Important Points:
(a) Normally, it is only in two specific contingencies can the expiry of a rank list obtain postponement; namely, if a court interdicts the appointing authorities from reporting vacancies to the Public Service Commission during its life time; or, if a court prohibits the Public Service Commission from making advice from the rank list within the period of one year or such other periods as may be statutorily prescribed, after it is brought into force.(b) Therefore, in the case at hand, going by the first proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, the Rank List dated 11.09.2013 will expire on completion of one month after the training of the last batch advised from it commenced.(c) Since the date of commencement of training of the last batch was concededly on 01.05.2016, axiomatically, the Rank List dated 11.09.2013 would expire on 01.06.2016. (d) Consequently, the 93 Non Joining Duty vacancies admittedly reported on 12.07.2016 cannot go to the credit of the candidates included in the Rank List dated 11.09.2013.(e) The principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit are not attracted in these cases, since the petitioners and other candidates in the Rank List dated 11.09.2013 have obtained all the vacancies that would have been entitled to them even if there were no litigations or interim orders.(f) The views and conclusions in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair (1977 KLT 818), that a candidate in a rank list does not get an indefeasible right to be appointed, is certainly good law and such position does not change even after the coming into force of the PSC Procedure Rules because these Rules only offer the candidates, included in a rank list, a statutory right to be considered against the vacancies available and reported during the life time of such list, but not to be appointed.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Our opinion in this judgment is consequent to and in response to a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court which, inter alia, is seen doubting the ratio in an earlier judgment of another Division Bench in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair (1977 KLT 818).

2. Before we tread forward, we must record that though the Reference Order appears to have been impelled on account of an apparent suspicion that Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra) does not lay down the law correctly, the real issue in these cases is whether the expiry date of a Rank List, prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('the PSC' for brevity), would obtain postponement on account of litigation, pending against its validity, for a period beyond the termination of such litigations; particularly when interdictory orders are issued by courts against the operation of such list. From the Reference Order, the learned Division Bench appears to feel so, but has stopped short of declaring it, noticing Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra), which avouches that no candidate can claim a legally enforceable right to be appointed to a particular post merely on the strength of his/her inclusion in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission. The learned Bench, from a reading of the Reference Order, appears to have felt that if a person in a rank list does not obtain any vested right for appointment, going by the ratio in Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra), then they would also obtain no locus to seek deferment of the date of expiry of the rank list, thus making their prayers for such purpose virtually redundant; and hence have posed the question to us if the view in Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra) would obtain forensic imprimatur; or if, on the contrary, it would now need to be overruled.

3. On a reading of the Reference Order, we certainly see the veiled opinion of the referring Division Bench that Dr.Kesavankutty Nair (supra) is no longer good law on account of the coming into force of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure ('the PSC Procedure Rules' for brevity) and in particular, Rules 13 and 14 thereof, which give the candidates, included in a rank list, the statutory right to be considered for appointment.

4. With the afore exordium in place, we now proceed to pen our carefully contemplated views on the specific issues placed before us in the Reference Order, but before doing so, we will narrate the most essential facts required for formulating our opinion herein.

5. On 28.09.2007, the PSC issued a notification, calling for candidates for being appointed to the post of 'Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee)' in the Police (General Executive Branch – Open). It appears that in response to this notification, about 42,000 persons, including the petitioners in all the afore cases, except petitioners in O.P. (KAT)No. 362/2017, made their applications and since it was felt by the PSC that the number of candidates are too large to be subjected to the statutory written test and interview, a decision was taken to prune this list by short listing a lesser number, who could, thereafter, be allowed to appear for the statutory examinations, as are stipulated under Rule 3 of the PSC Procedure Rules. The PSC, therefore, conducted a Preliminary Examination, consequent to which 2,000 candidates were short listed, but then the PSC encountered another problem that this Short List may not yield enough candidates to fill up the vacancies to the various reserved categories like Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes, etc. The PSC, consequently, decided to include more number of candidates belonging to the various reserved categories in the Short List, for which purpose, the earlier bench mark of forty nine marks that had been adopted to short list 2,000 candidates, was lowered upto thirty two marks for persons in the categories of 'Ezhava', 'Scheduled Caste', 'Scheduled Tribe', 'Muslim', 'Other Backward Classes