Aggrieved by the order directing the Appellant/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [TNPSC] to appoint respondents 1 as Additional Public Prosecutor [Grade II], TNPSC has preferred these appeals. Since common points have been raised for consideration, all three-writ appeals shall stand disposed of by this common order.

.2. Brief facts which gave rise to the present appeals are as follows:-

.TNPSC in its notification dated 012. 2000, called for application from candidates for appointment by direct recruitment against 55 vacancies in the post of Additional Public Prosecutor [Gr.II]. In response to the advertisement, respondents appeared for the written examination on 10.03.2001 and 11.03.2001. The respondents have also appeared for the interview on 310. 2001. 53 candidates were selected for the said post and two vacancies in the category of ST Reserve was not filled. The respondents were informed that their names have been included in the reserve list, which would be in force until next list of selected candidates for the post is drawn up. Two among the selected candidates viz., M/s.Jeyamangalam [S.C. (General)] and Ravi [B.C.(General)] did not join duty as they were simultaneously selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division/ Judicial Magistrate). In their places, by operating the reserve list as per the Rules, Baskaran, who stood 1st in S.C.[General] and V.Loganathan, who stood 1st in B.C.[General], were allotted for appointment as Additional Public Prosecutor, Grade II.

3. Case of the respondents is that their names were included in the reserve list which will have to be in force for selection, in the event of selected candidates failing to join duty. The grievance of the respondents is that they were not appointed even though there were vacancies, three candidates joined and subsequently left.

.4. By two separate orders, learned Single Judges have held that "when two candidates have joined and left service by virtue of their selection as Civil Judges, the petitioners who are included in the reserve list, should have been considered for those vacancies". The learned Judges directed TNPSC and Government to appoint the Writ Petitioners in those resultant vacancies.

5. Though the writ appeals were filed in September 2006, for one reason or other, immediate steps were not taken for getting the appeals numbered. In the mean time, advertisement was issued inviting applications for filing up Additional Public Prosecutor Grade II Post, on 27.05.2007. The respondents have filed Contempt Petitions 260 and 261 of 2007. In the said contempt proceedings, the learned Additional Government Pleader sought two weeks time to implement the orders of the Court. In the mean time, steps were taken and the delay in filing the writ appeals was condoned and the appeals were numbered and that is how all three appeals are before us.

6. Ms. Ezhilarasi, the learned Counsel for the TNPSC has submitted that the second proviso to Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, provides for appointing the reserve list candidates in the place of selected candidates, in their respective category, only if the selected candidates did not join duty. The learned Counsel tried to persuade us by submitting that the Writ Petitioners could not be appointed in the resultant vacancies because the three candidates joined, and subsequently left/resigned and Rule 10(a)(i) does not provide for filling up such resultant vacancies. The learned Counsel further submitted that as per the notification dated 212. 2004, 22 eligible candidates were appointed. Drawing our attention to the recent notification dated 27.05.2007 for filling up 44 vacancies, the learned Counsel has submitted that recruitment process is going on and as such, there is no vacancy to appoint the Writ Petitioners.

7. Contending that panel of selected list prepared in 2002 got expired and the learned Judges ought not to have issued Writ of Mandamus directing appoi