( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THE judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana high Court which has been upheld in appeal by the Division Bench is under challenge in this appeal. ( 3 ) FROM the facts narrated, it is crystal clear that on 16-12-1991 the haryana Public Service Commission (for short "the Commission") issued an advertisement indicating the number of posts of Principal for being filled up in Higher Education Service Class II as 18 and it was also stated in the said advertisement that the number of posts would be subject to variation to any extent. ( 4 ) ON 1-6-1993, before the Commission finalised selection and made the recommendation pursuant to the advertisement as referred to earlier, the finance Commissioner and Secretary, Haryana Government, Education department, made a fresh requisition to the Secretary, Haryana Public service Commission indicating the number of vacancies as were available for 1991, which was more than 18. The Commission ultimately, by its letter dated 1-10-1993, recommended the names of 30 persons for the post of principal. One of the persons who was not selected, filed a writ petition before the High Court contending, inter alia, that the advertisement having been issued for only 18 posts, the Commission committed gross error in recommending names more than 18. This has found favour with the learned single Judge relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hoshiar singh v. State of Haryana. The Single Judge therefore allowed the writ application to the extent that selection of persons beyond 18 is bad. ( 5 ) THE matter was carried in appeal and the Division Bench having affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge dismissed the appeal. That is how the present appeal has been filed. Mr Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the judgment of this Court on which reliance has been placed has not been properly read and in view of the fact that before recommendation of the Commission fresh requisition had been made by the government, there was no bar for the Commission in recommending more names than posts for which the advertisement had been issued, more so when the advertisement (sic was subject to) variation to any extent. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the writ petitioner respondent, on the other hand, contended that the subsequent requisition said to have been made by the Finance Commissioner and Secretary to the Haryana Government, education Department dated 1-6-1993 was not there before the High Court and therefore the same cannot be relied upon. ( 7 ) ON being asked, Mr Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the state of Haryana stated that in fact a subsequent requisition had been made on 1-6-1993. In this view of the matter, on the admitted position that on the date of the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission on 1-10-1993 the Governments requisition was for posts more than 18 (in fact 37), we see no bar on the power of the Commission in recommending 30 names, which was the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court. In fact the very judgment itself on which the learned Single Judge has relied upon in para 10 indicates the said position. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the division Bench in appeal and hold that the recommendations made by the commission are in accordance with law and therefore all the 30 names recommended are entitled to be appointed. ( 8 ) THESE appeals are disposed of accordingly. The writ petition filed before the High Court stands dismissed.