1. These two appeals are by the Travancore Devaswom Board challenging the common judgment rendered by the learned single judge in O.P. Nos.2269 and 2864 of 1986. The relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows: The Travancore Devaswom Board invited applications for filling up 7 posts of L. D. Clerks and other posts by notification Ext. P1 dated 19-4-1984. Large number of applications were received. The applicants were subjected to written and oral test and a select list of 150 candidates came to be made on 6-4-1985 stipulating that the said list shall remain in force for a period of one year. Before the said period of one year expired, seventy persons from the select list were offered appointment as L. D. Clerks as against 7 that were notified. The contesting respondents in these two cases came to this court with their writ petitions complaining about the stipulation that the select list shall remain in force for a period of one year. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petitions and declared that the stipulation fixing the life of the select list as one year is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The learned single judge has taken the view that there is no justification for reducing the period of validity of the select list from two years to one year. It is on that basis that the learned single judge has directed that the select list shall remain in force for a period of two years from 6-4-1985. It is the said decision that is challenged in these two appeals.

2. The principal question for consideration is as to whether the Devaswom Board acted arbitrarily when it fixed one year as the life of the select list prepared on the 6th of April, 1985. It is not the case of either of the parties "that there is any statutory provision which fixes the period of validity of the select list. It was however brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the Board that after the disposal of the writ petitions, the Devaswom Board has framed rules by notification dated 9th April 1987, prescribing in R.9 that the validity of the rank list shall be one year from the date of publication of the same.

3. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, it cannot be contended that fixation of one year as the life of the select list is bad, as being contrary to any specific statutory provision. The learned single judge has taken the view that the Devaswom Board having fixed two year as the life of the select list in the year 1981, could not have reduced the life to one year in the year 1984 without any justifiable reasons. Firstly it has to be pointed out that there is no such fixation of the life of select list to be prepared by the Devaswom Board from time to time in respect of selection to be made to various categories of posts. What was actually relied upon is not a general rule fixing two years as the life of the select list. What was relied upon is the fact that the life of the select list prepared in the year 1981 for the purpose of filling up the posts of Overseers, was fixed as two years. It is therefore clear that a wrong assumption has been made that there was a general fixation of two years as the life of the select list made by the Board in the year 1981. Even assuming for the sake of argument that in the year 1981 the Board had fixed two years as the life of the select list, that by itself does not mean that the Board could not have reduced it from two years to one year. The basic question for examination is as to whether the fixation of the life of the list as one year is arbitrary and therefore violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. If the life of the select list is not limited, it would remain in force for an indefinite length of time, may be for several years. One of the principles to be borne in mind in this behalf is that the object of selection is to secure the best talent for the services. Another principle to be borne in mind is of giving equality of opportunity in the matter of appoint