977. We were shown the original record by the learned Advocate general appearing for the respondents at the time of hearing. The criteria were settled much earlier on 9th May 1977 and the formal order embodying them was issued on 17th May 1977. It cannot, therefore, be said that the screening was done much before the criteria were settled. ( 10. ) THE petitioner then contended that administrative instructions issued by the Commission in settling the criteria cannot modify the statutory rules relating to recruitment. The petitioner relied upon State of Haryana v. Sham-sher jang ( AIR 1972 SC 1546 . ). There can be no dispute with the proposition that statutory rules cannot be modified by administrative instructions. In the instant case, however, the argument is wholly inappropriate. To begin with, there are no statutory rules relating to recruitment to the judicial service. The Government had only issued executive instructions adopting the defunct 1955 Rules to serve as a guide for making recruitment to the judicial service. Further, as earlier pointed out by us, Rule 21 of the rules itself contemplates that all applicants would not be called for interview and that the Commission will have the choice of making a preliminary selection. The Government had only issued executive instructions adopting the defunct 1955 Rules to serve as a guide for making recruitment to the judicial service. Further, as earlier pointed out by us, Rule 21 of the rules itself contemplates that all applicants would not be called for interview and that the Commission will have the choice of making a preliminary selection. Clause 8 of the General Instructions to candidates issued by the Commission is in line with Rule 21 and it cannot be said that the Commission contravened any statutory provision in following the course indicated in clause 8 by making a preliminary selection. ( 11. ) THE next contention of the petitioner is that the Chairman and all the Members of the Public Service Commission did not interview the candidates and, therefore, the selection made by the Commission is invalid. The petitioner relied upon a Division Bench case of this Court, Adarsh Kumari Bharti v. K. N. Sinha and others ( 1978 MPLJ 223 ) In that case, the selection was made only by the Chairman. On the basis of the stand taken in the return, it was observed in that case that the selection by the Chairman alone was not under the delegated function conferred on him by the Commission by any rule, regulation or otherwise. It was further observed that the selection by the Chairman was not proved to have been approved by the other Members of the Commission. The finding on this point was that the list of selected candidates was published on the notice board and then sent to the other Members for information. On these findings, the selection made by the Chairman was held to be invalid. ( 12. ) IN the instant case, in the return filed on behalf of the Commission, it is stated that there has been a convention prevailing in the Commission since its inception that the Chairman of the Commission constitutes the Interview boards and, after the interview, list of selected candidates is put before all the members of the Commission for consideration and after their concurrence, the list is published. It is also stated that the aforesaid practice is prevailing in the Union Public Service Commission and also in various other State Public service Commissions. It is also stated that the aforesaid practice is prevailing in the Union Public Service Commission and also in various other State Public service Commissions. It is true that there is no statutory rule or regulation or any resolution of the Commission assigning the power of nominating Interview boards to the Chairman, yet, when by a long-standing convention the Chairman constitutes Interview Boards, it must be held that such a power has been conferred on him by implied consent of all the Members of the Commission. Had it not been so, the Members of the Commission would have raised objection to the constitution of Interview Boards by the Chairman. The long-standing convention proceeding upon implied consent of all concerned has the same force as if the Commission by a resolution had assigned the function of constituting interview Boards to the Chairman. In Kumari Bhartis case (supra), no such convention was pleaded in the return and that is an important distinguishing feature. Further, in the instant case, the list of selected candidates was settled by the Chairman Shri K. N. Sinha and the Member Shri B C. Kaabra who constituted the Interview Board, on 12th August 1977. The list was then placed before the remaining two Members, namely, Shri Ram Bihari Lal and Shri o. R. Siddiqui. Shri Ram Bihari Lal made the following endorsement: "seen with the remarks that waiting list should not exceed one-third of the main list. " shri Siddiqui made the endorsement "i agree". Both the members made these endorsements on 13th August 1977 and thereafter the list was published on the notice board. From the endorsements referred to above, it is clear to us that shri Ram Bihari Lal and Shri O. R. Siddiqui approved the list of selected candidates settled by the Chairman and Shri B. C. Kaabra. The endorsement of shri Siddiqui is very clear that he agreed. From the endorsements referred to above, it is clear to us that shri Ram Bihari Lal and Shri O. R. Siddiqui approved the list of selected candidates settled by the Chairman and Shri B. C. Kaabra. The endorsement of shri Siddiqui is very clear that he agreed. The endorsement made by Shri ram Bihari Lal begins with the word "seen", but read in the light of other words used by him, it is clear that he too agreed with the list of selected candidates subject to the reservation that the list of waiting candidates should not exceed one-third of the selected candidates We are, therefore, of opinion that the list of selected candidates published by the Commission is the list approved by the Commission as a whole and not only by the Chairman and one of the members. In Kumari Bhartis case (supra), the learned Judges did not accept that the list prepared by the Chairman was assented to by the other Members. One of the reasons for reaching this conclusion was that the list prepared by the Chairman was published before being sent to the Members. The second reason was that the Members had made the endorsement "seen" which meant that they had only received information of the preparation of the list. As earlier pointed out by us, in the instant case, the endorsements made by the members are unambiguous to show that they had assented to the list prepared by the Chairman and Shri Kaabra. The list prepared was, therefore, the list approved by the Commission as a whole. This is also an important feature which distinguishes Kumari Bhartis case. For these reasons, Kumari Bhartis case has no application here. ( 13. ) THE Public Service Commission is constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution. The functions of the Commission are enumerated in Article 320. The list prepared was, therefore, the list approved by the Commission as a whole. This is also an important feature which distinguishes Kumari Bhartis case. For these reasons, Kumari Bhartis case has no application here. ( 13. ) THE Public Service Commission is constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution. The functions of the Commission are enumerated in Article 320. Additional functions can be conferred on the Commission by an Act of the Legislature under Article 321 Having regard to the variety of functions which the Commission has to perform, it would be well nigh impossible for the Commission to perform its functions unless the power of making an internal arrangement of assigning its functions to one or more of its members is conceded to it, The power conferred on the Commission must be deemed to necessarily carry with it the power to regulate the manner in which the commission should discharge its functions. In exercise of this power, the commission can, by convention, practice or resolution, assign its functions to the Chairman and/or one or more of its Members. Without such implied power, the performance of the functions conferred on the Commission will be impeded and will frustrate the object for which the Commission is constituted. In our opinion, it is impossible to accept the contention that the Chairman and all the Members of the Commission must in every case sit to interview candidates and that the function of holding interviews cannot be assigned to an Interview board consisting of the Chairman and one of its Members. It is well settled principle of construction of the Constitution that the Court must adopt that construction which will ensure harmonious working of the Constitution and eschew any other construction which will lead to practical inconvenience: [ Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1966 SC 1987 , P. 1993)] The Supreme Court has applied the same principle in construing Article 235 of the Constitution which vests the control of the judiciary in the High Court: [see State of U. P. v. Batuk Deo mati Tripathi ( (1978)2 SC C 102.)]. In that case, it was held that all the Judges of the High court need not always sit to discharge the administrative function entrusted to the Court under Article 235 and that the Court can assign that function to a Committee of Judges. In that case, it was held that all the Judges of the High court need not always sit to discharge the administrative function entrusted to the Court under Article 235 and that the Court can assign that function to a Committee of Judges. It was further observed that the authority to confer that function on a Committee of Judges is within Article 235 itself as without it the power of control conferred on the High Court by that Article would be frustrated. The same principle applies in the instant case. As pointed out by us, the Commission has ample power to regulate its business and to constitute interview Boards for Interviewing candidates. We have already stated that by long-standing convention, which implies the assent of all the Members, the power to constitute Interview Boards has been conferred on the Chairman. Interviews held by such a Board must be held to be valid, more so when the list finalised by the Interview Board is assented to by the other Members as happened in the instant case. ( 14. ) THE learned Advocate General submitted before us that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the selected candidates have not been impleaded. The objection of non-joinder of the selected candidates was raised in the return. In spite of the objection, the petitioner did not take care to amend the petition to implead the selected candidates. Only four of the selected candidates have appeared before us as interveners. If the petitioner is given the relief prayed for in the petition that the entire process of selection was invalid and void, the selected candidates are bound to be affected. They are, therefore, necessary parties. The petitioner submitted that even after selection the selected candidates do not get a right as the Government has a discretion not to appoint them. It is true that merely by selection made by the Public Service Commission a candidate cannot claim any right to the post for which he is selected. The Commission has only an advisory function to perform. It is true that merely by selection made by the Public Service Commission a candidate cannot claim any right to the post for which he is selected. The Commission has only an advisory function to perform. However, when the petitioner challenges the process of selection and prays that the entire selection should be quashed, it is obvious that if the petition is allowed the selected candidates will be adversely affected as the advantage gained by them in the selection over the petitioner and other candidates who were rejected by the Commission would be wiped out. In our opinion, therefore, their joinder as parties in the petition was necessary before the petitioner could be granted any relief. The view taken by us is supported by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chief Personnel Officer, E Rly. v. Pranab Kumar (1978 Lab. I. C. 223. ). In that case, it was held that when the petitioner prays for cancellation of a panel selected by the Selection Board, the persons selected are necessary parties and in their absence the petition is bad for non-joinder. We need not, however, pursue this matter any further as, in our opinion, the petition is also devoid of any substance on merits. ( 15. ) SHRI Chapekar, who appeared for one of the interveners, submitted that if the preliminary selection by the Commission in which the petitioner was rejected is good, the petitioner cannot object to the selection of the candidates made by the Interview Board and that so far as that selection is concerned, only the persons who were called for interview can raise objections. There appears to be great force in this submission. The petitioner was rejected in the preliminary selection. He, therefore, lost the right of appearing at the interview. The selection by the Interview Board was limited to the candidates who fulfilled the criteria laid down by the Commission. As the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria, he could have no grievance even if there was any irregularity in the interview. Any objection to the mode of conducting the interview can be raised only by a person who could be called for interview. However, as we are rejecting the petition on merits, we need not say anything further on this point. ( 16. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. Any objection to the mode of conducting the interview can be raised only by a person who could be called for interview. However, as we are rejecting the petition on merits, we need not say anything further on this point. ( 16. ) THE petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Petition dismissed.