JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J 1. The two writ petitioners whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge are the appellants in this appeal. They applied for appointment as Assistants under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, in pursuance of Ext. P1 notification dated 27th July 1970, which called for applications for the post. The notification was published in the 'Hindu'. It is enough to notice that one of the qualifications which show the petitioners possessed, which was insisted on, was that the candidates should be graduates. There was no requirement of qualification that graduates should possess a First or Second Class or obtain a minimum number of marks in one or more subjects or parts in the examination. By Ext. P2 circular dated 21st June 1971 the qualifications were revised. Clause (xi) of Ext. P2 notification which is material, may be noticed. "(xi) The prerecruittment test for clerical assistants will be limited to only two papers, viz., English and Arithematic. There shall be no test in General Knowledge. Apart from the above major changes, there are other minor changes and modifications which have to be carefully looked into and observed. The revised recruitment procedure will come into effect immediately. Where, however, advertisements have already been published inviting applications, the terms and conditions set out in such advertisement shall apply." Ext. P3 shows the educational qualifications for the post of Assistants revised as per Ext. P2. According to the revision thus effected, a minimum of 50 per cent marks in the aggregate was insisted upon for graduates who passed the B.Sc. degree examination, and a minimum of 45 per cent in the aggregate was insisted upon for graduates who had passed the B.A. degree examination. In Pursuance of the selection made as a consequence of Ext. P1 notification, a copy of the ranked list which was drawn up has been filed as Ext. P15. The writ petitioners are numbers 97 and 160 in the said list. They were not appointed; and somewhat to their embarrassment and surprise, they found that persons who were junior to them in the rank list Ext. P1 were appointed. They have filed Exts. P5 and P11 as compilations, showing the list of persons junior to them in Ext. P1 who were appointed as Assistants. That these appointments were made as alleged by the petitioners, is admitted in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit. P1 were appointed. They have filed Exts. P5 and P11 as compilations, showing the list of persons junior to them in Ext. P1 who were appointed as Assistants. That these appointments were made as alleged by the petitioners, is admitted in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit. In response to enquiries protesting against these appointments and enquiring why the petitioners were not appointed, the petitioners were intimated by Ext. P8 as follows: "The Central Office has instructed us that only those candidates in the Coimbatore Ranking List of 1971 who possess the minimum educational qualifications as outlined in our Revised Recruitment Procedure need be absorbed in service. In terms of the Revised Recruitment Procedure, the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for recruitment of Assistants 60 per cent marks in S.S.L.C. or 55 per cent marks in Intermediate or 50 per cent marks in B.Sc./45 per cent marks in B.A. Examination. Since you do not possess the minimum educational qualifications, we regret it will not be possible for us to absorb you in the service of the L.I.C." The petitioners filed this writ petition to quash Ext. P8. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly, if not exclusively on the ground that it was an accepted principle that inclusion in a select list confers no title or right to appointment and that no relief can be given in this case without doing violence to Ext. P2 and without violating the settled law that inclusion of the names in the select list will not confer any right for appointment. 2. We cannot agree with the learned Judge. It is one thing to say that inclusion in a list cannot or does not confer a right or title to appointment; but it is a far cry therefrom to state that the appointing authority has the right to pick and choose the persons from the ranked list as it pleases. In the instant cases, it is not the case of the Life Insurance Corporation that they are not honouring, or have not honoured, Ext. P15 list prepared on the basis of Ext. P1. Indeed the petitioners' averments and allegations in regard to Exts. P5 and P11 coupled with paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit field by the L.I.C., establish that from out of the rank list the L.I.C. has chosen to appoint persons who were lower in rank in the list to the petitioners. P15 list prepared on the basis of Ext. P1. Indeed the petitioners' averments and allegations in regard to Exts. P5 and P11 coupled with paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit field by the L.I.C., establish that from out of the rank list the L.I.C. has chosen to appoint persons who were lower in rank in the list to the petitioners. Ext. P5 contains a list of 13 persons who were junior to the 1st petitioner and Ext. P11 contains a list of 4 persons who are junior to the 2nd petitioner. Counsel for the Corporation contended that in the absence of statutory rule or regulation governing the selection, the Corporation was not bound to respect Ext. P15 list. We cannot agree. The selections were made and the rank list was compiled in pursuance of Ext. P1 notification and the representations made to the applicants as to the qualifications and other requirements for recruitment. Having voluntarily chosen to limit their power by the said representation and by Ext. P1 notification, the Life Insurance Corporation cannot be heard to say that they are not bound by the list compiled in pursuance of the said notification. 3. Counsel for the Corporation next contended that the appointments of the persons shown in Ext. P5 and Ext. P11 were made on certain special considerations as they were persons who had left their services in other Departments and adopted for service in the Corporation. It seems to us to make little difference as to the grounds on which the Corporation violated the order in the rank list. Having chosen to compile the list, the Corporation was bound to respect and follow the same. We are not impressed by the reason put forward for the appointment of the juniors of the petitioners shown in Exts. P5 and P11. We cannot sustain the reason given in Ext. P8 for not appointing the writ petitioner. That seems to be clearly opposed to the express statement in Ext. P2 itself that the revised qualification will not operate on the notification already issued regarding the selection. Ext. P1 notification having been already issued selection in pursuance of the same was to remain unaffected by the revised qualification in Ext. P2. 4. That seems to be clearly opposed to the express statement in Ext. P2 itself that the revised qualification will not operate on the notification already issued regarding the selection. Ext. P1 notification having been already issued selection in pursuance of the same was to remain unaffected by the revised qualification in Ext. P2. 4. The learned Judge in the course of his judgment noticed the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander AIR 1973 SC 2216 , Varan Singh v. Union of India 1974 (1) Ser. LR 710, Balak Ram v. State of H.P. 1976 Labour Industrial Cases 1502 and Retnamma v. Public Service Commission 1977 KLT 290 for the proposition that mere inclusion in a list as such confers no title to appointment. The proposition as such is undisputed. The passage quoted by the learned Judge in paragraph 8 of his judgment from AIR 1973 SC 2216 , is, in fact, directly favourable to the writ petitioners. We extract the same passage. "One fails to see how the existence of vacancies gives a legal right to a candidate" to be selected for appointment. The examination is for the purpose of showing that a particular candidate is eligible for consideration. The selection for appointment comes later. It is open then to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The mere fact that a candidate's name appears in the list will not entitle him to a mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the State Government while making the selection for appointment, had departed from the ranking given in the list, there would have been a legitimate grievance on the ground that the State Government had departed from the rules in this respect. The true effect of R.18 in Part C is that if and when the State Government propose to make appointments of Subordinate Judges the State Government (i) shall not make such appointments by travelling outside the list and (ii) shall make the selection for appointments strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the list published in the Government Gazette, In the present case neither of these two requirements is infringed by the Government. They have appointed the first seven persons in the. list as Subordinate Judges. Apart from these constraints "on the power to make the appointments, rule 10 does not impose any other constraint. They have appointed the first seven persons in the. list as Subordinate Judges. Apart from these constraints "on the power to make the appointments, rule 10 does not impose any other constraint. There is no constraint that the Government shall make an appointment of a Subordinate Judge either because there are vacancies or because a list of candidates has been prepared and is in existence." (underlining ours) The principle emphasised by the Supreme Court has highlighted the relevant legal position which is to govern this case. The application of the said principle in the light of the facts and circumstances, must conclude the matter in favour of the petitioners as far as the validity of the order Ext. P8 is concerned. We allow the appeal, and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge. O.P. No. 2608 of 1975 will stand allowed and Ext. P8 order will stand quashed. The writ petitioners would be entitled to be appointed in accordance with Ext. P15 list in their usual chance and turn for appointment, if and when it arises from out of the list, so long as appointments are made from the said list. We make no order as to costs.