OP(KAT) Nos. 296 & 354 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939 **OP(KAT).No. 296 of 2014** AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.No.2918/2013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11-08-2014 **PETITIONERS** /RESPONDENT NOS. 4,5,6 AND 7 IN O.A.NO. 2918 OF 2013 1 V.K.ABDUL NASIR, S/O. LATE T.K.UMMER, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030, RESIDING AT EXCEL-6924-B, THOPPIL LANE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 N.M.MOHANAN S/O. N.S.MADHAVAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682006, RESIDING AT NIRAPPEL, ATTIUR KANDATHIL LANE, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA, KERALA-692301. 3 K.C.JAYAN S/O. CHANDRAN NAIR, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOTHRIKKA P.O., PIN-682308, ERNAKULAM-RESIDING AT KAVANAL DEVASREE, THEVAKKAL, B.M.C. P.O., KERALA-682021. BY ADV.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN **RESPONDENTS** /APPLICANTS 1 & 2 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN O.A.2918 OF 2013: 1. JAYAKRISHNAN P.D., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PERAYIL ILLOM, PERUMPANACHY P.O., CHANGANASSERRY, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686536. 2. RADHESH N., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. V.A.NARAYANAN, RESHMI NIVAS, MEZHUVELI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA-689507. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033. 5. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695004. O.P.(KAT)No.296 of 2014 2 6. PRADEEP P.G. S/O. P.GOVINDA PILLAI, WORKING AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD- RESIDING AT PATHAPPILLY (H), MUKKANNOOR P.O. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN R3&4 BY ADDL. A.G.SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH R5 BY S.C. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS O.P(KAT)HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2018 ALONG WITH O.P.(KAT)NO.354 OF 2014, THE COURT ON 19-03-2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 296 of 2014 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO. 2918/2013 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE K.A.T., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RANKED LIST OF APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT PUBLISHED BY THE PSC. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 18.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 13.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 26.02.2011 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REVISED SCALE OF PAY OF SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DATED 05.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 19.03.2012 FILED IN O.A.NO.422 OF 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED IN O.A.NO.422/2012 ON 11.04.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2013 IN O.A.NO.422/2012 ETC. OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.03.2013 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RTI ACT. ANNEXURE A9(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A9. ANNEXURE A10: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.03.2013 FURNISHED TO ANNEX.A9. ANNEXURE A10(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A10. ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2013 IN O.P. (KAT)NO.1537/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.05.2013 FILED IN C.P. (C)NO.54/2013 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2013 IN C.P.(C)NO.54/2013 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2013 IN R.P.NO.408/2013 IN O.P.(KAT)1537/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A15: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.04.2013 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RTI ACT. ANNEXURE A15(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A15. OP(KAT).No. 296 of 2014 (Z) 2 ANNEXURE A16: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.04.2013 FURNISHED TO ANNE.A15. ANNEXURE A16(a):ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A16. ANNEXURE A17: TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYATS SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1994. ANNEXURE A18: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 10.12.2013 FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN O.P.(KAT)NO.1537/2013 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A19: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.12.2013 IN O.P. (KAT)NO.1537/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF DETAILED REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.A. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-08-2014 IN O.A.NO. 2918/2014. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.2.2014 IN O.A.NO.2918/2013. EXT.R1(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT DATED 8.3.2014. EXT.R1(c): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2014 IN O.A.NO.2918/2013. EXT.R4(a): A COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.210/14/LSGD/ DATED 26.11.2014. // TRUE COPY // TKS Sd/P.S. TO JUDGE ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.** ------------------------------------- O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 ------------------------------------Dated 19[th] March, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** These original petitions are directed against the order dated 11.8.2014 in O.A.No.2918 of 2013 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The former Original Petition has been filed by respondents 5 to 7 and the latter Original Petition has been filed by the 4[th] respondent in the said Original Application, which was filed seeking the following reliefs:- - (i) issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith report 57 vacancies of Secretary, Grama Panchayat/Junior Superintendent to the 3[rd] respondent for advice and appointment from Annexure A1 ranked list. - (ii) issue a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to make advice for 57 vacancies from Annexure A1 ranked list to the category of Secretary, Grama Panchayat/Junior Superintendent on the basis of the informations contained in Annexure A16. - (iii) issue a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to give appointment to 57 posts of Secretary, Grama Panchayat/Junior Superintendent from Annexure A1 ranked list on the basis of the advice given by the P.S.C. Including the applicants.” 2. As per the impugned order dated 11.8.2014, O.A.No.2918 of 2013 was allowed and consequential directions were O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 2 also issued by the Tribunal to the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short `PSC'). Forty four vacancies were directed to be reported to the PSC. That apart, a further direction was given to the second respondent (Director of Panchayats) to identify how many persons out of 201 persons advised by the PSC from the rank list (Annexure A1), are actually working in the Panchayat Department and to report such deficit number as vacancies to the PSC, before 26.9.2014. When these Original Petitions came up for consideration on 9.6.2015 this Court passed an interim order whereby and whereunder in addition to the said 44 vacancies the Director of Panchayats (the 4[th] respondent in O.P. (KAT)No.296/2014) was directed to report 22 more vacancies of Secretaries of Grama Panchayats to the PSC, on provisional basis, subject to the result of the captioned Original Petitions. Going by the order, such reporting was to reach the office of the PSC on or before 18.6.2015. At the same time, going by the rider therein, no advice or appointment could be effected in respect of those 22 vacancies, without obtaining further orders from this Court. Virtually, the main prayer in the captioned Original Petitions is to set aside the order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2918 of 2013. In O.P.(KAT) 354 of 2014 a further prayer is also made as hereunder:- O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 3 “To declare that after the issuance of Annexure-A5 order and Exts.P3 and P4 Draft Rules, the vacancies of Secretary, Grama Panchayat now equated with the post of Senior Superintendent in the State Service cannot be filled up from Annexure-A1 rank list.” 3. To understand the circumstances that constrained the petitioners to mount challenge against the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2918 of 2013 and to seek for the aforementioned declaration it is necessary to narrate the facts of the case, succinctly. For convenient sake, the parties and documents are referred to hereafter in this judgment in the order and status they are arrayed/in the order the documents are set out, in the latter Original Petition unless otherwise specifically mentioned. Respondents 1 and 2 in both the above Original Petitions, were the applicants in the aforesaid Original Application. They were rank holders in a list published by the PSC for appointment to the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat pursuant to a notification issued in that behalf in the Gazette dated 28.9.2007. Ext.P2 is the notification concerned and Annexure-A1 in Ext.P1, is the said ranked list. As per Ext.P2, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) in Panchayat Department in the scale of pay of 9190-15510 and Annexure-A1 ranked list was₹ brought into force with effect from 20.12.2010, after due process of selection. The indisputable and undisputed fact is that after publishing O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 4 Annexure-A1 ranked list 201 candidates were advised for appointment from the said list. Prior to that, feeling aggrieved by the delay in the matter of reporting of vacancies some of the rank holders approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.31871 of 2011 and it was subsequently transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as T.A.No.1992 of 2012. While so, raising the very same claim O.A.No.422 of 2012 was filed before the Tribunal. The said Transferred Application and the Original Application were disposed of by the Tribunal as per a common order dated 25.2.2013 (Annexure-A8 order in Ext.P1) along with other connected cases. As per Annexure-A8 order they were disposed of with various directions. Paragraphs 13 and 14 in AnnexureA8 order assume relevance and they read thus:- “13. In the result, it is declared that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to report the vacancies available in the 220 posts set apart for direct recruitment in the cadre of Secretary, Grama Panchayat, taking into account the PSC hands now in position, to the Public Service Commission. Respondents 1 and 2 shall report those vacancies to the third respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. It is unnecessary for us to quash AnnexureA11 because it is only an order of provisional promotion. To accommodate PSC hands till their strength reaches to 220, the excess promotees can be reverted if in the meantime vacancies do not arise in the promotion quota to accommodate them. It is so ordered.” (emphasis added) O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 5 4. O.A.No.2918 of 2013 was filed alleging that pursuant to Annexure-A8 order passed by the Tribunal the Director of Panchayats, the 2[nd] respondent therein did not report any vacancy in the cadre of Secretary, Grama Panchayat. As noticed hereinbefore, the present admitted position is that, taking into account the fact that 19 directly recruited Secretaries of Grama Panchayats are in office, out of the total cadre strength of 220 set apart for direct recruitment in that cadre, 201 vacancies were reported to the PSC from Annexure-A1 ranked list. In O.A.No.2918 of 2013 it was pleaded that out of the 201 candidates advised by the PSC, 29 persons did not join duty and 13 persons got themselves relieved after joining duty. Further, it was stated therein that out of the advised and appointed persons one person had resigned and another died. Thus, according to the applicants therein, 44 vacancies occurred due to the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, are available to be reported from Annexure-A1 list. The applicants have also raised a further contention that 13 more vacancies are available to be reported for effecting appointment towards the direct recruitment quota and therefore, such number of candidates are also to be advised and appointed from Annexure-A1 ranked list. The Director of Panchayats filed a reply statement in the said Original Application. O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 6 Finding that the reply statement did not contain answers to the averments regarding the availability of 57 vacancies, an interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 8.7.2014. The first respondent therein viz., the State of Kerala was directed to file a reply statement dealing with the claim of the applicants regarding the existence of 57 vacancies. The Tribunal found that the averments in the reply statement filed on behalf of the State in pursuance of the said order contained conflicting and contradictory statements as regards the existence of vacancies. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and taking into account the undisputed and indisputable fact that 201 vacancies were reported to the PSC and consequently, 201 candidates were advised by the PSC from Annexure-A1 ranked list and pursuant to the consequential appointments, due to various reasons, including Non Joining Duty, subsequent relieving, resignation and death, 44 vacancies had arisen, rather, still to be reported, the Tribunal issued a direction to the Director of Panchayats to report 44 vacancies from Annexure-A1 ranked list to the PSC, as per the impugned order passed in O.A.No.2918 of 2013. As noticed hereinbefore, taking into account the contention of the applicants who are respondents 1 and 2 in the captioned Original Petitions that some more vacancies are available to be reported from Annexure-A1 ranked list and the reply statement given by the official O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 7 respondents therein did not reflect the correct position of direct recruits in office, the Tribunal issued a further direction as hereunder:- “The second respondent (the Director of Panchayats) shall identify how many persons out of 201 persons advised by the Public Service Commission from Annexure A1 rank list are actually working in the department now. The dearth, if any, should go to PSC hands. The second respondent shall take a decision on this point by ascertaining the number of persons working in the Panchayat department out of the 201 persons advised, and the vacancies so identified shall be reported to the Public Service Commission before the close of office hours on 26.9.2014.” As noticed hereinbefore, it is on being aggrieved by the said order that the captioned Original Petitions are filed by the party respondents therein, as mentioned hereinbefore, with the aforementioned prayers. They are persons already working in the Department in different posts. 5. In the former Original Petition the core contention is to the effect that certain crucial factual aspects specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal by official respondents, were totally ignored by the Tribunal and but for that a direction to report 57 vacancies in the category of Secretary, Grama Panchayat to the PSC would not have been issued. It is further contended that consideration of such crucial aspects furnished in the reply statement filed by the official respondents properly, would have taken the Tribunal to the rightful conclusion that direct recruits are already in excess in the category of Secretary, Grama O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 8 Panchayat in the Panchayat Department. In the latter Original Petition certain other legal contentions are also raised. It is the contention of the petitioner therein that as per Ext.P2 notification applications were invited for appointment to the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat in the scale of pay of 9190-15510 and the said post was then included in₹ Category 3 of the Kerala Panchayats Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 (hereafter for brevity referred only as `Subordinate Service Rules'). After due selection process Annexure-A1 ranked list (in Ext.P1) was brought into force with effect from 20.12.2010. Later, Government in implementation of its policy integrated the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat with that of Special Grade Secretary or in other words, the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat was merged with the post of Special Grade Secretary which was originally included as Category 1 in the Subordinate Service Rules. Such integration was effected as per Annexure-A5 viz., G.O.(MS)No.206/2011/LSGD dated 5.9.2011. Earlier, as per Annexure-A2 viz., G.O.(Ms)No.265/2010/LSGD dated 18.11.2010 the post of Special Grade Secretary and Senior Superintendent which is a post borne in the State Service governed by the Kerala Panchayat Service Rules, 2006 (for short `The State Service Rules'), were merged. A perusal of the said order would reveal that though the scale of pay of Special Grade Secretary and Senior O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 9 Superintendent was equal and the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent and Secretary Grama Panchayat was equal, the post of Senior Superintendent was the promotion post of Special Grade Secretary and the post of Junior Superintendent was the promotion post of Secretary Grama Panchayat. As per Annexure-A2, it was ordered with immediate effect as follows:- - “1.The posts of Special Grade Secretary and Senior Superintendent in Panchayat Department are merged and the post is re-designated as Special Grade Secretary/Senior Superintendent/Performance Audit Supervisor. 2. The post of Junior Superintendent/Panchayat Inspector and Secretary Grama Panchayat are merged and the post is re-designaged as Secretary Grama Panchayat/Junior Superintendent. 3. Necessary Amendments will be made in the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Service Rules, 2006 read as 1[st] and 3[rd] papers above.” Subsequently, as per Annexure-A3 in Ext.P1 G.O.(MS)No.301/10/LSGD dated 13.12.2010 Government have ordered that direct recruitment to the post of Secretary Grama Panchayat/Junior Superintendent would be limited to 40% of the total cadre strength of Secretary Grama Panchayat Posts existing in the Department. The earlier order dated 18.11.2010 viz., Annexure-A2, was modified to the aforesaid extent. There is nothing on record which would reveal that subsequent to those O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 10 Government orders which, in effect had the effect and impact of abolition of the notified post viz., Secretary, Grama Panchayat in the scale of pay of 9190-15510 included in Category 3 of the Subordinate₹ Service Rules and was notified for selection as per Ext.P2 notification was available in the Subordinate Service so as to enable the official respondents to report vacancies in the said post. In the context of the aforesaid contentions it is relevant to refer to the statement filed in O.A.No.422 of 2012. It is produced as Annexure-A6, of Ext.P1. It would reveal that after referring to Annexure-A2 Government Order dated 18.11.2010, Annexure-A3 G.O. Dated 13.12.2010 and also G.O. (MS)No.206/2011/LSGD dated 5.9.2011 it is stated therein thus:- “Since the post of Secretary Grama Panchayat is converted to a post in Gazetted scale in the scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680, recruitment cannot be made from the existing ranked list of the scale of pay of Rs.9190-15510 of the Secretary Grama Panchayat as no post in such scale. At present there are 29 Non joined duty vacancies, the vacancies including these Non joined duty vacancies are to be filled after issuing fresh notification for the post of Secretary Grama Panchayat in the scale of pay of Rs.18740-33680 after fixing cadre strength in the present status.” 6. It is pertinent to note that all the aforesaid aspects were reiterated in detail, by the Government, in the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal in O.A.No.2918 of 2013. In addition to the aforesaid aspects Government had also taken up a contention that O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 11 already 223 direct recruits are there in the integrated post of Grama Panchayat Secretary, which is more than the quota set apart for direct recruitment. There is nothing on record which would reveal that those Government orders allegedly had the aforesaid effect and impact, were successfully challenged and as a consequence the said post is still available and therefore, vacancies that occurred even after the reporting of 201 vacancies are very much available for reporting for the purpose of giving advice and appointment from Annexure-A1 list. The indisputable position is that the notification was issued when the aforesaid post was included in Category 3 of the Subordinate Service Rules. The fact is that the party respondents herein/the applicants would also recognize the merging and re-designation of the erstwhile post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat in the Subordinate Service with the post of Special Grade Secretary in the State Service, to certain extent, as can be seen from their pleadings. We deal with the matter elaborately a little later. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. (KAT)No.354 of 2014 relied on various decisions in support of his contention that in view of such development mentioned hereinbefore, vacancies in the post of Secretary Grama Panchayat are not available to be reported for the purpose of effecting further advice and O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 12 appointments from Annexure-A1 list. The decision in **Ashwani Kumar and others** v. **State of Bihar and others (JT 1995 (8) SCC 563)** is relied on to contend that existence of law or statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not a pre-condition either to create a post or to fill up that post. The decision in **C.Rangaswamaiah and others** v. **Karnataka Lokayukta and others ((1998) 6 SCC 66)** is relied on to contend that it would be open to Government to create a post by an administrative order pending amendment to the Recruitment Rules. The decision of a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Shankarsan Dash** v. **Union of India ((1991) 3 SCC 47)** , more particularly, paragraph 7 therein, was relied on to contend that a notification would amount to a mere invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and successful candidates in the selection conducted in pursuance thereof, would not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed merely because they are included in a list prepared for appointment. Going by the said decision, unless the relevant Recruitment Rules so indicate, the State would be under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. But, the Apex Court had hastened to add that it would not mean that the State had the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. In short, going by the said decision, the decision not to fill up vacancies has to be a O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 13 _bona fide_ one founded on appropriate reasons. 8. In the former Original Petition a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4[th] respondent therein viz., the Director of Panchayats. The same has been adopted in the latter Original Petition, as well and a memo dated 6.2.2015 to that effect was filed in the latter Original Petition. Besides reiterating the contentions raised in the statement filed in O.A.No.422 of 2012 and in the reply affidavit filed in O.A.No.2918 of 2013 the position has been elaborately explained in the said counter affidavit. The nub of the averments and contentions is that no post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat exists in the Panchayat Department. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents who were the applicants before the Tribunal and who had conflicting interest with that of the petitioners, would contend that it is incorrect to say that as per Annexure-A5 a new post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat was created with the scale of pay of 18740-33680.₹ The contention is that as per the said order the post of Special Grade Secretary was only re-designated as Secretary, Grama Panchayat. It is the further contention that in the light of Annexure-A17 Special Rules viz., the Kerala Panchayats Subordinate Service Rules, 1994, deemed to have come into force on 1.1.1990, as it stands, the qualification and O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 14 method for appointment to both the posts of Special Grade Secretary and Secretary, Grama Panchayat remains the same and therefore, filling up of the posts in accordance with Annexure-A5 Government order is possible from Annexure-A1 ranked list. It is the further contention that since 201 vacancies existed earlier were reported pursuant to the specific direction in Annexure-A8 order dated 25.2.2013 in O.A.No.422 of 2012 from Annexure-A1 ranked list, which got conformance with Annexure-A19 judgment dated 12.12.2013 in O.P.(KAT)No.1537 of 2013 the official respondents as also the petitioners, cannot be heard to contend that further advice and appointments as against the presently reported vacancies became impossible in the light of Annexure-A5 and such other orders revealing the integration of the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat that belonged to Category 3 in the Panchayat Subordinate Service with Special Grade Secretary included in its State Service. The tenor of the contentions raised on behalf of the party respondents would reveal that they too, would admit the integration of the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat included in Category 3 of the Subordinate Service with the post of Special Grade Secretary, Grama Panchayat belonging to State Service borne due to the integration of the post of Special Grade Secretary earlier belonged to Category 1 in Group I of the Subordinate Service with the post of Senior O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 15 Superintendent belonged to the State Service. True that, after such integration the nomenclature of the post was specified only as Secretary, Grama Panchayat. The learned counsel for the party respondents relied on various decisions to resist the claims and contentions of the petitioners and to get sustained the impugned orders. According to them, despite Annexure-A5 and such other orders, the vacancies reported conditionally pursuant to the orders of this Court and also of the Tribunal could be filled up by giving advice and appointment from Annexure-A1 ranked list. In support of their contention they relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Prakash Chand Meena and Others** v. **State of Rajasthan and Others [(2015) 8 SCC 484]** , **Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal** v. **Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora and another [(2014) 8 SCC 644], Kulwant Singh and Others** v. **Daya Ram and Others [(2015) 3 SCC 177]** and **Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and another** v. **M. Pushkaran [(2008) 1 SCC 448]** . They also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Vimala Mumari** v. **State [1994 (2) KLT 47 (FB)]** and the Full Bench decision in **Mohanan** v. **Director of Homeopathy** reported in **(2006 (3) KLT 641)** . In short, according to them, the order passed by the Tribunal is not at all infected with any illegality or impropriety warranting a further O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 16 scrutiny by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the light of the rival contentions referred hereinbefore, the question to be considered is whether vacancies were bound to be reported for the purpose of giving advice and appointment from Annexure-A1 ranked list, as has been ordered by the Tribunal in the circumstances presently obtained. Going by Ext.P2 notification it is evident that notification was issued for appointment to the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat carrying a scale of pay of 9190-15510₹ and at the time of the notification the said post was included in Category 3 of the Subordinate Service Rules. Ext.P2 would also reveal that only 94 vacancies in the post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) were notified thereunder. Indisputably, presently, the very same post is not available in the Panchayat Department and what is now available with the said designation is a post that belongs to the State Service occurred due to integration of the said erstwhile post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat with the post of Special Grade Secretary which was carrying the scale of pay of 10790-18000. The integrated post which is re-₹ designated as Secretary, Grama Panchayat carries the scale of pay of ₹18740-33680. This position is not disputed by the party respondents also and it is evident from their pleadings before this Court. According O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 17 to the party respondents, who were the applicants even after such integration, Annexure-A1 ranked list could be operated for the limited purpose of effecting further advice and appointments as against vacancies reported during the currency of Annexure-A1 list pursuant to the orders passed either by this Court and by the Tribunal. The said fact is evident from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the latter Original Petition viz., O.P.(KAT)No.354 of 2014, more particularly, from paragraphs 6 and 7 (in fact, paragraph 8 which is wrongly shown as `7' after original paragraph 7). The fact that based on Annexure-A5 order whereby the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat integrated with the post of Special Grade Secretary the Government took the stand that vacancies of Secretary, Grama Panchayat could not be reported to be advised for appointment from Annexure-A1 ranked list, is also evident from the aforementioned paragraph 7 (paragraph 8) of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2. 11. We will now consider the question whether the official respondents as also the petitioners herein, are justified in raising nonexistence of the post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) in the Panchayat Subordinate Service as a reason for challenging the order in O.A.No.2918 of 2013 of the Tribunal. We may also have to consider whether the party respondents - applicants are justified in contending O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 18 that despite the merger of the notified post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) with the post of Special Grade Secretary Annexure-A1 ranked list could be operated for the limited purpose of effecting further advice and appointments as against vacancies reported during the currency of Annexure-A1 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and by the Tribunal. Annexures-A4 & A5 would reveal that the post of Special Grade Secretary and Secretary, Grama Panchayat are integrated and put under the revised scale of pay of 18740-33680 and it was so₹ done in implementation of the recommendations of the 9[th] Pay Revision Commission. The circumstances that led to such integration of said posts and revision of pay, are also to be looked into for a proper consideration of the aforesaid questions. The Kerala Panchayats Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 deemed to have come into force on the first day of January, 1990 was published in K.G.Ex.No.627 dated 16.6.1994 as S.R.O.No.868/94 issued under G.O(P) No.151/94/LAD dated 16.6.1994. As per the same the service consisted of seven groups viz., Group I to Group VII and Group I consisted of three categories, such as:- - Category 1 - Special Grade Executive Officer (Redesignated as Special Grade Secretary) (Grama Panchayat) with effect from 23[rd] April, 1994. Category 2 - Panchayat Inspector/Junior Superintendent. O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 19 Category 3 - Executive Officer (Redesignated as Secretary) (Grama Panchayat) with effect from 23[rd] April, 1994. As per Rule 3 thereof, dealing with appointments, the method of appointment to Category 1 above was `by promotion from among the Panchayat Inspectors/Junior Superintendents'. Going by the same, in the post of Panchayat Inspector/Junior Superintendent the method of appointment was as follows:- “By promotion from among the Executive Officers/Secretary (Grama Panchayat)”. They are interchangeable posts. The method of appointment to the post of Category 3 was as follows:- “3. Executive Officer/Secretary 1. By promotion from among (Grama Panchayat) the Head Clerks and 2. By direct recruitment” The ratio between promotion and direct recruitment shall be 6:4. 12. Thus, it is obvious that under the Kerala Panchayats Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 the post of Special Grade Secretary (Grama Panchayat) belonged to Category 1 and the post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) belonged to Category 3. 13. In the Special Rules for the Kerala Panchayat Service the post of Senior Superintendents/Taluk Panchayat Officers was added as Category 4 as per G.O.(P)No.177/85/LA & SWD dated 6.9.1985 O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 20 published as SRO No.1332/85 in K.G.No.40 dated 8.10.1985. Going by the same, it should be deemed to have come into force with effect from 22[nd] December, 1978. Annexure-A2 of Ext.P1 dated 18.11.2010 would reveal that the scale of pay of Special Grade Secretary and Senior Superintendent was equal and the scale of pay of Junior Superintendent and Secretary Grama Panchayat was also equal. But, it would further reveal that the post of Senior Superintendent was the promotion post of Special Grade Secretary and the post of Junior Superintendent was the promotion post of Secretary Grama Panchayat. As per Annexure-A2 of Ext.P1 the posts of Special Grade Secretary and Senior Superintendent were merged and the post was re-designated as Special Grade Secretary/Senior Superintendent/Performance Audit Supervisor. It would also reveal that as per the same, the posts of Junior Superintendent/Panchayat Inspector and Secretary Grama Panchayat were merged and the post was redesignated as Secretary Grama Panchayat/Junior Superintendent. True that it was also stated therein that necessary amendments would be made in the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 and Kerala Panchayat Service Rules, 2006. 14. Thus, it is evident that subsequent to such merger of posts of Special Grade Secretary and Senior Superintendent the former O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 21 post which was Category 1 in Group I of the Subordinate Service became a State Service under Category 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Service. It is while so, as per Annexure-A5 G.O. Dated 5.9.2011, that the post of Special Grade Secretary and Secretary Grama Panchayat were integrated. In other words, as per the same, the post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) which was originally belonged to Category 3 of the Subordinate Service at the time of notification and subsequently merged with the post of Junior Superintendent in Category 2 of the Subordinate Service, got integrated with Special Grade Secretary, which by then became Category 4 in the State Service due to its merger with Senior Superintendent. True that, prior to Annexure-A5, Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 26.2.2011 was issued whereby those posts were integrated in implementation of the recommendation of the 9[th] Pay Revision Commission and brought under the revised scale of pay of 18740-33680. Virtually, as per Annexure-A5 dated 5.9.2011₹ the posts of Special Grade Secretary and Secretary, Grama Panchayat were integrated to a single post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat. 15. The aforesaid developments were specifically stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government before the Tribunal and in the counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent in O.P. (KAT)No.354 of 2014, the latter Original Petition. The circumstances O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 22 and the orders like Annexures-A4 and A5 would go to show that as a matter of fact, the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat which was included in Category 3 of the Subordinate Service is not presently available though a post with the same designation is now available. The said post presently available with the said designation and a different scale of pay viz., 18740-33680 does not belong to Category 3 of₹ Subordinate Service and as a consequence of Annexures-A4 and A5 the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat belonged to Category 3 of Subordinate Service got integrated with the post of Special Grade Secretary in the scale of pay of 10790-18000. It is that integrated₹ category with the designation Secretary, Grama Panchayat that carries the scale of pay of 18740-33680 and belonging to Panchayat State₹ Service which is presently available in the department. In other words, the aforesaid facts would reveal that what had occurred after Ext.P2 notification and publication of Annexure-A1 list in respect of the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat is not a mere revision of scale of pay but, the very post itself became non-existent as it was integrated with another post that belongs to the State Service. True that to the said new integrated category in the State Service the designation `Secretary Grama Panchayat' was given. It is also true that, direct recruitment is also provided as a method of appointment against the said integrated O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 23 category and a specific quota was set apart for such direct recruitment. The question is how, in such circumstances, ignoring the said developments and the conscious decision taken by the Government virtually abolishing the post of erstwhile Secretary Grama Panchayat by integration Annexure-A1 could be operated for filling up vacancies in the integrated category from Annexure-A1 list. What is the indefeasible right of the persons included in Annexure-A1 list to claim that ignoring such developments and even in the absence of any successful challenge against the aforesaid orders which were implemented (even according to them) and how they could be given advice and appointments from Annexure-A1 list as against the vacancies reported either based on the order of this Court or based on the direction of the Tribunal ? Though these points were specifically pointed for consideration and they are available for consideration based on the documents produced before the Tribunal they were not seen properly considered. In fact, they were not considered. In other words, such contentions are not new contentions raised based on any new document produced before this Court. The fact is that after the publication of Annexure-A1 list advice and consequential appointments were made against 201 vacancies in the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal would reveal that it assessed 44 as the number of O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 24 vacancies occurred in the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat for various reasons such as, due to Non-Joining Duty, relieving from that post after joining duty on request, resignation and death pursuant to the appointment of 201 candidates from Annexure-A1. True that, the Tribunal had also issued a further direction to ascertain how many candidates are in office in the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat from among the 201 candidates who were advised and appointed from Annexure-A1 list for the purpose of giving further advice and appointment from Annexure-A1 list in case of existence of any such vacancy/vacancies. It is based on the aforesaid developments and situation that the sustainability of the directions contained in the impugned order is to be looked into, bearing in mind the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by both sides. 16. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Shankarsan Dash's** case (supra) the petitioners in the captioned original petitions cannot contend that rank holders in a list published by the PSC are having an indefeasible right for advice and appointment. True that, the State would not be having a licence to act in an arbitrary manner and to take a decision not to fill up vacancies after due selection from a list drawn thereafter, against the vacancies notified and occurred during its currency. However, it could take a decision not to fill O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 25 up vacancies from such a list _bona fidely_ for appropriate reasons. At the risk of repetition it is to be stated that the post advertised as per Ext.P2 is 94 vacancies in the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat belonging to Category 3 in Group I of the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service carrying the scale of pay of 9190-15510. If what was actually₹ happened subsequently is nothing but a mere revision of pay of the said post it could not have been taken as a reason to deny advice and appointment from Annexure-A1 list provided, the vacancies were reported during its currency and they are actually existing and available for filling up under the quota. We have already found that what transformed as regards the said post is not a mere revision of pay but, the assignment of revised scale of pay was not in respect of the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat belonged to Category 3 in Group I of the Subordinate Service. We have already explained the sequence of events which actually rendered the post of Secretary (Grama Panchayat) nonexistent by firstly merging it with the post of Junior Superintendent belonged to Category 2 in Group I of the Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service and then by merging that merged post with the post of Special Grade Secretary belongs to Category 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Service viz., its State Service formed by the integration of the post of Special Grade Secretary of Category 1 of Group I of the Kerala Panchayat O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 26 Subordinate Service with the post of Senior Superintendent belonged to Category 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Service and re-designated as Special Grade Secretary, Grama Panchayat. Evidently, it is in that redesignated post of Special Grade Secretary with the scale of pay of ₹10790-18000 that the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat carrying the scale of pay of 9190-15510, belonged to Category 3 in Group I of₹ Kerala Panchayat Subordinate Service was merged. True that on such merger the post was re-designated as Secretary, Grama Panchayat and granted with the revised pay of 18740-33680. Thus, the present post₹ Secretary, Grama Panchayat that belongs to Category 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Service viz., its State Service cannot be said to be the same that existed as Category 3 in Group I of the Subordinate Service. The question is whether these changes occurred could be ignored when there is absolute absence of any challenge against the aforesaid relevant Government Order that brought about such changes and made the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat in Category 3 of Group I in the Subordinate Services as a non-existing one and got it merged with a post in the State Service. How can persons who responded to a notification inviting applications for appointment to a post belonging to Subordinate Service could claim as a matter of right, for appointment ignoring the fact that the said post is not now in existence and the post O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 27 with the said nomenclature now belongs to State Service merely because of they happened to be included in a ranked list published by the PSC. 16. As noticed hereinbefore, earlier some of the rank holders in Annexure-A1 ranked list approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.422 of 2012. Prior to that some of such rank holders approached this Court by filing writ petitions and they were transferred to the Tribunal and were numbered as T.A.Nos.1992, 2855, 2890 and 5936 of 2012. They were disposed of along with O.A.No.422 of 2012 as per Annexurue-A8 order dated 25.2.2013. Though the merger of the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat with Junior Superintendent and thereafter with Special Grade Secretary, were taken into account the Tribunal as per Annexure-A8 declared that the official respondents were bound to report the then available vacancies in the 220 posts set apart for direct recruitment in the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat, taking into account the PSC hands, then in position. It is also to be noted that at that point of time Government had effected provisional promotion to the said integrated post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat, as can be seen from Annexure-A8 order. Without quashing the said order of provisional promotion the Tribunal directed for reversion of excess promotees to accommodate PSC hands from Annexure-A1 ranked list herein, till the O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 28 strength of direct recruits, reaches to 220. Later, O.P.(KAT)No.1537 of 2013 was filed against the order in O.A.No.422 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same as per Annexure-A19 (in Ext.P1) judgment dated 12.12.2013. It was filed by some of the respondents in O.A.No.422 of 2012 who were promoted provisionally apprehending further reporting of vacancies from Annexure-A1 ranked list and also against the direction for reporting vacancies from Annexure-A1 till the cadre strength of direct recruits reaches the strength of 220. 17. Though the contentions presently taken to canvass that further advice and appointments from Annexure-A1 ranked list, are not liable to be made it was stoutly opposed by the party respondents in O.P.(KAT)No.1537 of 2012 contending that such contentions were not pointedly raised before the Tribunal and that the only point, then raised before the Tribunal was regarding the requirement of a fresh notification for recruitment taking into account such developments. The operative portion of Annexure-A19 judgment would reveal that this Court took note of the fact that such contentions were not gone into by the Tribunal. Taking into account the fact that the cadre strength of direct recruits in the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat is 220 the direction in Annexure-A8 order, as mentioned hereinbefore, was upheld and at O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 29 the same time, contentions of both the parties based on developments referred to herein, on other points were left open, as per Annexure-A19 judgment. Though O.A.No.2918 of 2013 was filed subsequent to Annexure-A19 judgment and after the reporting of 201 vacancies and consequential advice and appointments from Annexure-A1 ranked list, the Tribunal did not consider the contentions raised before it based on Annexures-A2, A3, A4 and A5. Evidently, such contentions were pointedly raised in O.A.No.2918 of 2013. Since it was raised pointedly, the Tribunal ought to have considered such contentions especially when such contentions were left open as per Annexure-A19 judgment by a Division Bench of this Court. We state all such aspects only to bring home the position that we are justified in considering such aspects, in view of Annexure-A19 judgment and also because of the failure of the Tribunal to consider such aspects while passing the impugned order in O.A.No.2918 of 2013. 18. We have already referred to the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents in the captioned Original Petitions. After referring to Annexure-A19 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.1537 of 2013 the contentions, already adverted to by us, were raised therein. The fact that such contentions based on Annexures A2, A3, A4 and A5 were raised before the Tribunal, is evident from the statement and reply O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 30 affidavit filed before the Tribunal. It is to be noted that there is no mention in the impugned order passed in O.A.No.2918 of 2013 that those contentions were not pressed into service. 19. In the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents the factum of framing of Draft Special Rules, as contended by the petitioners in the captioned Original Petitions, is admitted. The learned Additional Advocate General brought our attention to relevant paragraphs in the counter affidavit. Evidently, in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit the fact that the Government had framed Draft Special Rules for amending the Kerala Panchayat Service Rules, 2006 and the Kerala Panchayats Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 have been specifically stated. Ext.R4(a) appended thereto is a Government Order viz., G.O.(MS)No.210/2014/LSGD dated 26.11.2014. It would reveal that the post of Special Grade Secretary under Category 1, Group I and Secretary (Grama Panchayat) under Category 3, Group I from Kerala Panchayats Subordinate Service Rules, 1994 were deleted and consequently, a newly created post of Grama Panchayat Secretary was included in the Kerala Panchayat Service Rules, 2006. That apart, it is specifically stated that after the integration of posts the candidates advised and appointed from Annexure-A1 ranked list in the cadre of Secretary, Grama Panchayat were working as Junior Superintendents O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 31 under Category 2 of the Subordinate Service. It is also stated therein that now, the promotion post of Junior Superintendent is Secretary, Grama Panchayat viz., the newly created post in the State Service. All senior most persons working in the post of Junior Superintendent were not promoted to the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat and still, 61 Junior Superintendents are continuing in the Subordinate Service in the revised scale of pay of 16180-29180. Essentially, the contention is₹ that if the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is given effect to and as against the further vacancies reported advice and appointments are given to candidates from Annexure-A1 ranked list as Secretary, Grama Panchayat, ignoring the aforementioned developments, it would tantamount to appointments of candidates from a list prepared for appointment to the post of Secretary Grama Panchayat under Category 3, Group I of Subordinate Service to the newly created post carrying similar nomenclature, but belonging to the State Service. We are of the considered view that in such circumstances, taking into account the developments, including the integration of posts, if the directions are implemented, it would also result in an anomalous situation inasmuch as, persons who held higher rank in Annexure-A1 were given advice and appointments only in Subordinate Service whereas persons holding lower ranks would get appointments directly O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 32 to a post in the State Service from the list preferred for appointment to a post in the Subordinate Service. The decisions relied on by the party respondents - the applicants, in **Prakash Chand Meena's** case and **Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora's** case (supra) would be having no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. Those were cases where after commencement of the selection process change occurred in the norms of recruitment process. Evidently, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that such change in norms subsequent to the commencement of the selection process by issuing a notification could not and would not have any effect or impact in the selection process already commenced. It is to be noted that such changes in norms for recruitment process is a situation different from a situation where the notified post itself became non-existent. It is to be noted that in the case on hand it is not the change in recruitment process after the commencement of the selection process which resulted in the present situation. As noticed hereinbefore, owing to developments the post in respect of which notification was issued and the ranked list was prepared, had ceased to exist. Such a situation cannot be equated to change in norms for recruitment. The extent of impact brought in by the developments have been narrated in detail by us. In such circumstances, the question is whether merely because of being included in a rank list the O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 33 applicants-party respondents, could claim, as a matter of right, advice and appointments from the list. Certainly, in such circumstances, the decisions which are relevant are the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Shankarsan Dash's** case and **Dr.K.Ramulu and another** v. **Dr.S.Suryaprakash Rao and others ((1997) 3 SCC 59)** . The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **C.Rangaswamaiah's** case would also assume relevance in the contextual situation. The decision in **Shankarsan Dash's** case would reveal that a rank holder in a PSC rank list could not claim any indefeasible right to get advised and appointed. Conscious decision could be taken by the Government for appropriate reasons, for not filling up vacancies. Going by the decision in **Shankarsan Dash's** case it will be open to the Government to create a post by an administrative order pending amendment to the recruitment rules. The decision in **Dr.K.Ramulu's** case (supra) would reveal that Government could take a conscious policy decision not to fill up existing vacancies from candidates included in a rank list. In the circumstances obtained from Anneuxres-A2 to A5 and R4(a) and also taking into consideration of the fact that the present developments are not virtually disputed or challenged by anyone, we are of the considered view that O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 34 issuing further direction to fill up vacancies from Anneuxres-A1 list would not only be inappropriate but it would amount to an illegality. There can be little doubt that when a rank list is prepared by PSC for appointment to a post borne in the Subordinate Service it could not be allowed to be operated for filling up a post included in the State Service merely because the developments in the interregnum resulted in cessation of the post in the Subordinate Service and got merged with another post in the State Service. In such situation, Anneuxre-A1 list would amount to direct recruitment to a post in the State Service from a list drawn for effecting appointment to a post in the Subordinate Service. Despite the fact that this Court left open such situations as per Annexure-A19 judgment the Tribunal had not considered those points and virtually, the Tribunal had concentrated only on Anneuxres-A8 order. True that, Anneuxre-A8 order had become final and it is a fact that after publication of Anneuxre-A1 rank list pursuant to Ext.P2 notification for filling up 94 vacancies, 201 candidates were advised and appointed from Annexure-A1 list. Merely because due to various reasons further vacancies occurred either due to Non-joining of duty by persons advised and appointed against those 201 vacancies or subsequent relieving on request pursuant to joining the post, further directions cannot be given to fill up those vacancies as well ignoring the O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 35 aforesaid situation. 20. The circumstances and situations explained hereinbefore and obtained from Annexures-A2, A3, A4 and A5 would be a sufficient and valid reason for the Government to take a conscious decision for not filling up further vacancies from Annexure-A1 list. True that, Annexure-A8 order had become final. At the same time, it is to be noted that pursuant to Annexure-A8 order 201 vacancies were advised from Annexure-A1 list. Therefore, it is evident that after publication of Annexure-A1 list prepared based on the selection process commenced by Ext.P2 notification it was operated and a number of candidates figured thereunder, much in excess of the notified vacancies viz., 94 were advised and appointed from it. In the said circumstances and the foregoing reasons we are of the considered view that the impugned order invites interference. In short, in the present scenario, AnnexureA1 list cannot be operated any further. In the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2918 of 2013 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, it is set aside. It is made clear that, in the said circumstances, further appointments to the post of Secretary, Grama Panchayat belonging to the State Service have to be filled up, in accordance with law, after issuing proper notification and O.P.(KAT)Nos.296 & 354 of 2014 36 conducting selection process to fill up vacancies set apart for direct recruitment. The Original Petitions are allowed and disposed of as above. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** **Sd/K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH Judge** TKS