JUDGMENT N.P. SINGH, J. 1. These applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent–State to consider them for appointment to the posts of Munsifs in the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Petitioners of writ applications, C.W.J.C. No. 1617 of 1983 and C.W.J.C. 1955 of 1983 had appeared at the 18th Competitive Examination whereas the petitioners of C.W.J C. No. 1868 of 1983 and C.W.J.C. No. 2207 of 1983 had appeared at the 19th Competitive Examination, for recruitment to the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch). 2. On 8.8.1978 the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission') advertised 23 posts of Munsif and invited applications for the same. A copy of the advertisement is Annexure–1 to C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983. On 12.10.1979 the Commission recommended names of 14 applicants. There was no recommendation in respect of 9 posts. In October, 1979 again an advertisement was issued for the 19th Competitive Examination and it was notified that 83 posts were to be filed on basis of the said examination. In September, 1979, 56 more posts of Munsifs had been created. On 29.11.1979 the State Government consulted the High Court as to whether the aforesaid 56 posts can be filled from amongst the persons who had appeared at the 18th Examination. On 21.12.1979, the High Court communicated its opinion that it had no objection if 56 posts were filled up out of the candidates who had been successful at the 18th Examination. In December, 1979, the 19th Examination was held. On 13.4.1980, at a meeting of the Monitoring Cell it was decided that 56 posts should be filed out of the candidates who had appeared at the 18th Examination in consultation of the High Court. On 20.9.1980 High Court reiterated that it had no objection if 56 posts are filled up out of the successful candidates of the 18th Examination. On 29.11.1980 the State Government requested the Commission to recommend more names out of the list of successful candidates at the 18 the Examination for filling up the 56 posts aforesaid. A copy of the said letter is Annexure–2 to C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983. On 9.12.1980 the Commission refused to recommend any further names. A copy of that letter is annexure–F to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. A copy of the said letter is Annexure–2 to C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983. On 9.12.1980 the Commission refused to recommend any further names. A copy of that letter is annexure–F to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. On 5.1.1981, the State Government again asked the Commission to send more names out of the 18th Examination. A copy of that letter is Annexure–3 to C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983. A similar letter was written by the State Government to the Commission on 4.5.1981 (annexure–), ultimately, on 1.6.1981 the commission forwarded to the State Government names or 32 candidates who had appeared at the 18th Examination. While forwarding the names of 32 candidates it was clearly stated that it should not be taken as recommendation of the Commission. A copy of the said letter is Annexure–G to the counter–affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. On 12.9.1981 the Commission recommended the names of 98 candidates on basis of the 19th Examination. It may be mentioned that out of the aforesaid 32 candidates left out from the 18th Examination. 18 competed at the 19th Examination and their names were included in the recommendation aforesaid. As such now 14 candidates remained out of the 18th Examination. It may also be mentioned that much before the recommendation by the Commission 139 posts of Munsifs, including 56 posts aforesaid, were available to be filled up and the State Government had intimated the Commission in respect of the said vacancies. Before any appointment of the candidates who had been recommended, on basis of the 19th Examination could be made, the Commission invited applications for the 20th Competitive Examination. The 20th Examination was held in November, 1981. 3. On 16.9.1982, 83 persons were appointed by the State Government on basis of recommendation in respect of the 19th Examination (Annexure–8 to C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983). On 20.10.1982 the State Government requested the Commission to send more names of successful candidates out of the 19th Examination. A copy of that letter is Annexure–7 to C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983. On 21.10.1982 Cabinet Sub Committee recommended that 14 left over candidates the 18th Examination should also be appointed. A copy of that recommendation is Annexure–5 to C.W.J C No 1855 of 1983. This recommendation was accepted by the Cabinet. A copy of that letter is Annexure–7 to C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983. On 21.10.1982 Cabinet Sub Committee recommended that 14 left over candidates the 18th Examination should also be appointed. A copy of that recommendation is Annexure–5 to C.W.J C No 1855 of 1983. This recommendation was accepted by the Cabinet. It was resolved that after consultation with the High Court, left over candidates of 18th and 19th Examination be appointed against the vacant posts. The decision was published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 15.2.1983, a copy where of is Annexure–6 to C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983 and Annexure–10 to C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983. In response to the letter of the State Government, on 18.3.1983, the Registrar of the High Court forwarded a copy of the letter dated 4.3.1982, which had earlier been sent to the State Government on the question aforesaid. In the letter dated 4.3.1982 the High Court had pointed out that 83 posts were going to be filled on basis of 19th Examination, still 160 posts remained unfilled; as such in view of the dire shortage of officers (Munsifs and Magistrates), suitable persons from 18th and 20th Judicial Service Examinations should be appointee. A copy of the letter dated 18.3.1983 is Annexure–9 to C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983. During the pendency of the writ applications on 3.5.1983 in spite of objection being raised by the High Court 14 candidates belonging to backward classes out of the 19th Examination were appointed by the State Government, A copy of the said notification is Annexure–11 to supplementary affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983, which is being challenged by the petitioners of that writ application and petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 2207 of 1983. 4. On 30.6.1983, the Registrar of the High Court addressed a letter to the State Government saying that on basis of the 19th Examination 139 Munsifs were to be appointed, but only 83 Munsifs have been appointed on 16.9.1982 and latter 14 more candidates who belonged to the backward classes have been appointed on basis of reservation. 4. On 30.6.1983, the Registrar of the High Court addressed a letter to the State Government saying that on basis of the 19th Examination 139 Munsifs were to be appointed, but only 83 Munsifs have been appointed on 16.9.1982 and latter 14 more candidates who belonged to the backward classes have been appointed on basis of reservation. In that connection it was pointed out as follows:– "The Court have not accepted the policy of reservation for other categories of person except for Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes." The High Court further pointed out that the recommendation of the Commission in respect of 20th Examination had not been forwarded, although 160 posts were lying vacant; as the work in different courts was suffering, this Court had no objection to the proposal made by the Sub Committee for filling up the vacant posts from amongst the successful candidates of 18th and 19th Examination subject to the decision or the Court about the reservation. A copy of that letter of the High Court is Annexure–10 & 14 to C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983. According to the petitioners under the circumstances mentioned above, the State Government should appoint the 14 candidates who had appeared at the 18th Examination and whose names have already been forwarded by the Commission and the remaining posts should be filled up out of the successful candidates at the 19th Examination and for that purpose the Commission should be directed to recommend more names out of the candidates who had appeared at the 19th Examination. 5. The Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Rules') have been framed under Article 234 of the Constitution by the Governor of Bihar after consultation with the High Court and the Bihar Public Service Commission "for regulating the recruitment to the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch)". Article 234 of the Constitution provides that appointments of persons other than the District Judges to the Judicial Service of the State shall be made by the Governor of the State "in accordance with the Rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction relating to such State". On a plain reading, appointments of persons other than District Judges have to be made in accordance with the Rules framed under that Article. On a plain reading, appointments of persons other than District Judges have to be made in accordance with the Rules framed under that Article. In other words, in accordance with the said Rules. 6. Rules 2 (a) says that the recruitment to the post of Munsif shall be made in accordance with the Rules aforesaid, Rules 3 prescribes that the Governor shall "decide in each year the Dumber of vacancies in the posts of Munsifs to be filled up by appointments to be made on substantive basis or on temporary basis or both". Rule 4 is as follows:– "The Commission shall announce in each year, in such manner as they think fit the number of vacancies to be filled that year by direct recruitment on the results of a competitive examination and shall invite applications from candidates eligible for appointment under these rules. The competitive examination will be conducted by the Commission and will normally be held between the months of November and February." Rules 5 to 14 provide other conditions regarding age, examination etc. Rules 15 vests a discretion in the Commission to fix the qualifying mark in one or all the subject at the written examination inn consultation with the High Court. Clause (b) of that rule, however specifically states that the qualifying marks for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe shall not be higher than 35%. Similar relation in respect of the written examination age and chances of appearing at the examination in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe have been incorporated in rules 5 and 6 Rule 17 lays down that on basis of the marks obtained at the written examination, the Commission shall arrange for viva-voce tests for those who have qualified at the written examination, Proviso to rule 17 again makes an exception in respect of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe saying that in exceptional circumstance and with prior approval of the Government the Commission may, at their discretion, admit candidates of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the viva voce test even though they may not have obtained the minimum qualifying marks at the written test. Rule 18 requires the Chief Justice of the High Court to appoint an officer to be present at the viva voce test to advise the Commission in respect of the fitness of the candidates from the point of view of special qualifications for the service, but such officer shall not be responsible for the selection of the candidates. Rules 19 and 20, which are relevant for the present case are as follows:– "19. The marks obtained at the viva-voce test shall be added to the marks obtained at the written examination. The names or candidates will then be arranged by the Commission in order of merit. If two or more candidates obtained equal marks in the aggregate, the order shall be determined in accordance with the marks secured at the written examination. Should the marks secured at the written examination of the candidates concerned be also equal then the order shall be decided in accordance with the total number of marks obtained in the optional papers, From the list of candidates so arranged the Commission shall nominate such number of candidates as may be fixed by the Governor in order of their position in the list. The nominations so made shall be submitted to the Governor by such date in each year as the Governor may fix." "20. The Commission shall, while submitting their recommendations under rule 19, consider the claim of qualified candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. If the list of nominees submitted under rule 19 does not contain an adequate number of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who may be appointed to the vacancies reserved for them, the Commission shall submit a supplementary list nominating a sufficient number of such candidates as in their opinion attain the required standard of qualifications and are in all respects suitable for appointment to the Service." On a plain reading of the rules it appears that after the viva-voce test the names of the candidates have to be arranged by the Commission "in order of merit" and has to nominate out of such list such number of candidates as may be fixed by the Governor "in order of their position in the list". Such nominations have to be made and have to be submitted to the Governor by such date in each year as the Governor may fix. Such nominations have to be made and have to be submitted to the Governor by such date in each year as the Governor may fix. In view of Rule 20, while submitting its recommendations under rule 19, the Commission has to consider the claims of qualified candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Rule 21 provided that the final selection of the candidates shall be made by the Governor from amongst those nominated by the Commission. 7. The rules require the State Government to decide each year the number of vacancies in the posts of Munsifs which are to be filled up The Commission is required to announce each year the number of such vacancies to be filled on the results of a competitive examination. The Commission is to prepare a list on basis of the marks obtained at written examinations and the viva-voce tests by the candidates in order of merit and has to forward the same each year by the date fixed by the State Government. While forwarding the merit list the Commission is required to consider the claims of qualified candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In actual practice, it appears that neither the vacancies are being advertised nor recommendations are being received from the Com mission each year. I have already pointed out that in case of the 20th Examination the written examination has been held about two years ago but even the results have not been finalised and no date for viva. . Voce test has been fixed. In normal course, there was no question of entertaining any representation or claim from the candidates who had appeared at the 18th Examination for appointment when even 19th and 20th Examination have been held. Similarly, if recommendation in respect of the 20th Examination had been made there was no question of entertaining any claim from the candidates who had appeared at the 19th Examination. The very basis of a competitive examination is to evaluate the merits of the candidates sitting at a particular examination of a particular year and then filling the posts by selecting best among the candidates who had appeared at that examination those who are not selected because of their lower position in the merit list have to again appear at the next competitive examinations till they succeed or the chances available for appearing at the different examinations are over. But, we are informed that without publishing the final results of one of the Civil Service Competitive examination the subsequent examination has also been held and the candidates who had appeared at the earlier examination have also appeared at the subsequent examination because they did not know whether they had succeeded at the earlier examination or not. The facts disclosed in the writ applications really depict a very sad state of affairs. On the one hand there is a cry for early disposal of pending cases and arrears, on the other hand without there being any apparent reason no steps are being taken to fill up more than 160 posts of Munsifs which are lying vacant since years. The most shocking part is that the 20th Examination has been held in November 1981 but even the result of the written examination has not been declared for about two years. In my opinion, it is high time that the hardship caused to the different candidates are realised by the State Government and the Commission. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared for the Commission could not give any satisfactory reason for delay in making recommendation by the Commission. I do not understand when Union Public Service Commission, which has to conduct examination at a much larger scale can keep its schedule, why it is not possible for the Commission. The delay in making recommendations results in a scramble for grabbing the posts amongst the candidates appearing at different examination as has happened in the present case. Today more than 160 posts of Munsifs are lying vacant; now the left over the 19th Examination are anxious that maximum number out of those vacancies should be filed from the results of the 19th Examination, on the other hand, candidates who have appeared at the 20th Examination and who are waiting for the results for the last two years, are resisting the claim made on behalf of the petitioners who had appeared at the 19th Examination. According to the interveners who have appeared at the 20th Examination, if most of the vacancies are filled out of the candidates of the 19th Examination then hardly anything will be left to be filled by the time the recommendation in respect of the 20th Examination is made by the Commission. According to the interveners who have appeared at the 20th Examination, if most of the vacancies are filled out of the candidates of the 19th Examination then hardly anything will be left to be filled by the time the recommendation in respect of the 20th Examination is made by the Commission. Learned Additional Advocate General who had appeared for the State as well as the Commission did not like to put the blame squarely on one or other, but has simply stated that the things as they are happening, appointments cannot be made the same year in respect of the vacancies occurring that year. 9. Coming to the claims of the petitioners in different writ applications, I shall first consider the case of the petitioners who had appeared at the 18th Examinations. It is an admitted position that 23 posts had been advertised and recommendation had been made only in respect of 14 posts. It has been explained in the counter affidavit that out of the 23 posts, 12 posts were for general candidates and rest were reserved for the candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As sufficient number or candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not available, 9 posts could not be filled up. Now the 14 candidates who had appeared at the 18th Examination are claiming that they should be appointed against the vacant posts. Learned Additional Advocate General bas pointed out that originally there were 32 candidates who had appeared at the viva-voce test but whose names had not been recommended by the Commission. Out of those 32 candidates, 18 appeared at the 19th Examination and having been successful at the examination they have already been appointed. So far as the remaining 14 candidates are concerned, either they have not appeared at the 19th Examination or having appeared they did not succeed. About them, the State Government and the High Court had agreed at one stage that they may be appointed against the vacant posts. This was, however, objected by the Commission saying that the Commission did not find them fit to be appointed as Munsifs. About them, the State Government and the High Court had agreed at one stage that they may be appointed against the vacant posts. This was, however, objected by the Commission saying that the Commission did not find them fit to be appointed as Munsifs. Our attention was drawn to the letter of the Commission dated 1.6.1981 (Annexure–G) to the counter affidavit) where while forwarding the names of the aforesaid 14 persons at the repeated requests of the State Government, the Commission has mentioned in that letter that it should not be taken as recommendation because the Commission did not find them fit for being recommended for appointment to the post of Munsif. In this background any attempt to fill the posts out of the 14 candidates aforesaid shall not be consistent with the Rules. After publication of the results of the 19th Examination, in my view, it is not possible to consider the case of such candidates who had appeared at the 18th Examination. It is well settled that whether vacancies are to be filled up equal opportunity is to be provided to all eligible persons on basis of their inter se merit. In the instant case, it is not possible to judge the inter se merit of 14 such candidates vis-a-vis the left over candidates of the 19th Examination. Any preference given to the left over candidates of the 18th Examination will not only be against the aforesaid statutory Rules, but shall be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The result will be that it has to be held that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1716 of 1983 and C.W.J.C. No. 1855 of 1983 have no justiceable right which can be enforced by writ. 10. Coming to the claim of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983 and C.W.J.C. No. 2207 of 1983, I have already pointed out that the Commission had been informed that there were 139 vacancies of Munsif which the State Government and the High Court were anxious to fill up. Having learnt about those vacancies why the Commission recommended the names of only 98 candidates is not very clear. In the advertisement which was published for 19th Examination it was clearly mentioned that the number of vacancies was liable to alteration. 11. Having learnt about those vacancies why the Commission recommended the names of only 98 candidates is not very clear. In the advertisement which was published for 19th Examination it was clearly mentioned that the number of vacancies was liable to alteration. 11. Although it is for the State Government to decide as to how many vacant posts should be filled up out of the results of a particular competitive examination, but when they are faced with the rival claim made by the candidates who have appeared at the two examination, some rational basis regarding filling up of the posts on basis of one examination or the other has to be found out. Now, if all the existing posts are filled up on basis of the results of 19th Examination then recommendation in respect of the 20th Examination shall be a mere formality. In my view, one of the rational basis which can be adopted by the State Government to avoid such situation is that it should communicated all the vacancies occurring in particular types of posts till the last day of the interview and the Commission can make recommendation even against the posts which haven fallen vacant after the advertisement. But posts either being sanctioned or having fallen vacant after the interview of the candidates appearing at the earlier competitive examination should be advertised and filled up form the successful candidates at the next examination. If this is followed strictly it shall eliminate the pressure and pull being exercised between the two batches which is one of the contributory factors in delaying the appointments. 12. I have already pointed out that under the prevailing circumstances where it is not possible to advertise, select and appoint candidates within a year which was the spirit of the Rules, the Commission has to send recommendations in respect of the vacancies communicated to it, if sufficient number of suitable candidates are available In law the Commission is concerned only with the selection of the candidates. It is no way concerned as to how many vacancies shall be filled up out of the names recommended by it that decision has to be taken by the State Government. The Commission while recommending names of 98 persons out or the candidates who appeared at the 19th Examination did not say that rest were unsuitable as was said in respect of 18th Examination. The Commission while recommending names of 98 persons out or the candidates who appeared at the 19th Examination did not say that rest were unsuitable as was said in respect of 18th Examination. Then Commission should have recommenced more names. This was all the more imperative in view of the anxiety expressed by the High Court from time to time about the vacancies lying unfilled. In this background it the State Government has taken decision in consultation with the High Court that more pmts should be filled up out of the list of successful candidates at the 19th Examination, the Commission has to recommend more names in accordance with the Rules 19 and 20 aforesaid. I may point out that the situation in respect of 19th Examination is different from the 18th Examination, because no recommendation has yet been made in respect of the 29th Examination. In this background the Commission is enjoined by the Rules to make recommendation in respect of the posts which can be still filled, out of the candidates who had appeared at the 19th Examination Rules 19 enjoins the Commission to nominate such number of candidates as may be fixed by the Governor in order of their position in the list. The same rule makes it obligatory on the commission to submit such nominations to the Governor by such date in each year as the Governor may fix. Normally, this Court is not required to direct the Commission to perform its duty enjoined by Article 320 (3) of the Constitution and the Rule but in the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am left with no option but to issue a writ of mandamus on the respondent Commission directing them to perform their constitutional and statutory duty. It is well settled that this Court in appropriate case can direct the State or authority to perform its statutory functions. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Sharif Ahmad and others vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and others. Accordingly, I direct the commission to forward a further list out of the candidates who had appeared at 19th Examination who can be appointed against the vacant posts, within two months from to day. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Sharif Ahmad and others vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and others. Accordingly, I direct the commission to forward a further list out of the candidates who had appeared at 19th Examination who can be appointed against the vacant posts, within two months from to day. The State Government should fin up only such posts out of any such recommendation which were available, before the interview of the candidate, who had appeared at the 19th Examination, had concluded. Any vacancy occurring after that day should go to the candidates whose names shall be recommended on basis of the 20th Examination. I must make it clear that I do not propose to lay down any rule of law in respect of filling up the posts on basis of different competitive examinations. I have only tried to evolve a rational mode under the existing situation after hearing the counsel of the parties, which may serve the larger interest of the society and may avoid the scramble for grabbing the posts between the candidates appearing at the two successive competitive examinations. 13. So far as the grievance of the petitioners (C.W.J.C. Nos. 1868 and 2207 of 1983) in respect of appointments of 14 persons on basis of the reservation, as they belong to backward classes, is concerned, that has to be examined in the context of the Rules and constitutional provisions. Article 16(4) of the Constitution vests power in the State for making any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which in the opinion of the State in not adequately represented in the services under the State. In view of series of decisions of the Supreme Court, there is not much controversy that any reservation made for backward classes on some rational basis in the light of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court is permissible. But, in the instant case, the question which has been raised is that the Rules which have been framed under the power conferred by Article 234 of the Constitution by the Governor in consultation with the Bihar Public Service Commission and the Patna High Court do not conceive of reservation for backward classes. But, in the instant case, the question which has been raised is that the Rules which have been framed under the power conferred by Article 234 of the Constitution by the Governor in consultation with the Bihar Public Service Commission and the Patna High Court do not conceive of reservation for backward classes. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents had to concede that there is no specific mention in respect of the backward classes in any of the rules; the Rules take note of only members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. But, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the Rules only provide procedure for selection it is for the Sate in exercise of its executive power to decide the question of reservation reserving different number of posts for different classes. In my opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. In the Rules Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been defined. I have already pointed out that hi their favour different relation in respect of appearing at the written examination, age, chances at examination minimum qualifying marks and for inclusion in the merit list has been made in rules 5, 6, 15, 17 and 20. No such exception has been provided for any other class or citizen. From rule 19 (quoted above) it is absolutely clear that the names of the candidates have to be arranged by the Commission, "in order of merit" on basis of the marks obtained at the written examination and viva-voce. From that very rule it further appears that from the list of candidates so arranged, Commission has to forward its recommendation to the Governor. Rule 19 is in imperative terms and requires the Commission to submit the list strictly in order of merit. Rule 20 is more or less in the nature of a proviso to Rule 19. It permits the commission while submitting their recommendation under rule 19 to consider the claims of qualified candidates belonging to Schedule castes and Scheduled Tribes. As such, in the merit list any departure can be made only in respect of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but not in respect of any other class or category. 14. It permits the commission while submitting their recommendation under rule 19 to consider the claims of qualified candidates belonging to Schedule castes and Scheduled Tribes. As such, in the merit list any departure can be made only in respect of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but not in respect of any other class or category. 14. Faced with this situation the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in rules 3, 4, and 19 wherever the expression "number of vacancies" are mentioned they should be read as "number of vacancies in different class". In other words, the Governor is to inform the Commission the number of vacancies in different classes and the Commission has to be advertise those vacancies occurring for different classes of citizens; even the merit list has to be prepared by the Commission separately for different classes which may include even the members of the backward class. It is not possible to accept this contention. If this contention is accepted, we have to perform the function which the framers of the Constitution have vested in the Governor, Public Service Commission and the High Court. I have already pointed out that Articles 234 not only required a Rule to be framed as prescribed under that Article, but also requires that the appointments be made in accordance with the Rules so framed. Once it is held that the Rules do not permit relaxation in merit in favour of a class other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is not possible for this Court to read in those rules power in favour of the State Government making reservation in respect of other classes of citizens. There is no escape from the conclusion that appointments of 14 persons belonging to backward classes on basis of reservation, have been made in contravention of the Rules which shall render their appointments illegal and invalid. The aforesaid 14 persons have not been impleaded as respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 1868 of 1983 but they are respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 2207 of 1983. The counsel appearing for those respondents while adopting the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General further submitted that the petitioners should not be allowed to challenge the notification of appointment of these respondents when the petitioners did not challenge the recommendations of the Commission recommending the names of those respondents on the basis of reservation. The counsel appearing for those respondents while adopting the submissions made by the Additional Advocate General further submitted that the petitioners should not be allowed to challenge the notification of appointment of these respondents when the petitioners did not challenge the recommendations of the Commission recommending the names of those respondents on the basis of reservation. It is difficult to accept this contention. The right to challenge the appointment of such respondents on basis of reservation accrued to the petitioners only after the notification of appointment was issued. 15. It was then submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 13 and 19, two out of the fourteen respondents that they did not appear at the 20th Examination because they had been finally selected earlier. This is an incorrect statement. The 20th Examination was held in November, 1931, where as their appointment has been made on 3.5.1983, as such, there was no justification for their not appearing at the 20th Examination. It need not be pointed out that when on basis of 19th Examination further appointments are made the case of aforesaid 14 respondents in order of merit has to be considered along with other candidates in the general category. 16. Accordingly, the appointment of said 14 respondents on basis of reservation is quashed. I also direct the Commission to perform their statutory duty by forwarding the names in accordance with rules 19 and 20 of the Rules for the posts which had fallen vacant before the conclusion of the interview of the candidates who had appeared at the 19th Examination and which are lying vacant within two months from today. The State Government shall take steps as early as possible for making the appointments out of the names forwarded by the Commission, preferably within six week of the receipt of the recommendations. 17. I have already pointed out that the results of the written test of the 20th Examination which was held in November 1981 have not yet been finalised for which the interveners have made grievance. Learned Additional Advocate General after consulting the Chairman of the Commission has given an undertaking to the Court that the recommendation on basis of the 20th Examination shall be forwarded to the State Government in accordance with rules 19 and 20 aforesaid within three months from the date of this judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General after consulting the Chairman of the Commission has given an undertaking to the Court that the recommendation on basis of the 20th Examination shall be forwarded to the State Government in accordance with rules 19 and 20 aforesaid within three months from the date of this judgment. It is expected, the Commission shall be communicated the total number of vacancies occurring before the conclusion of the interview of candidates who have appeared at the 20th Examination and the Commission shall make their recommendations against all the posts, if suitable candidates are available. 18. In the result, C.W.J.C. Nos. 1716 and 1855 of 1983 are dismissed. C.W.J.C. Nos. 1868 and 2207 of 1983 are allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties shall bear their own costs in all the cases. I agree C.W.J.C. Nos. 1716 & 1855 of 1983 dismissed. C.W.J.C. Nos. 1868 & 2207 of 1983 allowed.