ORDER G. L. Oza, C. J.- 1. The five petitioners have filed this petition seeking a direction for quashing of the select list prepared by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service, Commission on the basis of examination conducted for the posts of Civil Judges, Class II held on 20th of October 1983 and for a declaration that the examination conducted was not fair and was arbitrary. A direction was also sought that fresh examination be held after giving guide lines to the Public Service Commission. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioners 1 to 4 are Citizens of India and are members of the District Bar Association, Jabalpur, and are practising advocates who have completed more than three years practice at the Bar, and petitioner No.5 is working in the c1erical cadre in the District Court office and is a law graduate. 3. According to the petitioners, Article 320 of the Constitution of India provides the functions of the Public Service Commission and a duty has been cast on the State Public Service Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State and it is alleged that it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to prepare rules relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and also to lay down the principles to be followed in making appointments. 4. It is alleged that Article 234 of the Constitution provides for recruitment of judicial officers other than District Judges and it is provided that the Governor of the State shall make the appointments in accordance with the rules made by him after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court. It is alleged that in spite of this specific provision in the Constitution the Public Service Commission did not consult the State Government or the High Court for holding a multiple objective type of test for appointment to the post of Civil Judges Class II and it is contended that on this ground the action of the Public Service Commission could not be maintained. It is also alleged that under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court has control over the sub ordinate judiciary and, therefore, it is necessary that for appointments and recruitment of Civil Judges the requirement of Article 234 has to be fulfilled. 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that Respondent No.2, the Public Service Commission. It is also alleged that under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court has control over the sub ordinate judiciary and, therefore, it is necessary that for appointments and recruitment of Civil Judges the requirement of Article 234 has to be fulfilled. 5. It is alleged by the petitioners that Respondent No.2, the Public Service Commission. Inuore, advertised the posts of Civil Judges Class II vide notification No. 0483 and the same was duly published in local daily issues of news-papers including the daily issue of Nava Bharat dated 23rd July 1983. In this advertisement applications were invited for 87 posts in the general category and applications were invited on the prescribed form by 30lh August 1983. In the said advertisement, the qualifications and the manner of submitting the applications including the syllabus for examination were prescribed. According to the petitioners, they are duly qualified and they fulfil the requisite qualifications and therefore they applied for the posts on the prescribed form. The petitioners were allotted roll numbers and the centre and the date for holding the examination was prescribed as 23rd October 1983 between 11 to 14 hours. A copy of the admission card and syllabus issued by the Public Service Commission have been annexed. 6. It is also alleged that the advertisement mentioned that the recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges Class II shall be made in accordance with the M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. 7. It is alleged that having received the admission cards the petitioners appeared in the written examination held on 23rd October, 1983. It is alleged by the petitioners that the question paper in which objective type questions were given with answers including correct answers said to have been set by the examiner appointed by respondent No 2. It is alleged that at the Centre the petitioners were given duly printed question and answer papers in which 200 question, were given with their answer below each question and petitioners were required to tick-mark the correct answer according to them. The roll numbers of the candidates were directed to be submitted separately on a sheet of paper which was attached to the main paper. According to the petitioners, roll number was not a part and parcel of the question and answer paper and was separately attached. The roll numbers of the candidates were directed to be submitted separately on a sheet of paper which was attached to the main paper. According to the petitioners, roll number was not a part and parcel of the question and answer paper and was separately attached. It is alleged by the petitioners, that out of 200 questions, 100 related to general knowledge and remaining 100 questions were from the Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act, Indian Contract Act, Transfer of Property Act and the Limitation Act and it is alleged that the syllabus prescribed in the advertisement showed that certain provisions were included in the syllabus but the question paper discloses that questions were asked even from provisions which were not included in the syllabus and were outside the purview of the syllabus. It is alleged by the petitioners that question No. 101 related to Cede of Civil Procedure but was not from the portion included in the syllabus and it is alleged that similarly other questions were also beyond the syllabus including the questions relating to Motor Vehicles Act. 8. It is alleged by the petitioners that as many as 128 questions were wrong and a chart has been annexed. It is also alleged that the questions are lengthy and descriptive and required much time to be taken to understand the true import of the question to enable the candidate to answer and it is alleged that omission to answer would entail negative marking and' thereby the petitioners were put to disadvantage. 9. It is also alleged by the petitioners that the Governor of the State promulgated an ordinance in exercise of powers under Article 213 (1) of the Constitution styled as the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewa Ayog (Prakriya Ka Viniyaman) Adhyadesh, 1983 published in the Gazette dated 21st October, 1983 but the advertisement for inviting the applications had been publi5hed long before on 23rd July, 1983 and the Ordinance came just two days before the examination. It is alleged that the advertisement was issued without complying with Article 234 of the Constitution. It is also alleged that there was no emergency for issuance of the Ordinance and later on the lapse of the Ordinance an Act bas been enacted, known as the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewa Ayog (Prakriya Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984. 10. It is alleged that the advertisement was issued without complying with Article 234 of the Constitution. It is also alleged that there was no emergency for issuance of the Ordinance and later on the lapse of the Ordinance an Act bas been enacted, known as the Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewa Ayog (Prakriya Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984. 10. It is alleged by the petitioners that before the Ordinance came into force, the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 were in force and in these rules, under Rule 21 the only provision was for interview by the Public Service Commission and by holding an examination the respondent No.2 Public Service Commission has given a go by to this rule. It is also alleged that sub• rule (2) of Rule 21 provides that the Governor may, if thinks fit, appoint a Judge of the High Court to be present at the interview who shall advise the Commission and it is alleged that this part of the rule is not consistent with section 26 of the Ordinance. It is also alleged that for 143 posts of Civil Judges to be filled in the Controller has recommended a list of 376 candidates for being called for interview and this according to the petitioners is not in accordance with section 26 of the Ordinance. 11. The petitioners have also shown inconsistency about the personnel at the interview between the rules and the Ordinance. It is also alleged that under the rules of 1955 three years practice was the minimum requirement whereas the advertisement invited applications even from fresh law graduates and it is alleged even the mark-sheets were not supplied to the candidates in spite of the assurance given in the Court on 12th April. 1984. 12. It is alleged that in a question pertaining to section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the four key answers were wrong and it is also alleged that out of 200 questions about 100 were about general knowledge only and the question were lengthy and some of them were not intelligible. A grievance is also made that there was an option to a candidate to answer the questions in English or Hindi and both the versions \\crc given, but the correct translation was not there. A grievance is also made that there was an option to a candidate to answer the questions in English or Hindi and both the versions \\crc given, but the correct translation was not there. In some questions Hindi version was incorrect carrying a different meaning and in some English version was incorrect or indicating a different meaning. The petitioners allege that because of all this the petitioners' names did not appear in the list of candidates selected on the basis of written test for being called to interview and therefore the petitioners have not been called for interview. According to the petitioners, they had answered the questions correctly but it is difficult for them to know where they stand as even the mark-sheets have not been supplied to them. It is alleged that in case of every examination mark sheets are supplied but in the case of selection of Civil Judges except the list of selected persons nothing else is known to the petitioners. Petitioners have also alleged some matters on the basis of the Ordinance issued by the Governor in respect of the procedure but at the time of hearing, learned counsel for both the parties agreed that that Ordinance will not be operative so far as these examinations are concerned. Petitioners have alleged a number of discrepancies in the questions and contended that the manner in which the examination was held was not fair. 13. In the returns filed by the respondents, it was contended that the examination was conducted for purposes of screening and to prepare a list of candidates who could be caned for interview. It is also contended that the rules of 1955 are not applicable but still in principle the rules have been followed. It is also alleged that the Public Service Commission had proceeded in accordance with the advertisement and the syllabus published in the advertisement. In the return it is admitted that key answers to questions No. 75, 77, 96, 163, 191 and 193 were wrong and. therefore, the examiners were instructed to give full marks to all those candidates who attempted these questions. In the return it is admitted that key answers to questions No. 75, 77, 96, 163, 191 and 193 were wrong and. therefore, the examiners were instructed to give full marks to all those candidates who attempted these questions. As regards some of the questions it was stated in the return that the law like Indian Penal Code or Code of Civil Procedure which were said to be in the syllabus, the questions have been asked about it and therefore it could not be said that the questions were out of course. 14. At the time of hearing, the mark-sheets of the petitioners were given to the petitioners and the record was placed before the Court and the petitioners' counsel was also permitted to inspect. It was also alleged in the return that in the interview a Judge of the High Court sat and therefore it could not be said that the High Court was not involved in the selection. It is also stated that in the English and Hindi versions there may be some minor errors of translation or some grammatical errors but a candidate who appears for the examination for the post of Civil Judge is expected to know law and to understand the true import of the questions. It is also contended in the return that the grievance about the number of questions and the time it will take was equally disadvantageous to all the candidates and in fact it is alleged that all the discrepancies pointed out will be uniformly advantageous or disadvantageous to all the candidates and, therefore, it could not be said that the petitioners have suffered any special disadvantage and it could not be conte'1ded that the petitioners have been treated differently or that the examination have not been fair. It is also contended that the Ordinance is not applicable as it is admitted that it is not promulgated in consultation with the High Court and similarly the Adhiniyam is not applicable so far as the recruitment to judicial service is concerned. It is also stated that the advertisement which lays down the conditions, the curriculam of examination has been issued in consultation with the High Court and it lays the principles all which selections are to be made and therefore it could not be contended that the selections have been done without consulting the High Court. It is also stated that the advertisement which lays down the conditions, the curriculam of examination has been issued in consultation with the High Court and it lays the principles all which selections are to be made and therefore it could not be contended that the selections have been done without consulting the High Court. It was, therefore, contended in the return that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief 15. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the examination was not fair as according to the learned counsel there were 200 questions and a mere reading of these questions required sufficient time. There were some questions out of course and the key answers to some of them were wrong. The learned counsel went through the question paper in detail and pointed out these discrepancies and also pointed out some mistakes, some of them being mistakes of translations and some grammatical and on this basis it was contended that the examination was not fair. After going through the scrutiny as desired by the learned counsel, it appears that the contention about the questions being out of course is not of much substance. It is, no doubt, true that in the curriculam indicated in the syllabus some laws were described as whole as the Indian Penal Code and in some like Code of Civil Procedure only certain rules and orders were mentioned but as certain rules and orders have been specifically mentioned, it will not mean that the sections of the Code of Civil Procedure are Dot included. It could not therefore be said that on that basis there is any substantial effect on the result. 16. As regards the lengthy nature of questions, the time that it will take to read and the inaccuracy in translation, some mistakes in printing are such things which were common to all the candidates. All the candidates had to face the same situation and even if it is held that the manner in which the question paper was prepared was not very good, still it could not be said that there is any unfairness adopted by the Public Service Commission because of these common flaws all the candidates either suffered equally or took advantage equally. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there is any unfair treatment to the petitioners in particular. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there is any unfair treatment to the petitioners in particular. Some of the questions which were admittedly wrong, the Public Service Commission in their return has frankly admitted and stated that they had instructed the examiners to give marks to all those who attempted those questions and this statement made In the return has not been challenged. After a detailed scrutiny, at best the learned counsel has been able to contend that there were 2 or 3 questions the answers of which were doubtful, but in view of the marks obtained by the petitioners and the minimum marks on which a person has been called for interview, even if a few more marks are added in the marks of these petitioners, it will not affect the result materially and it was for this purpose that the respondent Public Service Commission Was directed to make a statement about the minimum marks at which a candidate has been called for interview and the mark-sheets of the petitioners were supplied to the petitioners and even the answer-books of the petitioners have been inspected by the petitioners and their counsel. However, it is unfortunate that in a selection like this the Public Service Commission chose not to issue the mark-sheets to candidates immediately when the result was declared as it is apparent that there are no reasons for not issuing the mark-sheets and even at the time of hearing the counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission could not justify this attitude. However, at the time of hearing the learned counsel produced all the records and assured that the Public Service Commission will issue the mark-sheets to all the candidates or whosoever so desires. Ordinarily in such examinations the issuance of the mark-sheet immediately after the result is essential because it will dispel all possibility of suspicion and insinuation and it is, therefore expected that the Public Service Commission shall not withhold copies of the mark• sheets from the candidates in the course of such examinations. 17. It was contended by learned counsel that the advertisement and the rules which have been referred to in the advertisement and which are alleged to have been followed do not provide for the examination and, therefore, this examination is not justified. 17. It was contended by learned counsel that the advertisement and the rules which have been referred to in the advertisement and which are alleged to have been followed do not provide for the examination and, therefore, this examination is not justified. However, the learned counsel frankly conceded that all the candidates who fulfilled the requisite qualifications could not be called for interview and, therefore, some kind of screening has to be done. He frankly conceded that if this examination was only a screening test, then not much grievance could be made but if the marks obtained in the examination are considered for selection of a candidate for appointment as a Civil Judge, it was contended that it will be contrary to the rules which may not have been adopted or made applicable but which have become applicable because in the advertisement which lays down the conditions it was specifically mentioned that these rules will be followed. Learned counsel for the Public Service Commission also frankly conceded that although in the past written examination was a screening test but the marks were added for selection of a candidate finally for appointment but he frankly conceded that so far as these selections are concerned, the Public Service Commission will follow the decision of this Court. It is not in dispute that the rules which are followed do not prescribe for a written examination for selection and what was stated in para 10 of the advertisement also clearly indicates that this examination is only for the purposes of secreening and preparing a list of candidates, although in this paragraph it has been specifically stated that the successful candidates will be selected on the basis of marks obtained at the interview and the written test and on this basis it was contended that in fact in the conditions of recruitment indicated in the advertisement it was indicated that the marks in the written test will also be considered. But the learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized para 11 of the advertisement wherein it has been clearly stated that the Public Service Commission will follow the M. P Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. But the learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized para 11 of the advertisement wherein it has been clearly stated that the Public Service Commission will follow the M. P Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. A perusal of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the advertisement clearly shows that in para 10 the written examination was specifically prescribed and it was specifically stated that a candidate will be selected on the basis of marks in the written test as well as in the interview. In para 11 it was stated that other conditions of recruitment shalI be as have been provided in the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. It was, therefore, clearly indicated to the candidates that the condition of written test has been specifically stated in the advertisement and for other conditions reference is made to the rules and in this view of the matter the contention that the marks of written test could not be added in selecting the candidates for appointment as Civil Judges Class II also cannot be accepted. 18. As has already been stated in the return that this advertisement and conditions were approved by the High Court and the learned counsel for the petitioners although originally contended that it was without consultation of the High Court, but in view of the statement in the return an attempt was made that consultation with the High Court will only mean consultation with the full Court, but the learned counsel was not in a position to make any statement on the basis of allegations in the petition that it was not in consultation with the High Court. In the absence of any such statement, the statement made in the return that the conditions of advertisement were approved by the High Court has to be accepted and this contention advanced by learned counsel, therefore, cannot be accepted. 19. Learned counsel relied on two decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, viz., Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987 and Chandramoulesawar v. Patna High Court, AIR 1970 SC 370 . Both these decisions are on the question of consultation with the High Court in appointment of District Judges. 19. Learned counsel relied on two decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, viz., Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987 and Chandramoulesawar v. Patna High Court, AIR 1970 SC 370 . Both these decisions are on the question of consultation with the High Court in appointment of District Judges. As has been discussed earlier, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners about consultation with the High Court has been repelled on the facts stated in the return and not controverted by the petitioners. In our opinion, it is not necessary for us to go into these decisions any further. Similar is the situation about the decision in State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad, AIR 1967 SC 903 . 20. Learned counsel also relied on some decisions about the objective type of tests in examinations and the manner in which the questions were framed in this examination, the language, error in printing, grammatical error, mistakes in the answers and other things. The discrepancies in the question paper and the errors, no doubt, disclose a sorry tale and it is unfortunate that an institution like the Public Service Commission should have conducted the examination in this manner. The affidavit filed by the Member of the Public Service Commission who claims to be in charge of examinations also does nor indicate that the matters of examination were handled in a proper manner but as all the type of discrepancies have been discussed in detail and specially because there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners have suffered any disadvantage in particular, there appears to be no ground on the basis of which the examinations could be quashed. 21. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Anant Kumar v. Slate of M.P., 1975 JLJ 527 - 1975 MPLJ 624 wherein the question of absence of rules has been considered and it has been held that in the absence of rules also appointments could be made. In this decision, scope of Article 234 of the Constitution has also been considered but that also is of no assistance to the case of the petitioners. The other decision on which reliance is placed by learned counsel is the decision in Omprakash v. State of M.P., 1978 JLJ 143 - 1978 MPLJ 136 [F.B.]. This decision also does not help the present case. The other decision on which reliance is placed by learned counsel is the decision in Omprakash v. State of M.P., 1978 JLJ 143 - 1978 MPLJ 136 [F.B.]. This decision also does not help the present case. The decision in Jayant Kumar v. Public Service Commission, M.P. 1978 MPLJ 784 , also considered the question of absence of rules. In this decision the question of selection under Articles 315, 320, 234 has also been considered and there is nothing in this decision which can help the petitioners in the present case. In view of this, so far as examinations are concerned, we can only leave it to the Public Service Commission to get the copies of the petitioners and other candidates reviewed once again so that on account of any error if any candidate was suffered, the Public Service Commission may remedy it and in case some more candidates are found fit for interview shall interview them also expeditiously. As regards the rest of the contentions, we see no substance. 22. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners.