The petitioner responded to a notification issued by the 2nd respondent public service Commission {for short ‘the Commission’} inviting application for the post of Forest Guard, in the Forest Department. The notification inviting application was published on 27.4.2004. The selection was conducted and Ext.P1 rank list was published on 19.2007. 83 persons were included in the main list and 225 persons were included in the supplementary list. The petitioner was included as Rank No.10 in the Muslim supplementary list. According to the petitioner, there were 105 vacancies of Forest Guard in Ernakulam District, at the time of publication of Ext.P1 rank list. Four Muslim Candidates included in the rank list viz., persons with Rank Nos.67 and 79 in the main list and Rank Nos.7 and 9 in the supplementary list, had relinquished their claim for advice as per the rank list. The petitioner contends that, going by the details given by the Commission in its counter affidavit, the date of publication of the rank list, the date of first advice and the date of receipt of relinquishment by the 4 Muslim candidates are given as hereunder:

“Date of publication of the rank list 19.2007.

Date of first advice 210.2007.

Sl.No Rank No. Name of Candidate Date of receipt of relinquishment

1. 67 Alshan 10/10/07

2. 79 Rafi A 10/10/07

3. S/L 7 Shamsudeen 03/11/07

4. S/L 9 Shamnad S 03/11/07”

.2. The petitioner contends that the relinquishment effected by four persons the details of which are given above is valid in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the names of those persons, who had validly relinquished their claims to be considered for appointment for the post in question, should have been deleted from the rank list. Again, as a consequence thereof, the Commission should have issued advice memos to the other candidates who continue in the rank list. If this had been done, then obviously, the Commission would not have advised the aforementioned four persons. But going by the number of vacancies which were available viz., 108, the main list and the supplementary list would have been continued

.to be operated and this would have definitely resulted in advice memos being issued to rank Nos.8 and 10 in the supplementary list reserved for Muslims and consequently the petitioner would have been advised for the post. It is on this premise, the petitioner prays for a direction that the vacancies of Forest Guard covered by Exts.P2 to P5 relinquishment letters (which are the same as Exts.R1(a) to R1(d) produced by the 1st respondent) are to be considered as vacancies which arose during the currency of Ext.P1 rank list. Consequential reliefs are also sought for.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Commission. It is pointed out that the rank list which was brought into force on 19.2007 contains the names of 83 candidates in the main list and 235 candidates in the supplementary list. 108 vacancies were reported. 92 vacancies out of the same were fresh ones and 16 were NJD vacancies. Advice memos were issued in relation to 108 vacancies. Therefore, the rank list got itself exhausted, pursuant to all the candidates in the main list being advised.

4. The principal contention raised by the commission, qua the relinquishment letters sent by the Muslim candidates is that in terms of Rule 18 (ii) of the Rules of procedure, a valid relinquishment could be effected only if the relinquishment was prior to the date of receipt of requisition by the PSc. It is pointed out with reference to Exts.R1(e) and R1(f) reports of vacancies received from the competent authority by the Commission, that the vacancies of Forests Guards were reported under Ext.R1(f), as early as in 2004 and under Ext.R1(f) as early as in 2006 i.e. to say, all the vacancies, against which the rank list was operated, were reported to the Commission prior to 19.2007 i.e. date of publication of the rank list and consequently, the relinq