The court emphasized that appointments can only be made in accordance with the ranking in the list and that it cannot direct appointments to be made in violation of statutory rules.

Krishnamoorthy, J.

This Review Petition is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Appeal who are petitioners in O.P.No.6720 of 1986 against which the Writ Appeal was filed.

2. The Writ Appeal was heard along with certain other Writ Appeals and was disposed of by a common judgment dated 4th December, 1992. The Writ Appeals were filed by the State.

3. It is alleged in the Review Petition that the review petitioners had engaged Mr.K.S. Rajamony, Senior Counsel as their advocate who was appointed as a Member of the Kerala Public Men Corruption Commission and on his accepting the assignment the petitioners engaged the present counsel Mr. James Vincent who filed Vakalath in the case on 23-3-1992. He had also filed C.M.P.No.2294 on 23-3-1992 for an early posting of the Writ Appeal. But when the Writ Appeals were posted for hearing before the Full Bench in November, 1992 the name of counsel was omitted to be noted in the cause list and the names of the parties alone were shown. Accordingly counsel had no notice and the Writ Appeal happened to be disposed of without hearing counsel for the review petitioners. Even though in the judgment Sri.K.P.Satheesan is shown as having represented the review petitioners, his name was also not noted in the cause list so that he also could not take part in the hearing of the case. Accordingly this Review Petition is filed to review the judgment and re-hear the petitioners.

4. On verification of the files it is seen that though the present counsel had filed vakalath on 23-3-1992, his name was not shown in the cause list and so he could not appear while the case was taken up for arguments. In these circumstances, sufficient grounds are made out by the review petitioners to hear the counsel appearing for them as also counsel for the other parties and we are considering the matter in detail after hearing the arguments of counsel for the review petitioners also. This order shall be treated as an addendum to the main judgment.

5. Writ Appeal No.967 of 1987 arises out of O.P.No.6720 of 1986 which was heard along with other Original Petitions filed by others who were similarly situated. The writ petitioners had applied for appointment as Sales Tax Officers pursuant to a notification by the Public Service Commission dated 20-7-1982. Petitioners were included in the ranked list dated 31-10-1984. Their complaint was that in spite of the prescription of the ratio 1:3 in the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Service Special Rules, the number of vacancies ear-marked for direct recruits was not reported to the Public Service Commission consequent to which the Departmental promotees were wrongly occupying such positions on provisional promotions. According to the petitioners if all the existing vacancies available for direct recruitment were reported to the Public Service Commission, the petitioners who were included in the ranked list would have been appointed. Later by G.O.(P) 131/85/PD dated 4-11-1985 - the ratio 1:3 between direct recruits and promotees was amended as 1:4 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1981 .Petitioners challenged the vires of the amendment to the Special Rules with retrospective effect from 1-4-1981 and consequently they sought the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to report 25% of the vacancies in the category of Sales Tax Officers which arose subsequent to 1-4-1981 to the Public Service Commission to appoint direct recruits in the vacancies ear-marked for them in accordance with the Special Rules.

6. The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners to quash the G.O. dated 3-11-1985 whereby the percentage of vacancies available for direct recruits was reduced from 25% to 20%. On the question as to the number of vacancies available for direct recruitment, the learned judge excluded 4 vacancies as having been filled up by special recruitment under R.17A of the K.S.S.R., under the Sports Quota and also under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. On