JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the Public Service Commission committed any error or violated any rule, regulation or order in admitting 1037 candidates for interview out of 70,000 candidates who appeared in written examination of lower subordinate service for 469 vacancies. 2. Out of the candidates admitted for interview, admittedly, 225 did not turn up. Therefore, the range for selection was further narrowed down and the final selection became confined amongst less than 2 per cent. And the result of Combined State Services, it is claimed, has not yet been announced which shall result in few others not joining. Consequently it is urged the selection shall become confined to nearly all the candidates called for interview thus reducing selection through competitive process to a farce. Defence is more legal than factual. Discretion of Commission and calling not more than two to three times the number of vacancies as rules in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454 was the submission. 3. But all power has legal limits. Therefore, every exercise of discretion must be reasonable. Whether it was or not shall depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Posts were advertised in 1983. Examination was held in 1985. And interview letters were issued in 1988. In the State services it appears to be at the lowest. Normally the candidates who appear in competitive examination are common may it be these services or State Services or even Central Services. Therefore, the petitioner who was a candidate but is now an advocate of this court and himself argued the petition urged, not without merit, that the Commission which conducts examination every year as expected to be aware that may of the candidates who faired well might not be available due to passage of time. Therefore, it should have called not less than four to five times the number of vacancies. But it called only marginally more than 2 per cent knowing it full well that many will not appear and even from those selected many may not join. As such the exercise of discretion was not only unreasonable but bad. 4. That the Commission did not act reasonably cannot be doubted. Admitting 2.2 per cent candidates for interview after five years out of 70 thousand candidates was not justified. As such the exercise of discretion was not only unreasonable but bad. 4. That the Commission did not act reasonably cannot be doubted. Admitting 2.2 per cent candidates for interview after five years out of 70 thousand candidates was not justified. The Commission can be impliedly expected to have experience and knowledge that if such low percentage are called in such examination than selection through competitive process may be rendered farce as it may turn out to be ultimately. True the vortically the Commission cannot be expected to know that many shall not turn up as they may not be interested in joining but it is these situations which demand proper and reasonable exercise of discretion. If a body like Commission which is entrusted with sole responsibility of conducting examination for selection etc. and has vast experience cannot visualise that may of the candidates who appeared in 1983 in the lowest examination may not be available in.1988 then it can only be said to be unfortunate. 5. However, even though the Commission did not appear to have acted reasonably in calling such few candidates yet the petitioner or the other candidates who applied for being impleaded are not entitled to any relief since, on the marks obtained by them as produced by learned counsel for Commission, they could have been called for interview if the number of candidate would have been some where 1 to 7. Therefore, this petition cannot succeed but it is expected that in such examination where there is long delay say more than three or four years then the Commission should normally call in proportion to 1 to 4. 6. For reasons stated above this petition fails and is dismissed.