JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for issuing writ of Mandamus, directing non-petitioner No. 2 to hold the petitioners to be validly recruited linemen and quash the selection of non-petitioners No. 4 to 23, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the constitution of India. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioners and the non-petitioners No. 2 to 23 are employees of Post and Telegraph Department in the office of Divisional Engineer, Gwalior Division. The petitioners and non-petitioners No. 4 to 23 are employed as Mazdoors on workcharge basis. Non-petitioner No. 2 is the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Gwalior Division and non-petitioner No. 3 is the General Manager, Tele-Communications for the Madhya Pradesh, at Bhopal. It is alleged that the linemen are recruited from amongst the Mazdoors employed as workcharge basis who have completed service of 365 days. The provision of recruitment of linemen is provided in Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV, Chapter V, rules 466 and 467. They are as under :-"466. (a) Linemen are on scales of pay varying according to localities. They belong to the superior pensionable establishment. (b) In recruiting lineman from other than departmental sources the rules in force at the time for the redress of communal inequalities and for the local recruitment of candidates should be strictly followed. (c) Candidates will be selected on the basis of existing vacancies or those expected to occur within six months. Selected candidates will be required to undergo a course of training in a special class, during which period they will be designated as "lineman-Learners. " (d) All candidates must be able to read and write their Local indian language sufficiently well to be able to maintain a simple account of their expenditure on behalf of the Department and they should also be able to enter the amounts of such expenditure in English figures. (e) All candidates will be required to pass a physical test and medical examination before they can be appointed as linemen-learners and put under special training Medical Officers should certify that the candidates possesses a good physique, if fit to undertake arduous outdoor duties and is free from any organic disease. 467. (e) All candidates will be required to pass a physical test and medical examination before they can be appointed as linemen-learners and put under special training Medical Officers should certify that the candidates possesses a good physique, if fit to undertake arduous outdoor duties and is free from any organic disease. 467. Recruitment of line-learners should be made from the following sources:- (I) Head Mazdoors- (a) Head Mazdoors of the Engineering Sub-Division who have been employed at the daily rates admissible to them in construction parties, have had considerable experience of line work whether overhead and/or cables, for a period of not less than one year and whose age does not exceed 25 years on the 1st January of the year of recruitment will be eligible for selection for training in the lineman learners class. (b) He must not be less than 18 years and not more than 21 years of age on the 1st July of the year of recruitment. Exception I-For Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the upper age limit is enhanced by 5 years. (b) Sub-Divisional Officers will, for the purpose of making the selections, maintain a register in which should be shown the specific works on which head Mazdoors have been employed and the history of each head Mazdoor, his qualifications, the recommendations of his immediate superiors such as Sub-Inspectors and Engineering Supervisors and observations of the man made after personal interview and examination by the Sub-Divisional Officer. These entries should be regularly made and the register should be inspected by Divisional engineers, during their annual inspections of Sub-Divisional Offices. (c) When admitted to the linemen-learners class such head Mazdoors will be given an allowance of Rs. 25 per month for the duration of the class. *** *** *** ***" it is also alleged that they are given training for lineman learners. The director General, Post and Telegraphs, issued a letter No. 25. 3/71 NCC dated 23-10-1979, for recruitment and selection of cadre of linemen which is annexed and marked as Annexure A-1 with the petition. The vacancies of linemen were to be filled and the non-petitioner No. 2 issued memo on 15-2-1980 (Annexure A-2) and declared the members of the Departmental promotion Committee, nominated by non-petitioner No. 3 for selection of candidates as lineman and fixed 5th and 6th of March, 1980 for its meeting. ( 3. The vacancies of linemen were to be filled and the non-petitioner No. 2 issued memo on 15-2-1980 (Annexure A-2) and declared the members of the Departmental promotion Committee, nominated by non-petitioner No. 3 for selection of candidates as lineman and fixed 5th and 6th of March, 1980 for its meeting. ( 3. ) THERE were about 34 vacancies for different categories to be filled and non-petitioner No. 2 prepared the list of candidates who applied for the post of Lineman and were found to be eligible for the said posts. The dates of written examination were fixed as 19th and 20th of March, 1980 and non-petitioner No. 2 issued a list of candidates who were to appear in the test and also they were to bring with them proof of age and certificate of being a candidate of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, wherever applicable and also a record of days, he has worked in the Department. Non-petitioner No. 3 prepared a list of candidates for selection to the post of linemen, who were eligible to appear in the test. After the test was over, non-petitioner No. 3 issued a list of the selected candidates on 16th April, 1980. A list of selected candidates is annexed with the petition which is Annexure A-5. ( 4. ) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that non-petitioner No. 2 without assigning any reason, issued a revised list of the candidates on 20-6-1980 (Annexure A-6) and the names of the petitioners and some others, who were formerly selected, were dropped from the subsequent list. The petitioners approached non-petitioner No. 3 to ascertain as to what was the reason for revising the original list and also what was the reason for which their names were delisted. The petitioners who were selected in the first list, were required to produce certain certificates and were also required to get themselves medically examined. In revising the list and delisting the names of the petitioners, it is alleged that the non-petitioner No. 3 has acted arbitrarily and he had no authority in law or under any rule for revising the list of selected candidates and as such the action of non-petitioner no. 3 is illegal, void, arbitrary and against the provisions of Constitution of India. ( 5. 3 is illegal, void, arbitrary and against the provisions of Constitution of India. ( 5. ) THE return, filed on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 says that the petitioners were employees of non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 on daily wages as Mazdoors and were not working on workcharge basis. The applicability of the said Rules 466 and 467 is not disputed. As to the grievance of the list prepared and delisting, the return says that para 6 of the petition is correct, but the selection list prepared by non-petitioner No. 2 is subject to revision by non-petitioner No. 3 in case of any irregularity or complaint. The said list prepared by non-petitioner No. 2 which is not yet approved by non-petitioner No. 3 does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners have no case to challenge the revision of the list. It is further stated that after due consideration of candidates, non-petitioner No. 3 selected the most suitable persons, looking to the merits and experience of the persons concerned and there is no mala fide or prejudice in it. As to the issuance of the revised list, it is submitted in the return that the revised list can be issued because the earlier selection list was subject to the approval of non-petitioner No. 3 and as such and former list was not final and the revised list after getting the approval became the final list. The revision of the list was insisted by the non-petitioner No. 3 because there were some complaints about the selection list prepared in the beginning. It was further submitted that Article 16 of the Constitution of india is not at all applicable and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned counsel I am of the view that from the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners and non-petitioners, it is not clear as to why there was a revision of the list. If there was any revision of the list, as submitted in the return, filed on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, then at least there should have been some indication to show as to why the names of the petitioners were delisted. If there was any revision of the list, as submitted in the return, filed on behalf of non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, then at least there should have been some indication to show as to why the names of the petitioners were delisted. There is no reason shown as to why these persons were not selected even though they had all the qualifications for being considered for the post of lineman. There is clear violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of india, as far as the petitioners are concerned, as laid down in Banarusi dass and Ors. v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1956 SC 520 . It is laid down in this judgment: "article 16 is an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 with special reference to the opportunity for employment and appointment under the State. Like all other employers the Government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment under the Government. " But even though, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question is as to why the petitioners, name were delisted after they were selected for the post, is not clear from the record produced in file. At least, the petitioners have right to know as to why their names were delisted once they were selected. ( 7. ) THE result, therefore, is that the petition is allowed and non-petitioner No. 3 is directed to consider the cases of the petitioners again and give reasons as to why he feels that the petitioners should not be included in the selection list for the post of Lineman. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed.