JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2. ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : by a notification published in the Madhya Pradesh Government Gazette dated 18th August 1978, the Public Service Commission Madhya Pradesh, invited applications for appointment to the posts of Civil Judges. The petitioner-was one of the candidates who had applied for these posts. By another notification dated 1st January 1979, the Public Service Commission declared that as the number of candidates who had applied for these posts was very large, a written test, as a preliminary or screening test, would be conducted to judge the suitability of candidates to be called for interview. It was further notified that for the written test there shall be one question paper to test the general knowledge and the knowledge in legal subjects of a candidate. The petitioner appeared for the written test and was thereafter invited for inter-view. The result of the selection was declared by the Public Service Commis-sion on 17th May 1979, and as the petitioners name was not included in the list of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission, he has filed this petition praying that the selection made by the Public Service Commis-sion be quashed. ( 3. ) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that by selecting candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test and at the interview, the Public Service Commission has acted illegally and in violation of the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that he was confident that if marks obtained at the interview would have been the sole criterion for selection, the petitioner would have been selected. Though in the petition it was averred that the new State of Madhya Pradesh had, by executive instructions, adopted the M. P. Judicial Service (Classifica-tion, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,|1955,and that recruitment to the judicial service of the State had to be done as provided by these rules, at the time of arguments, Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as no rules were framed under Article 234 of the Constitution, appointments to Judicial Service of the State could not be validly made. ( 4. ( 4. ) ON notice being issued to the State to show cause why the petition should not be admitted, Shri Joshi, learned Government Advocate, stated that appointments to the Judicial Service of the State were made in accord-ance with the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condi-tions of Service) Rules, 1955, that the validity of this procedure has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Jayant Kumar v. Pub. Ser. Com. v m. P. 1, that the written test was prescribed by the Public Service Commis-sion in consultation with the High Court, and that the petitioner had miser-ably failed at the interview and hence he could not be selected. In reply, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was really concerned with the vindication of a principle and, as such, the fact of his having failed at the interview, as alleged by the State, was not of much consequence. ( 5. ) NOW, the question as to whether, in absence of statutory rules under article 234 of the Constitution, appointments could be validly made to the judicial Service of the State has been considered by two Division Benches of this Court. In Jayant Kumar v. Pub. Ser. Com. , M. P. {supra), while consi-dering the validity of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, it was observed as follows :- "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 areas covered by the erstwhile States of Madhya Bharat, vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal, which came to be included in the new state along with the Maha Koshal 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. , 1978 MPLJ 184. , AIR 1965 sc 1827 .) This limited applicability of the rules is of no practical utility as there cannot be a judicial service for the Maha-koshal Region separately. The rules have thus become unworkable. , AIR 1965 sc 1827 .) This limited applicability of the rules is of no practical utility as there cannot be a judicial service for the Maha-koshal Region separately. The rules have thus become unworkable. No rules have been made in the new State under Article 234 of the Consti-tution for recruitment of persons to the judicial service of the State. How-ever, 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 624 . It was held in that case that it was open to the State government to adopt the defunct rules in the modified form in exercise of its executive powers even though no action had been taken for extend-ing these rules to other regions of the new State. " In Anant Kumar v. State of M. P. , the decision referred to in Jayant Kumar v. Pub. Ser. Com. , M. P. , another Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:- "what the Government did was to adopt the Madhya Pradesh Judicial services Rules, 1955, and that was done in consultation with the High court and the Public Service Commission. Consequently we do not find any flaw in the matter of adaption of those rules in exercise of executive powers as conferred by Article 162 of the Constitution and appointments could be made by the Governor through the medium of the Public Service commission as the said action of the Governor had approval of the High court and the Public Service Commission. " In the view of the aforesaid decisions, with which we respectfully agree, the contention that appointments to the Judicial Service of the State could not be made in absence of statutory rules under Article 234 of the Constitution is untenable. In point of fact, the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the aforesaid rules and, on the contrary, averred in paragraph 12 of the petition that recruitment to Judicial Service of the State under Article 234 of the Constitution had to follow and abide by the rules of 1955. ( 6. ) IT was then contended that the holding of a written test was contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid rules. ( 6. ) IT was then contended that the holding of a written test was contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid rules. Now, rule 21 (i) of the rules reads as under:- "the commission shall consider all the applications received and shall interview such candidates as it may consider suitable for appointment. Candidates will have to appear for interview before the Commission at their own expenses. " As stated at the Bar on behalf of the State, the written test was prescribed after consultation with the High Court. The implication of rule 21 (i) of the rules came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in jayant Kumar v. Public Service Commission, M. P. , where it has been observed as follows: "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 postu-lates 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 selec-tion within a reasonable time. If the criteria laid down by the Commis-sion 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. Stale 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. 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. Where minimum qualifications for eligibi-lity 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 qualification does not tanta-mount 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. " We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in prescribing the written test, the Public Service commission did not act contrary to the provisions of the rules. ( 7. ) IT was then contended that the selection of candidates on the basis of marks obtained at the written test and at the interview was illegal inasmuch as a Judge of this Court was associated with the process of selection only at the time of interview, and hence selection on the basis of the interview alone would be in conformity with the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution. Now, the presence of a Judge at the time of interview was in pursuance of the provisions of rule 21 (2) of the Rules which reads as follows : "the Government may if it thinks fit appoint a Judge of the High court to be present at the interview. The Judge so appointed shall advice the Commission on all points on which the Commission may require his advice, but he shall not be responsible for selection of the candidates. " The presence of a Judge of this Court at the time of interview is not tanta-mount to consultation with the High Court as envisaged by Article 234 of the Constitution. " The presence of a Judge of this Court at the time of interview is not tanta-mount to consultation with the High Court as envisaged by Article 234 of the Constitution. As held by this Court in Anant Kumar v. State of M. P. , what is necessary under Article 234 of the Constitution is consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission in the matter of framing rules for recruitment and not that each appointment should be the subject-matter of consultation with the High Court. It has been further held in that decision that as envisaged by Article 234 of the Constitution, the afore-said rules were adopted by the Government, after the formation of the new state of Madhya Pradesh, in consultation with the High Court. Moreover, as stated at the Bar by the learned Government Advocate, the written test was also prescribed in consultation with the High Court. As regards mode or method of selection by the Public Service Commission, in the absence of any allegation of mala fide or contravention of any statutory provisions, the matter is entirely in the wisdom and discretion of the Public Service Commis-sion, as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Omprakash v. State of M. P. No rule or provision of law has been brought to our notice which can be said to have been contravened by the Public Service Commission in making its selection. The petitioner has not alleged that any action of the Public Service commission was mala fide. In these circumstances, it must be held that the petitioner has failed to show that the selection of candidates by the Public service Commission was illegal. The questions sought to be raised by the petitioner have already been decided by this Court in its earlier decisions. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. ( 8. ) FOR all Jhese reasons, the petition fails and is summarily dismissed. Petition summarily dismissed.