Getty v. Witter, 107 Colo. 302, 111 P.2d 636. Where there are conditions precedent to a right to have a certain act performed, it is essential that such conditions precedent be extant. People ex rel. Harper v. Ingles, 106 Colo. 213, 103 P.2d 475; Civil Service Com. v. People, 88 Colo. 319, 295 P.2d 920. In the action before this court petitioners seek, as was noted in the prayer of their complain, to be classified as civil service employees as provided in Article XII, section 13, of the state constitution.

34 A.J. 935, § 157. Also in 55 C.J.S., p. 306, § 157, it is stated that the general rule is that "a writ of mandamus will not be issued with respect to the making or enforcement of police regulations except to enforce a clear legal right or to compel the performance of a clear legal duty. * * *" For Colorado authority that the one bringing the action must show a clear legal right to demand the performance of a certain act as well as a clear legal duty on the part of the officer to do the thing demanded, see Commission v. People, 88 Colo. 319, 295 Pac. 920; Schneider v. People, 95 Colo. 300, 35 P.2d 498. In People ex rel. Harper v. Ingles, 106 Colo. 213, 103 P.2d 475, there was reiterated the rule that before mandamus will issue there must be a clear legal duty imposed upon the official before he can be compelled to act.

It being apparent that we here are dealing with discretionary power of the commission, the controlling questions are: Is there a clear legal right on the part of relators to compel the commission by mandamus to give them a non-assembled examination, and to cancel the results of the examination held December 4, 1939? And is there a clear legal duty resting upon the commission to give such an examination? Unless there is, mandamus will not lie. 38 C.J., p. 600, § 75; 18 R.C.L., p. 128, § 41. See, also, Civil Service Commission v. People ex rel., 88 Colo. 319, 295 Pac. 920; People ex rel. v. Ingles, 106 Colo. 213, 103 P.2d 475. In the case of State Board v. Denver, 61 Colo. 266 ( 156 Pac. 1100), we quoted with approval section 34 from High's Extraordinary Legal Remedies, as follows: "An important distinction to be observed in the outset, and which will more fully appear hereafter, is that between duties which are peremptory and absolute, and hence merely ministerial in their nature, and those which involve the exercise of some degree of official discretion and judgment upon the part of the officers charged with their performance.

Where a specific action is sought to be compelled by mandamus, as here, there must be a clear legal right to have that specific action taken. Civil Service Commission v. People ex rel., 88 Colo. 319, 295 Pac. 920. If there is any discretion as to the taking or not taking of the action, or if the one sought to be compelled to act has a lawful right to require precedent action by another before acting himself, there is not a clear case of a legal right in the relator to have the action taken until there is a showing that such precedent action has been taken. This is what relator seeks to have done.