IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14123 of 2010(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.SHELTON PADUA, EARNAT HOUSE, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR. * ADDLR2, R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED * ADDLR2: DEEPA THOMAS, RESIDING AT 32/2056-H, MYTHRI LANE, MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY.P.O., KOCHI. *ADDLR3: JAYAKUMAR.G., ELAMTHOTTATHU, PUTHEN VEEDU, KARAZHMA WEST, CHERUKOLE.P.O., MAVELIKKARA. *ADDLR4: MAYA.T., POORNATHRAYEESAM, ATHIRTHI ROAD, PUTHIYAKAVU, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM. * ADDLR2,R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/5/10 IN I.A.NO.6635/10 IN WP(C)NO.14123/10 **ADDL.R5, R6, R7 AND R8 IMPLEADED **ADDL.R5: SUNIL V.G., VELIYATH HOUSE, ARIMPUR.P.O.,TRICHUR-680 620 **ADDL.R6: SMITHA BABY, THALAKULAM(H), CHERVANCHIRA.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY-686 106. **ADDL.R7: SWAPNA.T.R., PUTHENMADOM, KANNANKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURAP.O., PIN-682 301. sts WP(C)NO.14123/2010 **ADDL.R8: SULAJA.O.R., 18/A, MAITHRI PARK, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 003. **ADDL.R5 TO R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/6/10 IN I.A.NO.7036/10 IN WP(C)NO.14123/10 ***ADDL.R9, R10,R11 AND R12 IMPLEADED ***ADDL.R9: DR.RINI.C.R., CHULLIYIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. ***ADDL.R10: DR.PRIYA R.DEVI, CHITHRA BHAVAN, TC 14/1344, RAJEEV NAGAR(A-59) PALAYAM WARD, THYCAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. ***ADDL.R11: DR.DEEPTHY.K.B., KORASSERIL HOUSE, SANKARADI ROAD, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM-683 514. ***ADDL.R12: DR.AJITH.P.M., PURACHALIL HOUSE, NSH MOUNT.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 006. ***ADDLR9 TO R12 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/6/10 IN I.A.NO.6958/10 IN WP(C)NO.14123/10. ****ADDL.R13 IMPLEADED ****ADDLR13: NAMBOODIRIRAJI VASUDEVAN, FH-10, TEACHER'S FLATS, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR. **** ADDL.R13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/8/2010 IN I.A.NO.9650/2010 IN WP(C)NO.14123/10 *****ADDL.R14 TO R22 IMPLEADED *****ADDL.R14: DR.T.SANTHOSH KUMAR, KALEELIL VEEDU, KANNIMELCHERRY, KAVANAD.P.O.,KOLLAM-691 003. ADDL.R15: DR.RENJAN.B., KALEELIL VEEDU, MULLUNKA, VADAKKEVILA.P.O.,KOLLAM-691 010. ADDL.R16: DR.BEENA THOMAS, HILL VIEW, UDIYANKULANGARA, AMARAVILA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 122. ADDL.R17: SHEEJA K.RAJ, CHAITHRAM, MELAI KALLUVILA, KATTACHAKONAM, NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 015. ADDL.R18: DEVI.V.S., SABARI, SANKAR LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. ADDL.R19: DR.SIMI.S., SURABHI, TC 43/313/1, BALAVAN NAGAR, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009. sts WP(C)NO.14123/2010 ADDL.R20: DR.MANJU P.R., TC 13/1532/1, SREE VILASAM, BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. ADDL.R21: DR.SARADA.S., TC 37/1996, GOKULAM, THEVARATHUKOIKKAL,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. ADDL.R22: DR.BINDU.B., PUTHIVAYALIL VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR, KALLUNTHAZAM.P.O., KOLLAM-691 004. ***** ADDL.R14 TO R22 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/8/2010 IN I.A.NO.10237/2010 IN WP(C)NO.14123/2010 R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC FOR UNIVERSITY ADDL.R2,R3 R4,R9 R12 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) ADDL.R5 TO R8 BY ADV.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.M.R.DHANIL SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 19465 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.14123/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GA/KI-21606/07 DATED 9/10/2007. P2 COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE. P3 COPY OF THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS RECRUITMENT BOARD (ICAR). P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ISSUED BY INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE. P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21/5/08 ISSUED BY THE HEAD, DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL PHYSICS, INDIAN AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE, NEW DELHI. P6 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL HELD ON 3/3/2010. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA C3/14429/08 DATED 9/4/2010. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/21421/08(4) DATED 6/4/2010. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/21421/08 (7) DATED 6/4/2010. P10 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/21421/08(8) DATED 6/4/2010. P11 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/21421/08(5) DATED 6/4/2010. P12 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C3/5231/10 DATED 20/4/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY HELD ON 18/6/2009. R2(B) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 17/4/2010. R2(C) COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.88/10/AD DATED 18/1/2010. R2(D) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/6/2009 IN WP(C)NO.3586/2009. R2(E) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/8/2009 IN WP(C)NO.3586/2009. R2(F) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/1/2010 IN I.A.NO.16131/2009 IN WP(C) NO.6854/2009. WP(C)NO.14123/2010 R2(G) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/2/2010 IN WP(C)NO.29559/2009. R14 COPY OF THE VARIOUS NOTIFICATIONS, NOTIFYING THE RANKED LIST OF CANDIDATED SELECTED FOR APPOINTEMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSORS IN VARIOUS DISCIPLINES BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos.14123, 19465, 19490 & 19655 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated 13th August, 2010 JUDGMENT All these writ petitions pertain to the appointment of Assistant Professors pursuant to notification No.GA/K1-21606/07 dated 9.10.2007 under the Kerala Agricultural University (for short `the University'), the common respondent in all these writ petitions. I may first deal with the contentions in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010. The challenge in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 is against the action on the part of the University in effecting appointments from the lists drawn pursuant to the above mentioned notification dated 9.10.2007 which is produced as Ext.P1 therein, in excess of the notified number of vacancies. The petitioner herein was an applicant pursuant to Ext.P1 notification to the post of Assistant Professor in the faculty of Agriculture. Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 prescribes the essential qualifications for appointment against the notified post of Assistant Professor in 17 different disciplines under various faculties, as hereunder:- “a) Bachelor's degree from the concerned faculty recognized by Kerala Agricultural University. This is not insisted for teaching posts in Home Science. WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 2 b) Masters degree in the relevant subject recognized by Kerala Agricultural University with a minimum OGPA of 3.00/4 or 8.00/10or 55% of marks in the traditional system or their equivalent. In the case of Livestock Production Management, only those having Masters Degree in the Livestock Production Management need apply.” 2. The petitioner possesses the qualification of Master of Science in the discipline of Agricultural Physics awarded by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. The said qualification was recognized as an equivalent qualification for appointment in the concerned discipline by the Academic Council of the University only as per Ext.P6 resolution dated 3.3.2010. The last date for receipt of applications pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was 15.11.2007. Though the petitioner was called for an interview he was not included in the select list/rank list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification on the ground of lacking the prescribed educational qualification. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances mainly with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ restraining the respondent University in making appointment in the faculty of Agriculture from the rank list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 exceeding the notified number of vacancies as contained in Ext.P1. (ii) Issue a writ declaring that appointments made by the respondent University pursuant to Ext.P1 in WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 3 excess of the notified number of vacancies is illegal and that the said appointments are bad in the eye of law.” 3. It is contended that in the light of Ext.P6 resolution of the Academic Council accepting equivalency of M.Sc. and Ph.D Degree in Agricultural Physics from IARI filling up of posts of Assistant Professor in excess of the notified number of vacancies pursuant to Ext.P1 notification would adversely affect his prospects for earning a berth in the service of the University. On 18.5.2010 this Court passed an interim order as hereunder:- “Post on 26.5.2010. Till such time no further appointments shall be made to the category of posts mentioned in Ext.P1 in excess of the notified vacancies.” Subsequent to the said interim order certain candidates included in the lists prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification got themselves impleaded as additional respondents in this writ petition and later, some of them and some other similarly circumstanced candidates who are aggrieved by the interim order dated 18.5.2010 inasmuch as their appointments are getting delayed on account of the interim order despite their holding higher ranks in the respective lists prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification filed the other three writ petitions. The University has also WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 4 filed counter affidavit in this writ petition. The contentions in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents including the University and the contentions raised in all the other writ petitions are essentially on similar lines. They would contend that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 is guilty of suppression of the material fact that he had applied, pursuant to Ext.P1, only for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry and that he is not having the requisite qualification for the said post in terms of Ext.P1 and even after Ext.P6. It is contended that despite calling in question all the appointments under the different disciplines under various faculties the petitioner did not implead any of the selected candidates rather, rank holders in the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1. That apart, it is contended that the contention against filling up of posts in different disciplines under various faculties, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, in excess of the notified number of vacancies, is absolutely bereft of any basis for the reason that in the notification itself it was specifically mentioned that the vacancies notified are purely provisional and subject to variation. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents and the petitioners in the other writ petitions that as on the last date of receipt of applications based on Ext.P1 the petitioner was an WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 5 unqualified candidate. Ext.P1 itself would reveal that under the faculty of Agriculture applications were invited for appointment of Assistant Professors in various disciplines such as Agronomy, Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Horticulture, Plant Pathology, Plant Physiology, Agricultural Extension, Plant Breeding & Genetics, Entomology, Agricultural Meteorology and Home Science. Obviously, Assistant Professor in the discipline of Soil Science & Agricultural Physics was not notified as per Ext.P1. It is their contention that in view of the specific prescription in the notification a candidate could earn eligibility for submitting application pursuant to Ext.P1 only if he possesses Masters Degree in the relevant subject, recognized by the Agricultural University on the last date of receipt of applications viz., 15.11.2007. Therefore, according to them, the petitioner was ineligible to apply for appointment as Assistant Professor in any of the disciplines under any of the faculties in response to Ext.P1 notification as he was not holding the requisite qualifications for any such appointments. Ext.P2 is the certificate revealing the qualification of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the respondents including the University, no illegality can be attributed in the non-inclusion of the petitioner in any of the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. According to them, the petitioner cannot rely on WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 6 Ext.P6 to contend that he was qualified for consideration on the last date of receipt of applications pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, against any of the disciplines under the faculty of Agriculture and even now, he is ineligible and unqualified for appointment as Assistant Professor in any of the disciplines notified as per Ext.P1. In fact, Ext.P2 certificate would reveal that the petitioner possessed M.Sc. Degree in Agricultural Physics. The Academic Council of the University resolved to declare equivalency as regards M.Sc. and Ph.D. in the discipline of Agricultural Physics from IARI only in its meeting dated 3.3.2010 and the University issued Order No.Acad/B2/1269/09 dated 21.4.2010 declaring its equivalency for the purpose of appointments only from the date of decision of the Academic Council viz., 3/3/2010. Based on the said facts, it is further contended that even going by the contention of the petitioner, he could be treated as qualified for appointment under the University only from 3.3.2010 and that too, only in the discipline of Soil Science & Agricultural Physics. It is further contended that Agricultural Chemistry and Agricultural Physics are two different subjects and therefore, in the absence of any notification inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Soil Science and Agricultural Physics the petitioner could not have been considered for the selection based on Ext.P1 notification. Based on the WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 7 aforesaid contentions, it is contended by them that W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 is not maintainable either in facts or in law. 4. As already noticed hereinbefore, all the other writ petitions have been filed by rank holders in various lists drawn pursuant to the notification dated 9.10.2007. According to them, the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.14123 of 2010 has no locus standi to challenge their selection and consequential consideration for appointments from the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 as he was not even qualified for applying to the posts notified as per the said notification on the last date of receipt of applications in response to the said notification or even after Ext.P6. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos. 19465, 19490, and 19655 of 2010 are rank holders in the lists drawn pursuant to the notification dated 9.10.2007. In the light of the rival contentions I may examine whether any interference is called for in the matter of appointments from the various lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010. Necessarily, the outcome of the said writ petition would decide the fate of the other writ petitions. 5. Ext.P2 is the certificate showing the qualification of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010. The certification thereunder reads thus: WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 8 “This is to certify that Shelton Padua has been admitted to the degree of Master of Science of this Institute in the discipline of AGRICULTURAL PHYSICS at the 39th Convocation held on March 30, 2001.” The said certification leaves no room for any doubt that the petitioner possessed Degree of Master of Science only in the discipline of Agricultural Physics from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute and that on the strength of the said qualification he could not have earned eligibility for applying to the post of Assistant Professor in any of the disciplines notified as per Ext.P1 notification. Obviously, the contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted application for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor under the Faculty of Agriculture. As rightly pointed out by the respondents and the petitioners in the other writ petitions the petitioner did not specifically mention the concerned discipline under which he sought appointment based on Ext.P1 notification. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that vacancy of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Physics was not notified under Ext.P1. True that, among the notified disciplines Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry was included and the number of vacancies notified under the said discipline was five. Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner possessed qualification only in Agricultural Physics. The specific contention of the WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 9 respondents and the petitioners in the other writ petitions is that Agricultural Chemistry and Agricultural Physics are two different subjects. In this context, it is to be noted that the grounds raised in the said writ petition did not contain a contention that Agricultural Physics and Agricultural Chemistry are one and the same. The petitioner did not raise any such contention even at the time of hearing. The petitioner did not bring to my notice any provision or material which would fetch him eligibility to apply against the post of Assistant Professor in any of the disciplines under any of the faculties notified as per Ext.P1. Therefore, even the declaration of equivalency of M.Sc. and Ph.D issued by Indian Agricultural Research Institute with effect from 3.3.2010 as per Ext.P6 cannot be relied on by the petitioner to canvass the point that he should have been included in any of the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification as the post of Assistant Professor in Agricultural Physics was not admittedly notified as per Ext.P1. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the petitioner who possessed only a Degree of Master of Science in the discipline of Agricultural Physics cannot legally claim that he should have been included in any of the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor in the various disciplines under the various faculties specifically mentioned in WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 10 Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner cannot, legally, have any grievance against his non-inclusion in any of the rank lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. It is an admitted position that despite calling in question selection and appointment to the various disciplines under the various faculties mentioned in Ext.P1, the petitioner did not choose to implead the candidates included in the rank lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. So also he had not filed any petition for impleading any of such rank holders either in representative capacity. True that, some of them have subsequently got themselves impleaded in this writ petition as additional respondents and some of such rank holders are chosen to file separate writ petitions. But, I am of the considered view that it cannot and will not cure the inherent defect on account of non- joinder of necessary parties in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 by the petitioner therein. 6. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 further contended that going by Ext.P1 notification applications were invited for appointment as Assistant Professors in the disciplines under the various faculties mentioned thereunder exclusively for appointment in the Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects. The said Kendras and the projects have been funded by the Central Government, according to the WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 11 petitioner. Based on the said facts, it is contended that rank holders in the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 could have been and should have been appointed only against the notified number of vacancies and that too, only in the Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects. True that, as per Ext.P1 notification, applications were invited for appointment as Assistant Professors in the disciplines and faculties mentioned thereunder exclusively for the Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects under the University. In the context of the contentions against the appointment in excess of the notified vacancies in Ext.P1, it is to be noted that in Ext.P1 itself it was specifically mentioned as hereunder:- “The vacancies mentioned above are purely provisional and subject to variation.” In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent - University the circumstance under which such a condition was put in Ext.P1 was explained. There cannot be any doubt that in the matter of any recruitment the authority who issued the notification is bound by the same. Evidently, as per Ext.P1 notification in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors exclusively for the Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 12 aided projects. Further, it is specifically stated thereunder that appointees under the notification will have to work for a minimum period of five years wherever the University intends to post them and the options under transfer norms would be considered only after completion of a minimum period of five years of regular service excluding the period of leave taken for more than three months. When applications were called for appointment in Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects appointments from the lists drawn pursuant to the said notification can only be effected in the Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects and the appointees are bound by the same. The rider in Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 making it obligatory to complete a minimum period of five years of regular service wherever the University post the candidates selected pursuant to Ext.P1 notification might have dissuaded other qualified persons from making applications in response to Ext.P1. Whatever that be, in the light of the specific terms in Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 the University is bound to restrict the appointments from the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 in Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects. As already noticed hereinbefore, in Ext.P1 itself it is stated that the number of vacancies mentioned are purely provisional WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 13 and subject to variation and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance with respect to the filling up of vacancies in excess of the notified number. Even otherwise, in view of the earlier finding with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner to contest the selection process I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot have any grievance at all with respect to the filling up of vacancies of Assistant Professors in any of the disciplines under the faculty of Agriculture specifically notified under Ext.P1 in excess of the notified number inasmuch as, he cannot aspire appointment as Assistant Professor in any of the disciplines under the faculty of Agriculture notified under Ext.P1. Under normal circumstances, in view of the above findings the writ petition ought to have been dismissed without any further observations. However, in this case, certain aspects persuade to make further consideration on certain other aspects. As already noticed, on 18.5.2010 this Court passed an interim order restraining appointments to the category of posts mentioned in Ext.P1 in excess of the notified vacancies. Subsequently, as per order dated 23.6.2010, the said order was modified. As per the said order dated 23.6.2010, taking note of the decision in Suresh v. M.G.University (2009 (1) KLT 950) and the specific statement in Ext.P1 to the effect that the vacancies mentioned WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 14 thereunder were purely provisional and subject to variation, the order dated 18.5.2010 was modified and clarified to the effect that appointments could be effected from the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification against vacancies available under the Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects subject to the availability of vacancies based on the seniority and subject to the rules of reservation. In view of the modified order dated 23.6.2010, the University could have effected appointments to the post of Assistant Professors in the various disciplines under the various faculties mentioned in Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 subject to the availability of vacancies under Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Externally aided projects. In fact, by virtue of the same, taking note of the conditions in Ext.P1 as also the decision reported in 2009 (1) KLT 950 (supra) there cannot be any impediment at all for effecting appointments against existing and vacancies arose up to the date of expiry of the concerned lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007. However, it is a fact that certain lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification got expired immediately after the issuance of the modified order. In fact, the rank lists wherein the petitioners in all the other three writ petitions figured also got expired on 27.6.2010. Admittedly, existing and subsequently arisen vacancies WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 15 were available on the date of expiry of those lists. Even now such vacancies are available. The contention of the respondents and the petitioners in the other writ petitions is that the intervening holidays between the date of receipt of the interim order dated 23.6.2010 and the expiry of the said lists impeded appointments from such lists. Therefore, the question is whether expiry of lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 would deprive such candidates/rank holders from consideration for appointments from the lists drawn pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 9.10.2007 against vacancies existing and arisen up to the expiry of such lists if they are otherwise eligible and entitled to get appointments. Normally, in the matter of appointments wherein the recruiting agency is the Public Service Commission, the consistent view taken by this Court is that unless the vacancies arisen during the life time of the concerned lists are reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission before the expiry of the concerned lists advice and appointments cannot be effected from such lists when once the lists got expired even in case of availability of vacancies. At the instance of the petitioner herein an interim order restraining the respondents from effecting appointments towards the various categories of posts notified in Ext.P1 was passed by this Court. WP(C).No.14123/2010 & connected cases 16 In view of my finding with respect to the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to participate in the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 and also his locus standi to challenge the selection and appointments effected pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be heard to raise any objection with respect to the consideration of the above question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents including the University in W.P.(C)No.14123 of 2010 and the petitioners in the other three writ petitions contended that the position of law