ORDER : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 2677 of 2021 2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition by making addition in the last portion of prayer no. 1(a) to the effect “in the vacant seats that have arisen on account of non-joining of the selected candidates.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-writ petitioner has submitted that prayer of the petitioner stands on the sole footing that final appointment has not been made on all the vacancies that were notified in the advertisement, as such case of the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the said post, but inadvertently the petitioner missed to pray for her recommendation on these vacant seats. It has further been submitted that the amendment sought for is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. Hence, prayer has been made to allow the amendment petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents did not raise serious objection to such prayer. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that amendment sought for by way of addition in the prayer portion of writ petition is formal in nature, which will not change the nature and character of the writ petition. Therefore, the amendment sought for by the petitioner for addition in the prayer portion of the writ petition is allowed. 7. Due to Covid-19 Protocol, since there is less movement of the counsel in the Registry of the Court, as such Office is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Interlocutory Application. 8. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2677 of 2021 stands allowed. W.P. (S) No. 297 of 2021 9. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: (a) For issuance of an appropriate writs, orders or directions or a writ, particularly in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents for recommendation for appointment of the Petitioner as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the vacant seats that have arisen on account of non-joining of the selected candidates. (b) For issuance of any appropriate writs, orders or directions or a writ, particularly in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents for the preparation of waiting list in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division). (c) For issuance of a show cause or for any writs, orders or directions that under what circumstances the Petitioner was not appointed at the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), despite the existing vacant seats. 10. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein, are as under: The writ petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature to be appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in pursuance to advertisement issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “JPSC”) being Advertisement No. 12/2018 published on 24.11.2018 on the official website of JPSC. Subsequently, the writ petitioner appeared for Preliminary Entrance Test (PT) and was shortlisted to appear in the Main Examination. She secured 221 marks in the Mains Examination (Written Examination) and was declared qualified to appear for the Viva-Voce Test/Interview in which she appeared, however, in the final list published on 11.02.2020, her name was not recommended for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The JPSC after declaration of result has uploaded the marks of all the candidates along with cut off marks for each category on the official website on 20.03.2020, in which, it was shown that the writ petitioner has scored 263.33 marks as against total cut off of 263.33 marks for the unreserved category, but the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected with the remarks that “No LLM Degree, less qualification than selected candidates.” Thereafter, the JPSC vide its letter dated 26.02.2020 recommended for appointment of 107 candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) along with category-wise list of the meritorious candidates to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. According to writ petitioner, one candidate, namely, Prashant Singh, who is the last selected candidate in unreserved category in which the writ petitioner falls, scored the same marks as that of the writ petitioner, however, he was selected since he had Post Graduate Degree in law. According to writ petitioner, one candidate, namely, Prashant Singh, who is the last selected candidate in unreserved category in which the writ petitioner falls, scored the same marks as that of the writ petitioner, however, he was selected since he had Post Graduate Degree in law. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was not selected for the reason that the other candidate who has secured the same marks as that of the petitioner was possessing higher qualification in terms of degree. In the backdrop of these facts, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite the recommendation having been made for appointment on 107 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), there were some candidates who either have not joined or have resigned, in view thereof few seats fell vacant against the total number of vacancies advertised vide Advertisement No. 12/2018, as such if all the seats would have been filled up, there is every likelihood of selection of the writ petitioner, but having not done so, gross illegality has been committed. Hence, the writ petitioner has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, has submitted that if the recommendation of 107 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) had been made by the JPSC and some candidates, who have either not been appointed or resigned leaving the room for other candidates to be appointed, the competent authority ought to have taken decision by considering candidature of the writ petitioner in order to fill up the remaining vacancies out of 107 posts, but the vacancies have not been filled up, therefore, the authorities have acted arbitrarily while making no appointment for the left over post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), hence relief has been sought for from this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue direction for filling up the entire vacancy and if that direction would be there, there is every likelihood of consideration of case of the writ petitioner for final selection and appointment. 11. We have heard the matter on 7th June, 2021. 11. We have heard the matter on 7th June, 2021. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a direction was given to the respondents-State of Jharkhand and the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand as also upon respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to file counter affidavit. In pursuance thereto, the respondent-JPSC though filed counter affidavit on 23rd June, 2021 but no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents-State. 12. Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC has argued on the strength of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-JPSC duly sworn by the Secretary-Jharkhand Public Service Commission that there is no infirmity in the process of selection rather according to respondent- JPSC the selection has been made strictly in terms of the Regulation, formulated in exercise of power conferred under Rule 26 of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2004’) relating to recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division), by the Jharkhand High Court in the year 2013, namely, Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Regulation, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation, 2013’) wherein at Clause 14 it has specifically been stated that the final selection list shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the Main Examination and Vice Voce Test and in case of tie of marks between the candidates in the final selection list, their selection shall be made firstly on the basis of qualification i.e. person having Post Graduate Degree in Law shall be given preference and thereafter on the basis of experience, if any, in legal practice still if necessary, on the basis of seniority in age. It has further been submitted that the condition as mentioned in Clause 14 of Regulation, 2013 has been incorporated by JPSC the examining body in the terms and conditions for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) of the advertisement, based upon which, final select list was prepared, in which the writ petitioner secured 263.33 marks, however, last selected candidate under the category of petitioner had also secured 263.33 marks but on the basis of higher qualification of LLM Degree, as per provision 14 of the Regulation, 2013, he was selected. It has further been submitted that the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Ranchi issued a Circular dated 26.11.2012 vide memo no. It has further been submitted that the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Ranchi issued a Circular dated 26.11.2012 vide memo no. 13026, annexed as Annexure C to the counter affidavit, by formulating guidelines for the purpose of its observance by the JPSC and JSSC, the examining bodies, wherein at clause 3(xv), it has been stated that if the posts remained unfilled due to non-joining of the successful candidates or for any other reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward for the subsequent advertisement, therefore, even though the JPSC has recommended for 107 candidates for their appointment and some of the them did not join by accepting the offer of appointment that does not confer any right upon the writ petitioner to seek direction upon this Court for filling up the remaining vacancies, as remaining vacancies are required to be filled up in the subsequent advertisement. Hence, the prayer which has been made by the writ petitioner in this regard is not worth to be considered. It has further been submitted that recommendation has already been made by the JPSC on 26.02.2020 and now selection process has already been completed as such at this stage it would not be appropriate to allow the relief which has been sought for by the writ petitioner. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. We, before proceeding further, require to refer herein that we have passed specific direction on 07.06.2021 directing the respondents nos. 1-State of Jharkhand and respondent no. 2-Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha as also respondent no. 3-JPSC to file counter affidavit. Respondent no. 3-JPSC filed counter affidavit but respondent nos. 1 and 2 did not file counter affidavit, which we are highly deprecating. How such type of carelessness can be shown by the respondents-State of Jharkhand that too by the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha which is the nodal authority to formulate the rules, basing upon which the selection process is to be commenced by the JPSC or any other recruitment agency created by the State of Jharkhand. We, however, after considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3-JPSC have found therefrom that the response which has been filed by the respondent no. We, however, after considering the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3-JPSC have found therefrom that the response which has been filed by the respondent no. 3-JPSC is sufficient for adjudicating the issue, which is the subject matter of instant writ petition, therefore, we have proceeded to adjudicate the matter without waiting for the response to be filed by the respondents-State. 14. Prayer has been made in this writ petition for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for recommending the name of writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) as also direction for preparation of waiting list in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) with further direction to apprise this Court as to under what circumstance the writ petitioner was not appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) despite the existing vacancies. Such reliefs have been sought for in the backdrops of facts that in pursuance to requisition made by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha for filling up the vacancies of 107 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) advertisement was published on 24.12.2018 vide Advertisement No. 12/2018 on the official website of JPSC. As per recruitment process, the process of selection was conducted at three stages; Preliminary Entrance Test (PT), Main Examination (Written Examination) and Viva-Voce Test/Oral Examination. The writ petitioner participated in process of selection and after being declared successful in the Preliminary Entrance Test, he appeared in Main Examination and subsequently after being declared successful in Main Examination he appeared for Viva-Voce Test, however, when the examining body-JPSC came out with the final result, the name of the writ petitioner did not find mention in the list of finally selected candidate for joining the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though she secured 263.33 marks at par with the last selected candidate who did secure 263.33 marks i.e. the cut-off marks for the unreserved category, but merely because the writ petitioner did not possess the LLM Degree and the last selected candidate had the higher qualification of LLM Degree the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected. According to writ petitioner when names of 107 candidates were recommended for appointment on the said post and only 99 candidates were given appointment as such remaining eight vacant seats ought to have been filled up as per the merit list/select list for filling up the post as per the provision made under Rule 14(a) of the Rules, 2004, which provides that the select list will be valid for one year from the date of its publication. It is the claim of the writ petitioner that there was tie with the last selected candidate and in view of such aspect of the matter, the candidate having degree of LLM was given appointment letter then why she should also not be offered letter of appointment when vacancies were there. 15. The respondent-JPSC has filed counter affidavit giving para-wise reply: The respondent-JPSC has relied upon Clause 14 of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Regulation, 2013, which reads under as: “(14) The final selection list shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the Main Examination and the Viva-Voce Test both in case of tie of marks between the candidates in the final selection list, their selection shall be made firstly on the basis of qualification, i.e. person having Post Graduate Degree in Law shall be given preference and thereafter on the basis of experience, if any, in legal practice and still if necessary, on the basis of seniority in age.” The respondent-JPSC has further relied upon clause 3(xv) of the Resolution issued vide Memo No. 13026 dated 27.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, appended as Annexure C to the counter affidavit, which reads hereunder as: ¼15½ fdlh mEehnokj ;k mEehnokjksa }kjk fu/kkZfjr le;&lhek ds vUnj ;ksxnku ugha nsus ;k vU; dkj.kksa ls fjfDr;ka Hkjh ugha tk ldus dh fLFkfr esa ,slh fjfDr;ka vxyh vf/k;kpuk ds fy, vxz.khy dh tk;sxhA Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed much emphasis on Rule 17(a) of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, which reads as under: “17. (a) The marks obtained in the Viva Voce Test shall be added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the Main Written Examination. The names of the candidates will then be tabulated and arranged in order of merit. (a) The marks obtained in the Viva Voce Test shall be added to the marks obtained by the candidates in the Main Written Examination. The names of the candidates will then be tabulated and arranged in order of merit. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the order shall be determined in accordance with the marks secured in the Main Written Examination. If the marks secured in the Main Written Examination of the candidates are also found equal, then the candidate who is older shall be placed above the others. From the list of candidates so arranged in order of merit, the Commission in consultation with the High Court, shall prepare Select List and have it duly notified in a manner as prescribed in the Regulations. Such Select List shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of publication of the list.” It is evident from Rule 17(a) of the Rules, 2004 that the process of selection provides that the marks obtained in the Viva Voce Test shall be added to the marks obtained in the Main Written Examination. The names of the candidates will then be tabulated and arranged in order of merit. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks in aggregate, the order shall be determined in accordance with the marks secured in the Main Written Examination. If the marks secured in the Main Written Examination of the candidates are also found equal, then the candidate who is older in age shall be placed above the others. From the list of candidates so arranged in order of merit, the Commission in consultation with the High Court, shall prepare Select List and have it duly notified in a manner as prescribed in the Regulations. Such Select List shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of publication of the list. Meaning thereby the selection has to be made strictly in accordance with the process as provided under Rule 17(a) of the Rules, 2004, subject to provisions made in Regulation, 2013 which has been formulated, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 26 of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 which confers power upon the High Court to make Regulation for carrying out appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 16. 16. We, after discussing the prevalent law for recruitment vis-a-vis the factual aspects of the instant case, wherein the fact, which is not in dispute is that the writ petitioner had applied for consideration of her candidature for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under unreserved category, having no LLM Degree. She secured 263.33 marks in total. The last selected candidate had also obtained 263.33 marks but the case of the writ petitioner considered was not considered for recommendation of appointment on the post in question as she was having no LLM Degree and all the candidates who have been appointed are having higher qualification/higher marks in comparison to the writ petitioner. 17. The questions which are to be answered by this Court is as to: (i) Whether the writ petitioner has got any accrued right even though she has not been recommended for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)? (ii) Whether this Court can issue direction to fill up the entire vacancies even though the candidates are not found to be meritorious in comparison to other selected candidates? (iii) Whether the writ petitioner can seek direction for publication of merit list contrary to the provision as contained under Rule 17(a) of the Rules, 2004? 18. Since, all the issues are inter-linked, as such they are taken up together and are being answered simultaneously instead of answering separately. The provision, as contained in Rule 17(a) speaks that from the list of candidates so arranged in order of merit, the Commission in consultation with the High Court, shall prepare Select List and have it duly notified in a manner as prescribed in the Regulations. The aforesaid stipulation made in the statutory provision clearly speaks that any merit list is to be prepared on the basis of comparison of one or the other candidates and thereafter the Commission in consultation with the High Court shall prepare a ‘select list’ and having duly notified in the manner as prescribed in the Regulations. This provision clearly speaks that the performance of one or the other candidate based upon the total marks obtained in the written examination as also Viva-Voce Test will be taken into consideration for keeping the name of the candidates for a year for the purpose of preparing a select list to be sent before the competent authority by way of recommendation for appointment. It has further been stipulated therein that if one or more candidate obtains equal marks in the aggregate, the order shall be determined in accordance with the marks secured in the Main Written Examination. It requires to refer herein that there is difference in between “merit list” and the “select list.” Merit list contains the name of the candidates on the basis of their performance of securing of marks merit wise while on the other hand, the select list is the list containing the name of the candidate who have been recommended for appointment to the post in question based upon the merit position of the candidate from the merit list. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in Divya Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2019 SCC Online All. 4864, wherein at paragraph 23, distinction in between ‘select list’ and ‘merit list’ has been made, which reads as under: “23. There is distinction in merit list and select list. Merit list is prepared by the Commission or the Committee, as the case may be, on the basis of marks obtained by all the candidates in order of their merit. The select list is prepared from the merit list against the number of posts advertised/available for selection after applying the reservation etc.” Likewise in Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 604 , the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 52 held that “....A select list is prepared keeping in view the respective merit of the candidates...” 19. Herein, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that she has secured more marks than any other candidate rather her whole case is that in aggregate, in written examination and viva-voce, she has obtained 263.33 marks and as such case of the writ petitioner is coming under the fold of that stipulation as has been made for consideration of candidature of two or more candidates who have obtained equal marks as contained in Rule 17(a) of the Rules, 2004 therefore the case of the writ petitioner is being of equal marks with that of the marks obtained by the last selected candidate. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that the last selected candidate who has also secured 263.33 marks was having LLM degree but in the case of the writ petitioner, there is no LLM degree as such the petitioner cannot equate herself with the last selected candidate even though she has secured marks at par with the last selected candidate, that is also not the case of the writ petitioner. 20. The case of the writ petitioner is only to direct the competent authority of the State to fill up the entire vacancy of 107 seats and if that is done there is likelihood that the case of the writ petitioner shall be considered for appointment but it is settled proposition of law that under presumption there cannot be any direction of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be passed on presumption. There must be specific cause of action then only direction in the nature of writ as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be sought for. Further, it is settled position of law that even if name of a candidate is in the select list and some vacancy exists that does not give any indefeasible right to the selected candidate, as has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shankaran Das vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 but herein even the name of the writ petitioner has not come in the select list as such there is no question of consideration of case of the writ petitioner by issuing direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by filling up the remaining vacancy. 21. 21. So far as prayer of the writ petitioner for direction to the competent authority of the State to fill up entire vacancy which also cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking into consideration the factual aspect more particularly the stand of the JPSC taken in the counter affidavit that the candidature of the writ petitioner has been found to be less meritorious in comparison to the other selected candidates and once the commission has taken such step by considering the merit of one or the other candidates, in which, the case of the writ petitioner is found not up to the mark there cannot be any interference by the High Court by exercising power of judicial review since it is settled position of law that if there will is no error in the selection process there cannot be any interference in the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Syed T.A. Naqshbandi and Others vs. State of J&K and Others, (2003) 9 SCC 592 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “Judicial Review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the Courts exercising powers of judicial review unlike the case of an appellate court, would neither be permissible nor conducive to the interests of either the officers concerned or the system and institutions.....” Further reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , wherein the Hon’ble Court at paragraphs 72-75 and 77 held as under: “72. Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council vs. Secretary of State for the Environment, 1986 AC 240 : (1986) 1 All ER 199, proclaimed: “Judicial Review” is a great weapon in the hands of the judges; but the judges must observe the constitutional limits set by our parliamentary system upon the exercise of this beneficial power.” Commenting upon this Michael Supper-Stone and James Goudie in their work Judicial Review (1992 Edn.) at p. 16 say: “If anyone were prompted to dismiss this sage warning as a mere obiter dictum from the most radical member of the higher judiciary of recent times, and therefore to be treated as an idiosyncratic aberration, it has received the endorsement of the Law Lords generally. The words of Lord Scarman were echoed by Lord Bridge of Harwich, speaking on behalf of the Board when reversing an interventionist decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Butcher vs. Petrocorp Exploration Ltd. dated 18.3.1991.” 73. Observance of judicial restraint is currently the mood in England. The judicial power of review is exercised to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the court's ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. 74. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself. 75. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans, (1982) 3 All ER 141, Lord Brightman said: “Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. *** *** *** Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.” *** *** *** 77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached. 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact in R. vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex. Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, “consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention.” (Emphasis supplied) Similar principle has been laid down in the cases of H.S. Sidhu vs. Devendra Bapna and Others, (2016) 1 SCC 495 and U.V. Mahadkar vs. Subhash Anand Chavan and Others, (2016) 1 SCC 536 . It is the case of the respondent that it is the selecting authority/examining body who has to assess the merit of one or the other candidates and if the Commission has come to the finding by not recommending the name of the writ petitioner for appointment being less meritorious on the post in question on the ground of having no LLM Degree it cannot come under purview of Regulation, 2013 by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further question would be that when a writ petitioner has not been declared to be successful can such direction be issued by the High Court for fulfilling remaining eight vacancies, we are of the view that it also cannot be directed by this Court for the reason that there cannot be any compromise with merit condition of one or the other candidate rather it is upon the satisfaction of the examining body, herein the JPSC, to select the most suitable and meritorious candidate. Further contention of learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that since there is validity of select list for one year from the date of publication of select list and the said one year period has not lapsed, as such remaining vacancies is required to be filled up, we are not impressed with such contention for the reason that there cannot be any compromise with the suitability and when the JPSC-the examining body has selected the candidate on the basis of relevant Rules and Regulations by taking into consideration the LLM Degree of the candidate and other higher qualification even though the validity of the period of the select list has not lapsed there cannot be any direction upon the Commission/State Government. This Court is further of the view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a specific case because it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that she has not been selected and as such there cannot be any direction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of ‘chance’ to see as to whether the writ petitioner is going to be selected or not rather the writ petitioner ought to have approach this Court with the specific cause of action. 22. This Court on the basis of discussions made herein above and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, is of the view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference so as to pass any positive direction. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and, is dismissed.