ORDER : M.B. Shah, J. It is settled that while filling up the vacancies in the State services, the Government has to act bona fide and not arbitrarily and also appointment to the services should be strictly on merits. Allegation in this group of matters is that selected candidates who were eligible for appointment on merits were not appointed and less meritorious candidates were appointed for extraneous reasons. For this purpose, merit list was not at all disclosed. For finding out the truth, we are adjourning these matters for getting correct information from the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "U.P. PSC") with regard to the selection of the candidates for the post of Principals which were advertised in the year 1996. 2. Repeatedly, matters were adjourned at the request of learned counsel for U.P. PSC on one or the other pretext, but unfortunately, the complete affidavit is not filed till today. It appears that U.P. PSC is interested in suppressing some facts from the Court as well as from the candidates who appeared in the examination for some ulterior purpose. From a constitutional functionary like Public Service Commission, much more higher standards are expected not only by the courts but also by the public at large. If there is maladministration at the level of Public Service Commission there would be rampant favouritism in making appointments to the services of the State. 3. Despite our various orders making abundantly clear, today also the affidavit which is filed on behalf of U.P. PSC is not complete and contains half truth. They were directed to produce a consolidated merit list of all the candidates, however, it has been stated along with the affidavit that a consolidated merit list of all 418 candidates, who had been called for interview, has been prepared and is kept ready to be produced for perusal of the Court. When we asked the learned counsel for U.P. PSC to clarify the statement, he stated that the said consolidated list is not required to be disclosed to all the candidates. In our view, this is an absurd stand because it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to declare on the notice board result indicating marks with all other relevant details. In such examinations transparency is expected and results cannot be kept secret. 4. In our view, this is an absurd stand because it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to declare on the notice board result indicating marks with all other relevant details. In such examinations transparency is expected and results cannot be kept secret. 4. It has also been pointed out that the advertisement was given for 216 posts of Principals in the year 1996. Only 103 vacancies were filled in on the basis of 1996 Examination. The posts of 113 vacancies were not filled in due to non-availability of the suitable candidates and were carried forward for the next year for which advertisement was issued and examinations were held in the year 1997. On instructions, it is also submitted by learned counsel for U.P. PSC that at present there is no vacancy left against the said advertisement. Here also U.P. PSC wants to play with the Court. It has been pointed out that in 1997 advertisement was given for 548 posts and only 273 posts were filled in and 273 posts were kept vacant. In the year 1998, 100 posts of Principals were advertised. 5. At this stage the learned counsel was asked to make correct statement after obtaining instructions. Learned counsel instead of getting information from the Secretary concerned, who is present in the Court, sought information from the Section Officer who is also present in the Court. Hence, it appears that our observations made in the order dated 3-10-2001 that the business of the Commission is run or administered by the Section Officers, are justified because today also the Secretary is not in a position to clear the doubts which are raised. 6. In this view of the matter, for filing complete affidavit the matter is adjourned. In the meantime, the State Government is directed not to fill any post of Principal by issuing new advertisement. The Chairman and the Secretary of U.P. PSC are directed to deposit with the Registry costs of Rs. 10,000 each for wasting the Court's time. Such costs shall be paid by the concerned personally and not by the Commission. U.P. PSC is also further directed to file affidavit in SLP (C) No. 10048 of 1999 which pertains to the examination which was held in the year 1997. 7. 10,000 each for wasting the Court's time. Such costs shall be paid by the concerned personally and not by the Commission. U.P. PSC is also further directed to file affidavit in SLP (C) No. 10048 of 1999 which pertains to the examination which was held in the year 1997. 7. Learned counsel for U.P. PSC is directed to furnish copy of the list of 418 candidates to the learned counsel for the appellant applicants within one week from today. Along with the affidavit the result sheet (complete list) should also be annexed. The Secretary of the State of U.P., Education Department is directed to personally verify the working of U.P. PSC with regard to the appointment of Principals/Lecturers/teachers on the basis of the advertisements given in the year 1996 and 1997 and file necessary affidavit within four weeks from today. 8. Learned counsel for some of the appellant-petitioners states that despite the specific order directing U.P. PSC to pass reasoned order after taking into consideration the objections raised by the appellant-petitioners no such reasoned order is communicated to them. In this view of the matter a copy of the said orders be produced before this Court along with the affidavit. The Secretary of U.P. PSC should remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing. The matters are adjourned for 22-1-2002.