P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

Can the Public Service Commission (PSC) initiate Selection proceedings before the vacancies are reported by the Requisitioning Department/Institution/Employer', is the question mooted for consideration. If not, is the 'third proviso' to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure enabling the PSC to take steps for preparation of new Ranked list, wherever necessary, even before the expiry of the period of one year of the ranked list, by inviting applications, however effecting publication of the list only after expiry of the period of one year of the existing ranked list, valid in the eye of law?

2. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that, pursuant to Notification (Annexure A1) of the year 2010, they got included in the ranked list which was published in February/March, 2014 and before expiry of one year, steps were initiated by the PSC effecting A7 Notification on 12.06.2014, leading to publication of a new ranked list on 04.5.2015, virtually resulting in cancellation of the existing list immediately after one year, thus losing the chance to get appointed against the vacancies of Women Excise Guard in the districts concerned.

3. A short recital to the factual sequence is necessary to understand the case and to deal with the issue. As per SRO. No. 587/2008, the Special Rules for Kerala Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service were amended in the year 2008, whereby a new category of posts named as 'Women Excise Guard' was created and included along with Category No.3 of Excise Guards. Accordingly, a requisition was made to the PSC for selection and appointment to the post of Women Excise Guards (now re-designated as Women Civil Excise Officer, similar to Women Police Officer in the Police Department). On receipt of the requisition, the PSC issued Annexure A1 Notification dated 31.08.2010 stipulating the qualifications and inviting applications for appointment in all the 14 districts in Kerala; making it clear that it was a district-wise selection and that the vacancies were not estimated for the time being. As per 'Note 2' of the said Notification, it was also mentioned that separate ranked list will be prepared for each district in pursuance of the said notification and that the ranked list prepared and published by the Commission will remain in force for a minimum period of one year, subject to the condition that the list will continue to be in force till the publication of new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever was earlier. It was also stipulated that candidates will be advised for appointment against the vacancies reported during the currency of the list and in case no candidate was advised from the ranked list till the expiry of the period of three years, the duration of the ranked list shall be extended for a further period of one year or till at least one candidate was advised from the list, whichever was earlier.

4. The petitioners, on satisfying the qualifications as prescribed in the Notification, participated in the process of selection-both Written test as well as Physical efficiency test, and came out successful; by virtue of which, they got a placement in Annexures A2 to A6 ranked lists published for different districts in February/March 2014 (A5 ranked list in March, 2014 and A2, A3, A4 and A6 in February, 2014.) The issue involved in the present case is only with reference to the claim for appointment in the five districts, such as Kollam, Kottayam, Ernakulam, Thrissur and Kasaragod.

5. Based on the position of candidates in the ranked list, appointments were made, following the rules of reservation. The petitioners, by virtue of their lower position in the said list, could not get any advice and while so, the PSC issued Annexure A7 notification dated 12.06.2014 (just a few months after publication of Annexure A2 to A6 ranked lists) for the next exercise of selection. The said not