The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of government directions on the Corporation, the validity of ranked lists published by the Public Service Commission, and the prohibition of ad hoc appointments in violation of statutory rules.

Sreedharan, J.

Petitioner in the majority of the original petitions are candidates included in the racked list prepared by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Reserve Conductors under the Kerala Road Transport Corporation. Petitioners in some of the cases are working as conductors on provisional basis on daily rated wages and they seek regularisation in the service under the Corporation. Since the issues raised in these original petitions are common, we consider it advantageous to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment. Learned counsel appearing on either side agreed to this course of action as well.

2. Certain facts are admitted. They are - Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is one constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. As per S.34 of that Act, Government have got the power to give general instructions to the Corporation, including directions relating to recruitment, conditions of service etc.-of its employees. Such direction if given by the Government are binding on the Corporation. Kerala Legislature enacted the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as Respects the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) Act, 1970. That Act came into force with effect from 9.2.1970 when it was published in the Kerala Gazette after the Governor's assent. Thereafter, all the posts under the Corporation except that of Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer came within the purview of the Public Service Commission. In other words, vacancies in all categories of posts under the Corporation other than that of Chief Executive Officer or General Manager and the Chief Accounts Officer have to be filled up by candidates selected by the Public Service Commission. In 1989, Corporation requested the Public Service Commission to prepare a ranked list of candidates for appointment to the post of reserve conductors, number of vacancies being not ascertained. Pursuant to this request, Public Service Commission issued notification dt. 19.5.1989, published in Gazette. Dt 6.6.1989. 2,64,844 candidates applied for the post. After a due process of selection, Public Service Commission published a rank list, which came into force on 18.5.1992. The main list consisted of 3299 candidates and the supplementary list contained names of 1634 candidates. Ordinarily, the life of a list published by the 'Public Service Commission is three years from the date of notification. If none from the list is advised from the list during the said period of three years, the list will continue to have validity for one more year. Since no one from the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission was advised or appointed by the Corporation during the ordinary term of three years, the list still continues to be in force for a further period of one year or till one candidate is advised from the list, whichever is earlier. It is the admitted case of parties that fill dale no candidate has been advised by the Public Service Commission from the list on the requisition made by the Corporation.

3. In the instant case, no such direction as contemplated by S.34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 has been issued by the Government to the Corporation except those contained in letter No. 2976/A1/85/Tr-D dt. 24.6.1995, G. O. (MS) 157/86/PW & T dt. 6.12.1986 and letter No. 53640/L2/91/PW & T dt. 3.1.1992. Reference was also made to letter No. 1105943/92 PW & T dt. 11.3.1992. The first letter, stated to be a direction under S.34 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, provides that no further recruitment of provisional or regular hands will be made except to the extent necessary to fill up Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe vacancies and that the bus staff ratio should be progressively reduced to 9 and finally to 7.5 before the end of the 7th plan period. The other provisions mentioned therein are not relevant for the case on hand. In the sec