As per case facts, 390 candidates appeared for the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) test in 1983-84, with 54 qualifying by securing the minimum 55% marks. The petitioner was ranked ... 24th. Despite 54 vacancies, the Public Service Commission recommended only 26 candidates. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32, asserting that if the appointment rules for Subordinate Judges had been followed, she would have been selected. She also contended that 32 general category candidates, in order of merit, should have been appointed, and that the Service Commission illegally withheld the names of all successful candidates from the Government and the High Court. The question arose whether the Public Service Commission could arbitrarily restrict the number of recommended candidates despite more being qualified and whether it had a duty to provide a complete list of qualified candidates to the government. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the Public Service Commission's duty is to conduct examinations, arrange merit, publish results, and make a complete list of *all* qualified candidates available to the government, not to restrict the list based on a limited number of perceived vacancies. It held that arbitrary restriction is not permissible and found the reason for withholding the full list (initial information of 28 vacancies) unsound. The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to be selected for appointment.