JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have moved to this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to comply with the mandate of Rule 20 of Personal Assistant Cadre Employees’ Service Rules 2018 and Rule 5(4) of Procedure for Appointment by Direct Recruitment on Group ‘C’ Post Rules, 2008, and to conclude the selection process of Stenographer/Personal Assistants against unfilled and non-recommended 42 vacancies of Personal Assistant/Stenographer. 3. Facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that an advertisement was issued by the respondent no.3-Commission on 27.07.2020 for supplying vacancies on the post of Personal Assistant/Stenographer. According to petitioners, total number of posts were initially 162 which were subsequently reduced to 152. The selection was initiated in which petitioners participated and written examination took place on 16/17.03.2021. According to petitioners, total 1830 candidates qualified the written examination. The minimum qualifying marks, as per the advertisement for open category candidates, were 45% and petitioners qualified the said exam having scored more marks than required. The respondent-Commission issued a provisional merit list inviting 648 candidates for shorthand and typing test out of 1830 candidates, who qualified. Since petitioners were below merit list, therefore, they were left out. After the said test, provisional final merit list was issued by the Commission on 31.03.2022 by only including 110 candidates. After document verification, those 110 candidates were recommended for being appointed on 26.05.2023, and accordingly, they have been appointed in the respective Departments. 4. Petitioners have moved to this Court by filing present petition on the premise that since respondent-Selecting Body has not issued the complete provisional final merit list of 152 candidates, which were the vacancies notified in the advertisement, therefore, the Commission was under a legal duty to issue a further list of 42 candidates for calling them for document verification for the purpose of shorthand and typing test in their order of merit. In order to substantiate his submission, petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 20 of the Personal Assistant Cadre Employee Service Rules, 2018 and submitted that selection shall be made as per the procedure prescribed under the Uttarakhand Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group-C Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission) Rules, 2008 (to be referred as ‘Rules of 2008’). Rule 20 of the Personal Assistant Cadre Employee Service Rules, 2018 is quoted below: - “The selection process for Group ‘C’ posts to be filled through the Departmental Selection Committee will be such as prescribed in the Uttarakhand Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group-C Posts (Outside the purview of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission) Rules, 2008.” 5. Rule 5(4)(ii)(h) of the Rules of 2008 prescribes the procedure. For convenience sake, the same is quoted here-in-below: - Procedure for direct recruitment 5(4)(ii)(h) If the number of successful candidates in the typewriting or shorthand and typewriting test is less than the vacancies, the action for the appointment of the successful candidates shall be taken. For the remaining vacancies typewriting or shorthand and typewriting test for the next candidates already called for typewriting or shorthand and typewriting test from the list of the candidates arranged on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination and other evaluations in the ratio of 1:4 and successful candidates may be selected in accordance with the rules. This process shall be continued till the prescribed number of candidates with minimum prescribed speed are available. 6. On the basis of afore-quoted Rule, it is contended by learned Counsel for petitioners that if after shorthand and typing test, successful candidates are lesser than the vacancies available, in that case, for remaining vacancies, further candidates for selection shall be called for subsequent shorthand and typing test in the ratio of 1:4 from the list prepared after written examination and other evaluation. This process shall be continued till requisite number of candidates are not selected by the selecting body. 7. According to learned Counsel for petitioner, the Commission, by selecting merely 110 candidates and recommending them for appointment, has misconstrued the provisions of Rules. According to the learned Counsel, there were 152 vacancies, out of which 110 were selected, and thus, 42 candidates were yet to be selected, and therefore, the respondent-Commission should have called candidates from the list of 1830 candidates for the purpose of typing and shorthand test. 8. Learned Counsel for petitioner further placed reliance upon Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 2008 to contend that it is only after the procedure is followed, as prescribed under Rule 5(4)(ii)(h) of the Rules, the merit list (final selection list) shall be prepared. 8. Learned Counsel for petitioner further placed reliance upon Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 2008 to contend that it is only after the procedure is followed, as prescribed under Rule 5(4)(ii)(h) of the Rules, the merit list (final selection list) shall be prepared. It is further submitted that no final merit list has yet been prepared by the Commission as per the Rules of 2008, and therefore the Commission should comply the provisions of Rules of 2008 in its letter and spirit, and, in turn, to call the names of candidates for typing and shorthand test from the list of 1830 candidates enlisted after written examination. My attention has been drawn to the list(s) prepared by the Commission which particularly contains the Clause that the List is being prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2008. 9. The respondent Commission has filed its counter affidavit wherein reliance has been placed upon Rule 5(4)(ii)(f) of the Rules which reads as under: - “5(4)(ii)(f) In case of candidates to be selected for any post for which typewriting or shorthand and typewriting or practical examination related to technical subject, has been prescribed as an essential qualification, there shall be a test of typewriting or shorthand and typewriting or practical examination as the case may be. The minimum prescribed speed for typewriting test shall be 4000 KDPH (Key Depressions Per Hour) on the computer and for shorthand test 80 words per minute, the above examination shall carry 50 marks. The marks shall be awarded only to those candidates who have attained minimum prescribed speed. The candidates shall be called for the typewriting test or shorthand and typewriting test or practical examination for the post related to technical subject on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by them in written examination and other evaluations. The number of candidates to be called for the typewriting test or shorthand and typewriting test or practical examination shall be four time the number of vacancies.” 10. Learned Counsel for the Commission submits that the candidates were called by Commission for typing and shorthand test on the basis of marks obtained by them in written examination. The number of candidates to be called for the typewriting test or shorthand and typewriting test or practical examination shall be four time the number of vacancies.” 10. Learned Counsel for the Commission submits that the candidates were called by Commission for typing and shorthand test on the basis of marks obtained by them in written examination. It is further contended by Commission in its counter affidavit that on 26.05.2023, the respondent-Commission sent the recommendation to various Departments, and according to Commission, the selection now has been concluded and as of now, the Commission has again received requisition(s) from various Departments including 42 posts left out in the present selection. 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of Rules of 2008, particularly Rule 5(4)(ii)(h) and 5(4)(ii)(f), it is abundantly clear that the procedure of preparation of final merit list should have been followed as per the Rules. Rather the selection ought to have been held by the Commission strictly in accordance with Rule 5(4)(ii)(h) of the Rules of 2008. The Commission has fell in error of law and fact while sending recommendation of only 110 candidates, leaving 42 posts vacant without invoking the provisions of Rule 5(4)(ii)(h) of Rules of 2008 which unambiguously prescribes that candidates from the list should be called till the entire vacancies are filled up, and it is only thereafter, the selection process would come to an end. 12. There is no point in arguing that the Commission has recommended 110 candidates for appointment to various Departments and at present, the Commission has got no vacancy available. From perusal of record, and in light of terms and conditions of advertisement, there is no manner of doubt in the mind of this Court that total 152 vacancies were advertised and since only 110 candidates were selected and recommended, 42 vacancies are still available, and the respondent –Commission has also got the list of those 1830 candidates in order of merit, thus, by applying the ratio of 1:4 i.e. 42 x 4=168 candidates can still be called for typing and shorthand test from the said list. If after exhaustion of entire list of 1830 candidates, if still vacancies remained unfilled, in that event only, those vacancies shall be carried forward. If after exhaustion of entire list of 1830 candidates, if still vacancies remained unfilled, in that event only, those vacancies shall be carried forward. The selection process conducted by the respondent-Commission was faulty inasmuch as in violation of Rules of 2008 as referred above and the same cannot sustain. The Commission should have conducted it for 42 vacancies which remained unfilled till exhaustion of list of 1830 candidates. 13. There is nothing on record to even suggest that 42 vacancies have been sent back to the State and new requisition has been received by the Commission including those 42 vacancies on the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistants. 14. In this view of matter, I find force in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent-Commission is directed to call the candidates, who fall in the list of 1830 candidates in the ratio of 1:4 whose names are there in the list after 648th candidate for supplying 42 vacancies on the post of Stenographer/Personal Assistant in the order of merit till the entire remaining 42 vacancies are filled or list of 1830 candidates is exhausted, whichever is earlier. Since sufficient time has already elapsed, it is directed that let the selection be concluded within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.