JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Since these appeals are connected, we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. Appellants are the writ petitioners. An Advertisement was issued by the respondent Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) on 09.08.2012 calling for applications for filling-up 21 posts of Assistant Review Officer (Accounts) in the Secretariat Administration Department, 2 posts of Assistant Accountant in the Commission and 8 posts of Inspector Meteorology in the Department of Food and Civil Supply. Appellants applied for the posts of Assistant Review Officer (Accounts). The method of selection was performance in the written examination. The written examination, in turn, was to consist of proficiency to be tested in three papers. They were General Studies, General Hindi and Essay and basic knowledge of Computer. For each of these subjects, the maximum marks was 100. The grand total was 300. Appellant in Special Appeal No. 674 of 2014 obtained 124 marks out of 300 and appellant in Special Appeal No. 675 of 2014 obtained 133 marks out of 300. They fell short of 45 per cent of the total marks. On this premise, appellants were not included in the final select list. The final select list has been produced and it is also challenged. The reliefs sought by the appellants in the writ petitions are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the result dated 23.06.2014 declared by the respondent in respect of the posts of Assistant Review Officer (Accounts), (Secretariat Administration department)/Assistant Accountant, (Uttarakhand Public Service Commission). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to declare afresh result for the posts of Assistant Review Officer (Accounts), (Secretariat Administration department)/Assistant Accountant, (Uttarakhand Public Service Commission).” 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. Hence the appeals. 4. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Commission. 5. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, addressed the following submissions before us: (i) He would submit that the matter relating to selection was governed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Procedure for Preparation of Result Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “2012 Rules”). He would draw our attention to Rule 4.2.2 (C). 5. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, addressed the following submissions before us: (i) He would submit that the matter relating to selection was governed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Procedure for Preparation of Result Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “2012 Rules”). He would draw our attention to Rule 4.2.2 (C). The English translation of the same, made available by the learned counsel, reads as follows: “4.2.2 GOPAN SECTION (C) SELECTION ONLY BY WRITTEN If under selection exam, there is a process of direct recruitment by way of written exam only or there is no interview, then the posts shall be allotted according to the merit list, age required qualifications, categories/sub-categories wise and preferences of the posts given by the candidates. The information regarding full description of the candidates in which age required qualification, categories/sub-categories and preferences of post given by the candidates etc. shall be provided by the examination section. For the said selection the merit list shall be prepared role number wise, which shall bear the signatures of Section Officer, Gopan, Exam Controller and Commission.” (ii) He would point out that the said Rule does not contain a stipulation that the candidate must obtain the minimum marks (45 per cent for General candidates; this is as both the appellants are General candidates). The Rule came to be amended in the year 2013. The Rule, after the amendment, reads as follows (English translation): “Rule 4.2.2 (C) (C) SELECTION ONLY BY WRITTEN If selection exam shall be only by written examination in direct recruitment, meaning thereby is there is no interview. The above merit list for purpose of selection shall be prepared in accordance with serial no. signed by Section Officer, Gopan, Exam Controller and Commission. For the candidates of General Category and concerning sub-category, the minimum marks shall be 45% for the qualified in exam, for the candidates of OBC and concerning sub-category 40% and for the candidates of SC/ST minimum marks shall be 35% compulsory. Those candidates are not obtained minimum marks as fixed shall not be eligible for selection. The merit list shall be prepared in accordance with Age, Preference eligibility, Category/Sub-Category wise and posts shall be allotted. Those candidates are not obtained minimum marks as fixed shall not be eligible for selection. The merit list shall be prepared in accordance with Age, Preference eligibility, Category/Sub-Category wise and posts shall be allotted. The detail of candidates by which the Age, Preference eligibility, Category/Sub-Category and preference for the post given by the candidates shall be provided by the Section.” (iii) He emphasized that, after the amendment, the law-giver had made it clear that even when selection is based only on performance in a written examination, as is the case with respect to selection to the posts of Assistant Review Officer, which is involved in these cases, a person, who is a General candidate, must obtain 45 per cent marks. This requirement cannot be imposed vis-à-vis the appellants, who participated in the written examination held pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 09.08.2012, as the said selection is to be governed by the un-amended provisions of Rule 4.2.2 (C), which we have extracted above. He would complain that the learned Single Judge has erred in relying on a Resolution, which was put forth by the Commission in 2011 as justification for imposing the requirement of minimum marks. English translation of the said Resolution, made available by the learned counsel, reads as follows: “MINUTES OF MEETING HELD BY COMMISSION ON 06.01.2011 ATTENDANCE 1. Sri. S.K. Dass Chairman 2. Dr. D.P. Joshi Member 3. Dr. Manjula Bisht Member 4. Sri. T.N. Singh Member 5. Prof. Manjula Rana Member 6. Sri. Kunwar Singh Member POINT NO. 1............... POINT NO. 2............... POINT NO. 3: In presence, for the purpose of all conducted the examination by the Commission was fixed the qualified marks 45% to the General Category and OBC Category, however, for SC and ST Category the minimum marks was fixed 35%. The Hon’ble Commission has considered that for the purpose of the improvement of OBC candidates in all Interview Exam/Written and Interview Exam the following qualified marks are hereby fixed:- General Category 45% SC/ST/OBC 35%” (iv) The case of the appellants appears to be that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the ball has been set rolling by the recruiting body. In other words, the rule in question being a statutory rule, it cannot be overwhelmed by a decision of the Commission, which is alleged to have been taken in the year 2011, as aforesaid. In other words, the rule in question being a statutory rule, it cannot be overwhelmed by a decision of the Commission, which is alleged to have been taken in the year 2011, as aforesaid. The rule will have to be taken as it is and Rule 4.2.2 (C) must be given full effect and, since it does not contemplate obtaining of minimum marks, the appellants, who have obtained 124 marks out of 300 and 133 marks out of 300 respectively, should be allowed to pass muster and should be selected and appointed as Assistant Review Officer. The learned counsel further draws our attention to the Advertisement and points out that, wherever the recruiting body wanted to fix the minimum marks to be obtained, it has done so and, in this regard, he points out that, in regard to the subject General Hindi and Essay, it has been made clear that the candidate should obtain 35 per cent and there is no such minimum prescription in respect of the other two subjects. This also goes to show that there is no requirement, in law, to obtain 45 per cent marks for General candidates, as is contended by the Commission. 6. Per contra, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the Commission, would submit that the Commission has taken a decision in the year 2011 itself that, in respect of General candidates, the person should obtain 45 per cent marks and the appellants did not obtain the said percentage, as already noticed. He would further submit that the final select list, even in the case of a selection which contemplates only evaluation of merit in the written examination, is to be brought out under Rule 4.3.1 (A). He emphasized that sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.3.1 (A) makes it clear that the candidates must obtain the minimum marks, which is fixed by the Commission. Since the Commission has already fixed the minimum marks by its Resolution in the year 2011 and as the appellants have not obtained the said minimum marks, appellants cannot be said to be qualified. 7. The selection has been held in this case by the Commission. The Commission is a constitutional body. Though no act of any public body, howsoever high it may be, is immune from judicial review, the scope of judicial review varies. 7. The selection has been held in this case by the Commission. The Commission is a constitutional body. Though no act of any public body, howsoever high it may be, is immune from judicial review, the scope of judicial review varies. In regard to the actions of a body like the Commission, which is a constitutional body charged with the duty of conducting recruitment to public services, while judicial review is not ruled-out and its actions can certainly be scanned and interfered with in appropriate cases, a certain amount of deference is shown by the courts owing to the high pedestal on which it is placed. This is not to say that, if its actions are demonstrated to be palpably wrong or illegal, the courts would shirk from its responsibility to intervene. 8. Having made these prefatory remarks, we must pass on to consideration of the specific complaint raised in these cases. Appellants applied for the posts of Assistant Review Officer. They have obtained less than 45 per cent of the total marks, namely, 300 marks. Both of them have, apparently, obtained 35 per cent marks in General Hindi and Essay. The question to be resolved is whether it is open to the Commission to prescribe minimum marks for considering the candidates as eligible for selection. The 2012 Rules provide for, apparently, three contingencies. The first category appears to be where selection is to be done on the basis of performance in the written examination and interview. The second category is where performance in the written examination alone is determinative. The third category is where selection is to be done on the basis of performance in the interview. 9. Rule 4.2.2 (C), undoubtedly, deals with a case, where selection is to be done on the basis of performance in the written examination. The chief argument of the appellants is that this Rule does not contemplate obtaining of minimum marks. On the other hand, the case of the Commission is that this is subject to Rule 4.3.1 (A). It is necessary to now notice Rule 4.3.1 (A) in its entirety. It reads as follows: “4.3 FINAL SELECTION RESULT 4.3.1 GOPAN SECTION (A) MERIT LIST:- A merit list shall be prepared in accordance with exam. 1. After completion of interview, the Exam Controller shall provide the Marks List to the Section Officer. It is necessary to now notice Rule 4.3.1 (A) in its entirety. It reads as follows: “4.3 FINAL SELECTION RESULT 4.3.1 GOPAN SECTION (A) MERIT LIST:- A merit list shall be prepared in accordance with exam. 1. After completion of interview, the Exam Controller shall provide the Marks List to the Section Officer. Final merit list shall be prepared after adding total marks obtained in both Main Exam/Written Exam and marks obtain in interview. A table be prepared included S. No. subject wise obtained marks and their total and marks obtained in interview. The aforesaid Table shall be compared by twice and then again shall be compared at the level of Section Officer. 2. After completion of merit list for the examination to the included post category/sub- category wise merit list be prepared. 3. In the said merit list according to the minimum qualification fixed by the Learned Commission, it shall be compulsory to obtain the minimum marks of the total marks by the candidate of general categories and reserved categories (Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe and other Backward Classes). The candidates having obtained the lowest marks below the said fixed percentage shall be presumed unqualified.” 10. Sub-rule (3) clearly provides that, unless and until the candidate obtains the minimum marks fixed by the Commission, he/she is liable to be excluded. The controversy arises thus is, however, as to whether this Rule is applicable to all the cases, or where selection is to be done on the basis of performance in the written examination and interview. 11. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, would proceed on the basis that Rule 4.2.2 (C) is exhaustive and is a self-contained provision. 12. We would have to, now, examine as to what exactly does Rule 4.2.2 (C) provides. Rule 4.2.2 (C) comes under the category “selection only by written examination” and where there is no interview. It provides, to begin with, that the posts shall be allotted according to the merit list. The word “merit list” is followed by a coma. It is followed thereafter by age required qualifications, which, again in turn, is followed by another come. Rule 4.2.2 (C) comes under the category “selection only by written examination” and where there is no interview. It provides, to begin with, that the posts shall be allotted according to the merit list. The word “merit list” is followed by a coma. It is followed thereafter by age required qualifications, which, again in turn, is followed by another come. Next comes the words “categories/sub-categories wise.” Finally, it ends by the criterion of “preferences of the posts given by the candidates.” Here, the emphasis is on the allotment of posts on the basis of the four criteria, which are mentioned therein, namely, merit list, age required qualification, categories/sub-categories wise and, finally, the preferences to the posts. It is, thereafter, followed-up by the requirement that the information regarding full description of the candidates relating to age, qualification, categories/sub-categories and preference of posts given by the candidates, etc. is to be provided by the examination section. Finally, it contemplates that, for the said selection, the merit list is to be prepared roll-number wise, which should bear the signatures of certain officers. Conspicuous by its absence are the words “preparation of the select list on the basis of categories/sub-categories.” The question would arise as to whether this requirement is reflected in any other provision. It is in a search for this requirement that we find ourselves in Rule 4.3.1. Before we go to the said Rule as such, we cannot but be detained by the heading of Rule 4.3 and, that is, it says “final selection result.” Passing on to sub-rule (2) of Rule 4.3.1 (A), it contemplates that, after completion of the merit list for the examination to the included posts, category/ subcategory wise merit list be prepared. Therefore, we would think that Rule 4.2.2 (C) must be read along with Rule 4.3.1 to give a harmonious interpretation to both the provisions and meaning also. It is, undoubtedly, true that a perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4.3.1 (A) contemplates a situation, where there is selection by holding examination and interview. This is for the reason that it provides that, after completion of the interview, the mark-list is to be provided by the Examination Controller to the Section Officer and a final merit list is to be prepared after adding the total marks obtained in the main examination/ written examination and the marks obtained in the interview. This is for the reason that it provides that, after completion of the interview, the mark-list is to be provided by the Examination Controller to the Section Officer and a final merit list is to be prepared after adding the total marks obtained in the main examination/ written examination and the marks obtained in the interview. It is significant to notice that, in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.3.1 (A), it begins with the words “in the said merit list.” The words “in the said merit list”, in our view, are referring to the merit list, which was to be prepared under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4.3.1 (A). This is because after the completion of merit list (it must be “preparation of merit list”) which is done in respect of a case coming under sub-rule (1), namely, where selection is to be done on the basis of written examination and interview, again, a category/sub-category wise merit list is to be prepared. It is, therefore, that, when sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.3.1 (A) refers to the words “in the said merit list”, we must understand this to be the merit list, which is prepared under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4.3.1 (A). We have already noticed that, in Rule 4.2.2 (C), there is no mention about the preparation of merit list, which is category and sub-category wise. That requirement is found only in Rule 4.3.1 (A). Therefore, this circumstance, in our view, fortifies the Commission in its contention that a final select list is made only under Rule 4.3.1 (A), where, following the principle relating to, both, communal rotation as also reservation, on the basis of horizontal reservation, list is prepared from out of the list, which is prepared under Rule 4.2.2 (C), which is done only on the basis of roll-number, and recognition is given to, both, vertical reservation and horizontal reservation as per law and it is, thereafter, that sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.3.1 (A) provides for the requirement of obtaining minimum marks. The requirement of obtaining minimum marks in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.3.1 (A) is to be read along with the Resolution of the Commission of the year 2011, which, admittedly, was taken much prior to the issuance of the Advertisement, which was done in the year 2012. The requirement of obtaining minimum marks in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.3.1 (A) is to be read along with the Resolution of the Commission of the year 2011, which, admittedly, was taken much prior to the issuance of the Advertisement, which was done in the year 2012. If, therefore, this requirement, namely, possession of 45 per cent marks in the written examination was already there, then, there is no merit in the argument of the appellants that the act of the Commission amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun. 13. We may also notice that though, in the counter affidavit filed by the Commission, reference is made to the Resolution of the year 2011, there is no rejoinder affidavit filed raising the contention that the said Resolution is inapplicable to the case of the appellants. 14. The view, which we are taking, is also in accord with another salutary principle to be applied for appointment on public posts, which must be present in our mind. The selection is being made to public service. Selecting meritorious candidates is certainly the duty of the Commission. If the argument of the appellants is accepted, it would certainly result in a situation, where there will be dilution of the concept of merit. If candidates, without any minimum marks being prescribed, become entitled to be selected, then the quality of public service will suffer a diminution and this also is a matter, which we should keep in mind. This is apart from taking the view that, even otherwise, the case of the appellants that it is contrary to the rules may not be justified. 15. Article 320 of the Constitution declares that it shall be the duty of the Commission to decide upon the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and inter-alia, on the suitability of the candidates for such appointments. Suitability and merit are not strange bedfellows. In fact, it cannot be said that a person, to be suitable, need not have merit. Rather, merit is, in fact, the most important element of suitability. 16. Another contention raised by Mr. Suitability and merit are not strange bedfellows. In fact, it cannot be said that a person, to be suitable, need not have merit. Rather, merit is, in fact, the most important element of suitability. 16. Another contention raised by Mr. Sandeep Tiwari is that, as far as the subject Hindi is concerned, minimum of 35 per cent is prescribed in the syllabus, which is part of the Advertisement, and, in respect of other subjects, no minimum is prescribed and this shows that the action is illegal. This is sought to be explained by Mr. B.D. Kandpal by pointing out that this only means that, in order to be qualified, not only should the candidate obtain a minimum of 45 per cent in all the subjects, but a separate minimum must be obtained in Hindi and Essay at 35 per cent. We are inclined to agree with the said reasoning. The prescription of 35 per cent minimum marks in Hindi alone and also the stipulation of obtaining 45 per cent of the total marks are not incompatible, rather they can be harmonized. In other words, the legal requirement can be stated to be as follows: “A candidate, to be successful, must not only possess 45 per cent marks out of the total marks in all the subjects put together, but he/she must also obtain a separate minimum of 35 per cent in Hindi and Essay.” 17. Therefore, there is no merit in the said argument. 18. We may also notice the change that has been brought about in the year 2013 by the amendment to the 2012 Rules. We have extracted the Rules. A perusal of the Rules would appear to show that, after the amendment under Rule 4.2.2 (C), there is a requirement to publish a merit list and there is also a separate minimum specifically set-out and, what is more, it is provided that the merit list is to be prepared in accordance with age, preference, eligibility, category/sub-category wise and the posts are to be allotted. This brings about a complete change in the un-amended Rule, which did not contemplate preparation of merit list in terms of age, preference, eligibility, category/sub-category wise. This was to be found only in Rule 4.3.1 (A), which we have noticed. This brings about a complete change in the un-amended Rule, which did not contemplate preparation of merit list in terms of age, preference, eligibility, category/sub-category wise. This was to be found only in Rule 4.3.1 (A), which we have noticed. Therefore, we may be inclined to think that, after the amendment, Rule 4.2.2 (C) has become a stand alone or a self- contained provision. This also would only militate against the case of the appellants. 19. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the appeals are without merit. Accordingly, the appeals will stand dismissed without any order as to costs.