These two writ petitions concern the challenge against the selection and appointment to the post of Munsiff-Magistrates in the Kerala State Judicial Service. Since common questions arise for consideration, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are the following:

2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions belong to Ezhava community. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.24737/2008 is serial No.92 in the list of qualified candidates, viz. Ext.P1 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.34668/2008 is serial No.54 in the same list. Ext.P1 has been published in the gazette, after it was prepared by the High Court and approved by the Government. Ext.P2 is the order issued by the Government appointing 45 persons listed in the notification accompanying it as Munsiff-Magistrates. The said list is one prepared under Rules 14 to 17 of the KS & SSR.

3. The previous selection was in the year 2002 and at that point of time 70 posts of Munsiff-Magistrates were filled up from the rank list prepared by the High Court. Ext.P3 is the main list of 88 candidates found suitable for appointment in that selection and Ext.P4 is the list of 70 Munsiff-Magistrates who were appointed after applying reservation principles.

4. Mainly it is contended that in the year 2002, seven Ezhava candidates were posted against the passed over turn vacancies of other communities which were compensated in the present selection to those communities which is clearly wrong and illegal. On the basis of the detailed averments in the respective writ petitions and the chart produced therein showing the working out of rotation, it is contended that in the year 2002 six Ezahva candidates who were eligible for appointment in the merit quota were wrongly treated as Ezhava reserved candidates and only two Ezhavas were allotted to Ezhava reservation turn points. Those six persons were wrongly appointed in the Turn Pass Over vacancies. It is pointed out that in the present selection, in the notification the probable number of vacancies is shown as 85out of which 14 are transfer candidates and hence the remaining to be filled up by direct recruitment is 71. It is thus pointed out that if the reservation rules are correctly applied, six Ezhava candidates ranked in Ext.P1 list, ought to have been appointed to Munsiff-Magistrate posts in the Ezhava reservation points 54, 58, 62, 74, 78 and 82. It is further pointed out in Writ Petition NO.34668/2008 that going by the Bench Decision in K.P.S.C. v. Dr. T. Beermasthan (2008 (2) KLT 979), 100 point roster contemplated in Rule 14(a) has to be applied when more than 20 vacancies are reported. In the year 2002 as well as in 2007, as more than 20 vacancies were reported, only 100 cycles have to be followed and accordingly 11 Ezhava candidates have to be appointed in open merit quota and 8 Ezhavas are entitled to be appointed in the reservation point.

5. The main grounds of attack are that the method adopted by granting the benefit of passed over turns to other communities and denying appointment to 7 Ezhava candidates based on the Note to the amended Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR is unconstitutional. It is pointed out that going by the principles of interpretation and the well accepted legal principles settled by various decisions of the Apex Court and this court, a Note to a rule cannot go against the main part of the Rule and hence the Note to Rule 15(a) providing for the method of filling up of vacancies by accommodating candidates for uncompensated turns of vacancies is illegal. It is pointed out that the notification in the present selection was issued only in the year 2007, after the amendment of Rule 15(a), i.e. on 15.2.2007 and therefore going by the main part of Rule 15(a), the High Court was bound to publish a separate notification to provide candidates belonging to particular communities who were not available for appointment in specified vacancies, when selecti