A mandamus cannot be issued to direct the government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something contrary to law. Sympathy cannot override statutory rules, and the Public Service Commission cannot be directed to act contrary to statutory provisions.

B.N. Patnaik, J.

1. The first respondent, the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kasaragode in O.P. 12297/96 has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 28th January 1997 of the learned Single Judge by which he was directed to advise candidates including the petitioners therein against the vacancies reported on 27th June 1996 and received by him on 28th June 1996.

2. The petitioners in the O.P. who are respondents 1 and 2 herein requested the third respondent herein to report the vacancy of H.S.A. (Natural Science Malayalam Medium) in Kasargode district to the appellant herein. The appellant was requested by the third respondent by his letter dated 27th June 1996 to advise the petitioners (Respondents 1 and 2 herein) who are enlisted in the ranked list which was to expire on 27th June 1996. The letter of the third respondent reached the appellant on 28th June 1996. The appellant declined to send the advice memo as requested. The respondents I and 2 filed the Original Petition challenging the said action of the appellant with a prayer to issue a direction to him to send the advice memo for appointment to the said post. Learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment held that the petitioners were included in the ranked list prepared by the first respondent therein. The second respondent therein took time to report the existing vacancies till the last moment. In fact on 27th June 1996, vacancies were reported and it was sent through special messenger, but it reached the first respondent only the next day morning. The validity of the list expired on the midnight of 27th/28th June 1996. Therefore, this is a case where law can be stretched a little bit in order to render justice to the petitioners. Otherwise grave injustice will result by sticking to the letter of law regarding the interpretation of the time of expiry of the list. With these observations the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and issued the said direction which is under challenge.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court in various decisions would show that the Public Service Commission cannot be directed under any circumstances to act contrary to the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the rules should not be interpreted too technically and the court should be inclined in favour, of interpretation of the rule which would give benefit to a candidate in preference to an interpretation which would benefit none.

4. The only point for consideration is whether the relevant rule can be stretched beyond its scope of application to give benefit to respondents 1 and 2.

5. Under similar such circumstances, the Supreme Court in State of U. P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others (1996) 9 S.C.C. 309 held as follows:

"The respondents approached the Allahadad High Court in the year 1990 alleging, inter alia, that though there existed vacancies during the year 1987 and the select list was prepared on 4th April 1987 but the appointing authority arbitrarily did not fill up the vacancies. Although the State contended that the life of the select list had expired by 4th April 1988, a Single Judge of the High Court negatived that contention and issued a mandamus to the State to recruit the respondents. Allowing the State's appeal, the Supreme Court held:

In view of the Statutory Rules contained in R.26 of the U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, a select list prepared under the Recruitment Rules has its life only for one year from the date of the preparation of the list and it expires thereafter. Hence, the High Court's decision that the list does not expire after a period of one year on the face of it is erroneous. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against w