ANEESH KUMAR V.S & Ors. v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors.

List (RL-I) was sent for training on 1.5.2016, as a result of which the first Ranked List (RL-I) ceased to exist on expiry of one month therefrom i.e. on1.6.2016. This conclusion has been justly arrived at by the Full Bench disregarding the decision of the KPSC, dated 26.10.2015 to treat the first Ranked List (RL-I) having ceased to exist due to publication of second Ranked List (RL-II) on 26.5.2015. [Paras 24-26][650-C-G; 652-G-H; 653-A-E]

1.3 Admittedly, all the appellants were empanelled in the first Ranked List (RL-I), which, as aforementioned, had ceased to exist on 1.6.2016. Resultantly, the appellants cannot set up any claim in respect of vacancies reported thereafter. The NJD vacancies reported after 1.6.2016 must be filled up from amongst the empanelled candidates in the fresh Ranked List (i.e. the second Ranked List (RL-II) published on 26.5.2015 or the third Ranked List (RL-III) published on 14.3.2019, as the case may be). [Para 27][654-A-B]

1.4 Grievance about publication of the second Ranked List (RL-II) during the pendency of appeal before this Court and despite the order of status quo, was not pursued before this Court on behalf of the appellants. The order of status quo though interdicted processing of the first Ranked List (RL-I), that restriction stood lifted with setting aside of the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and allowing the appeal on 13.10.2015. Sans any direction by this Court and challenge to publication of the second Ranked List (RL-II) on 26.5.2015, nothing came in the way of the respondents to proceed with the final advice made on 11.11.2015 relating to 339 empanelled candidates from the first Ranked List (RL-I), who in turn, commenced their training on 1.5.2016. The appellants were not entitled to base their claim in reference to the first Ranked List (RL-I), which had ceased to exist on 1.6.2016, by filing writ petition(s) on 12.10.2017 for the stated reliefs. As the first Ranked List (RL-I), in law, ceased to exist from 1.6.2016, no relief could be granted to the appellants and the principles of actus curiae neminem gravabit and lex non cogit ad impossibilia will be of no avail, as it was not a case of any prejudice caused to the appellants on account of Court order as such. [Paras 30, 31][655-A-E] A B C D E F G H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. A B C D E S. S. Balu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 479 : [2009] 1 SCR 196; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567; Jang Singh v. Brij Lal & Ors. [1964] 2 SCR 145; Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia (1988) 4 SCC 284 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528; South Eastern coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 648 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 651; Union of India & Ors. v. Kali Dass Batish & Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 779 : [2006] 1 SCR 261; Dr. M. A. Haque & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 213 : [1993] 2 SCR 1; K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission Trivandrum & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 190 : [2007] 5 SCR 1042; Deepa Keyes v. Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 194; Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheeja P. R. & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 56 : [2013] 1 SCR 182; Nair Service Society v. Distt. Officer, Kerala Service Commission and Ors. (2003) 12 SCC 10 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 551– referred to. Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair & Ors. ILR 1977 (2) Kerala 687; Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shanil Kumar (2002) 1 KLT 604; Lal Sudheer and Ors. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (2003) 1 KLT 329 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2009] 1 SCR 196 F [1991] 2 SCR 567 [1964] 2 SCR 145 referred to referred to referred to [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 528 referred to [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 651 referred to G H [2006] 1 SCR 261 [1993] 2 SCR 1 [2007] 5 SCR 1042 (2007) 6 SCC 194 [2008] 3 SCR 210 referred to referred to referred to referred to relied on Para 12 Para 12 Para 16 Para 16 Para 16 Para 19 Para 20 Para 20 Para 20 Para 22 ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 631 [2013] 5 SCR 18 [2013] 1 SCR 182 relied on referred to [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 551 referred to Para 22 Para 27 Para 27 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2019 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (KAT) No. 408 of 2017. With C.A. Nos. 2369, 2370 and 2371 of 2020 Dushyant Dave, P.V. Surendranath, Sr. Advs., Sanand Ramakrishnan, Rajeev Mishra, Anzu. K. Varkey, N.P. Rakeesh Panicker, Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Resmitha R. Chandran, Ms. Lekha Sudhakran, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh, Karthik Jayashankar, G. Prakash, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Sushant Kumar Sarkar, Rishabh Jain, Renjith B. Marar, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Mahendra Kumawat, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

#1. Leave granted.

#2. This batch of appeals, by special leave, are against the final judgment and order dated 21.2.2019 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (for short, “the High Court”) in O.P. (KAT) Nos. 256/2017, 330/2017 and 408/2017 pursuant to a Reference Order by the Division Bench, bearing the same case numbers, passed on 16.11.2018.

#3. In a nutshell, the appellants have preferred these appeals to be advised (or appointed) against 93 Non-Joining Duty (for short, “NJD”) vacancies reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, “the KPSC”) on 12.7.2016 relating to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee). Respondents declined that demand on the ground that the Ranked List dated 11.9.2013 [for short “first Ranked List (RL-I)”](wherein the appellant(s)have been empanelled), had expired before the stated vacancies came to be reported. This Court vide order dated 24.9.2019, called upon the respondents to explore the possibility of issuing advice for 31 left out candidates (appellants and similarly placed A B C D E F G H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H persons) against the 34 NJD vacancies still available. However, vide notification dated 18.11.2019, the State of Kerala (respondent No. 1) declined to do so due to administrative and legal reasons, cementing their stand that the first Ranked List (RL-I) had already expired before the vacancies were reported. Factual Background

#4. Pursuant to a gazette notification issued on 28.9.2007, applications were invited for appointment to the abovementioned posts, allocated into three different categories (namely, Category 315/2007 for open quota, Category 316/2007 for ministerial quota and Category 317/2007 for constabulary quota). The KPSC having received large number (around 42,000) of applications than anticipated, decided to conduct a preliminary objective test. That test was carried out to prune the list of eligible candidates, for which 49 marks were specified as cut- off marks. On the basis of that test, a list was prepared. However, the KPSC then realised that the said list did not have enough candidates from reserved categories and thus, it decided to reduce the cut-off marks for reserved categories upto 32 marks; and to draw up a fresh list to include all qualified candidates. After completing the selection process as mentioned in the notification, on 11.09.2013 the KPSC published the first Ranked List (RL-I). On 4.11.2013, the KPSC issued advice on the basis of the first Ranked List (RL-I) against 9 fresh vacancies (for short, “first advice”) which included the vacancies occurred from the date of the notification till 17.10.2013.

#5. The aggrieved candidates approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”), by way of O.A. 2395 of 2013 and other such applications against the decision of the KPSC to have a unified/ consolidated ranked list and for not having two lists; a main and a supplementary list (which would include candidates from reserved category).They prayed for interim relief(s), which read thus: - “This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent not to advice any candidates who secured less than 49 marks in the preliminary examination, from Annexure A6 rank list against the vacancies available for open competition candidates, pending disposal of the Original Application.” While admitting the O.A. on 5.12.2013 [after 85 days from the publication of the first Ranked List (RL-I)], the Tribunal granted interim relief as prayed and observed thus: - ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 633 “… … … if any candidate who secured less than 49 marks in the preliminary examination has been advised against open competition turn, his advice and appointment shall be subject to further orders in this Original Application and such candidates shall be alerted about this order by the third respondent… … …” The KPSC, during the pendency of proceedings issued another advice in respect of empanelled candidates in the first Ranked List (RL-I) who had secured more than 49 marks against a total of 12 vacancies on the basis of the first Ranked List (RL-I) on 20.1.2014 (for short, “second advice”).

#6. On 20.2.2014, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. by directing the KPSC to re-cast the first Ranked List (RL-I) by bifurcating it into main list and the supplementary list. It held thus: - “28. In the result, the applicants are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the PSC is ordered to recast Annexure A6 rank list with main list and supplementary lists. The candidates who secured 49 and above marks in the objective type examination alone shall be included in the main list of Annexure A6. Those candidates who participated in the further selection process after the objective type examination, but without obtaining 49 marks in that examination shall be included in the supplementary lists for the respective communities. Even if any candidates included in the supplementary lists obtained more marks than the candidates included in the main list, they are not eligible for inclusion in the main list. The advice and appointment, if any, from Annexure A6 of candidates who secured less than 49 marks in the objective type examination being dependent proceedings will naturally collapse and fall to ground. The advice of such candidates shall be reviewed and recalled by the PSC and appointments, if any, made of them or the orders sending them for training are null and void and they have no legal efficacy. It is so declared. The State Police Chief shall recall them. The PSC shall publish a revised rank list in the place of Annexure A6 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The advices made of ineligible persons, in the light of the revised rank list, shall be reviewed and cancelled within one month thereafter. The advice and appointment of candidates and their sending for training, etc. who are otherwise eligible will not be affected by this order. That means, they can go for training. Only A B C D E F G H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. the candidates who got less than 49 marks in the objective type examination and are sent for training before their turn arose, as per the revised rank list shall be recalled. (emphasis supplied) The order of the Tribunal was assailed before the High Court by way of writ petitions (O.P. (KAT) Nos. 108/2014, 110/2014, 112/2014 and 114/2014). While admitting the said petitions on 12.3.2014, the High Court issued an order whereby it restrained the KPSC to advise any further candidate who had secured less than 49 marks in the objective test. Vide judgment dated 8.8.2014, the High Court eventually dismissed the petitions and upheld the Order passed by the Tribunal. Two appeals to this Court by special leave were then preferred by the aggrieved candidates against the decision of the High Court, bearing S.L.P. (C) Nos. 28428/2014 and 28743/2014, wherein on 3.11.2014 [418 days after the publishing of the first Ranked List (RL-I)], this Court issued notice and ordered thus: - “Issue notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained in the meantime” On 13.10.2015, the civil appeals were finally allowed and the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court were set aside; and the consolidated first Ranked List (RL-I) dated 11.9.2013 came to be upheld. Pursuant to the disposal of the civil appeals by this Court, the KPSC on 11.11.2015 made a third and final advice (for short, “third advice”) from the first Ranked List (RL-I), which included vacancies occurred from 31.01.2014 till 31.01.2015. Advice made from the first Ranked List (RL-I) Date Receipt Date Requisition Date Occurrence Date of Advice & No. Nature of Vacancy No. unfilled vacancies Rem-

29.06.2007

29.04.2009 9 Fresh

04.11.2013 NIL

08.02.2012

10.02.2012 132 Fresh

12.09.2012

13.09.2012 25 Fresh

08.03.2013

12.03.2013 27 Fresh

29.07.2013

29.07.2013 63 Fresh A B C D E F G H ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 635

15.10.2013

17.10.2013 24 Fresh

02.1 2.2013

06.12.2013 12 Fresh 2 0.01. 2014

22.02.201 4

17.02.2014 31 .01.2 014 36 Fresh

03.03.201 4

22.02.2014 NA 5 NJD

12.05.201 4

29.04.2014 15 .04.2 014 3 F resh

25.07.201 4

10.07.2014 30 .06.2 014 9 F resh

23.07.201 4

23.07.2014 NA 9 NJD

02.08.201 4

01.08.2014 31 .07.2 014 12 Fresh

11.11.2015 1

21.10.201 4

21.10.2014 15 .10.2 014 3 Fresh + 2

05.11.201 4

05.11.2014 NJ D 137 Fresh

23.02.201 5

20.02.2015 31 .01.2 015 5 F resh

22.08.201 5

22.08.2015 31 .01.2 015 118 Fresh Tota l advise: 631. Rank list ex pired on 25.05. 2015

#7. However, during pendency of Civil Appeals (C.A. Nos. 8356/ 2015 and 8537/2015 @ SLP(C) Nos. 28428/2014 and 28743/2014),the KPSC had released a new list on 26.5.2015 [for short, “second Ranked List (RL-II)”] and thereby the first Ranked List (RL-I)was treated as ceased to exist on 25.5.2015. Advice made from the second Ranked List (RL-II) Date of Receipt Date of Requisition No. & Nature of Vacancy Date of Advice No. of Unfilled Vacancies Remarks

19.10.2015

07.10.2015 1 NJD

23.07.2018 1

12.07.2016

12.07.2016 93 NJD

26.02.2019

11.05.2018

11.05.2018 162 Fresh Advised as per Court Order

#1. On 19.04.2016, vide letter by The Inspector General of Police (Training), the candidates advised on 11.11.2015, were provisionally appointed. Their training was to start on 01.05.2016 and failure to report would entail as reporting of the vacancy to PSC. A B C D E F G H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

23.05.2018

23.05.2018 12 Fresh + 5 AV

23.07.2018 * Only 5 advised. 12 advised later.

25.05.2018

25.05.2018 2 NJD

23.05.2018

23.05.2018 17 (12 vacancies advised)

25.07.2018

11.07.2018

11.07.2018 9 Fresh

23.07.2018 Total advise: 284. Ranked List expired on 25.07.2018

#8. Be that as it may, on 14.3.2019 the KPSC notified a subsequent list [for short, “third Ranked List (RL-III)”] for the said post. Advice made from the third Ranked List(RL-III) Date of Receipt Date of Requisition Date of Occurrence No. & Nature of Vacancy Date of Advice No. of unfilled vacancies Remarks

16.10.2018

15.10.2018 28 NJD

08.04.2019

30.10.2018

30.10.2018

31.10.2018

30.10.2018

30.10.218

10.04.2019

09.04.2019

19.12.2018, 12.03.2019, 03.03.2019 11 NJD 8 NJD + 1 Fresh 10 Fresh + 15 NJD

09.05.2019

25.05.2019

24.05.2019

10.04.2019, 31.10.2018 19 NJD + 2 Fresh

07.06.2019

10.04.2019

03.03.2019 20 Fresh

09.05.2019

17.07.2019

08.07.2019 14 NJD

20.08.2019 16.10.2019

15.08.2019 16.10.2016

30.08.2019, 10.10.2019 (2 Fresh) 20 NJD 19 NJD + 2 Fresh Only reported on 31.10.2018 Rotation approved on 06.08.2019. But not released. To be advised

#9. It may be apposite to also refer to other parallel litigation(s) concerning the first Ranked List (RL-I), which may have bearing on the outcome of these Civil Appeals; First, candidates from the first Ranked List (RL-I) had approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No. 440/2014 against the KPSC, seeking reporting of vacancies. The same came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.3.2014. However, the High Court (in O.P. (KAT) 200 of 2014) vide order dated 26.8.2014, directed ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 637 Respondent No. 2 herein (the State Police Chief, Headquarters) to report 50% of 274 (i.e., 137) vacancies, to be filled by direct recruitment, so that the KPSC can advise the candidates in an expeditious manner. Failure on the part of the authority to report about the stated vacancies, gave rise to Contempt Case (C) 562 of 2015. However, after the status quo order passed by this Court (dated 3.11.2014) was brought to the notice of the High Court, the contempt case came to be dismissed; and the special leave petitions (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2023-24 of 2016) preferred against that order were also dismissed by this Court; Second, some candidates empanelled in the first Ranked List (RL-I)had approached the Tribunal (in O.A. 2383 of 2014) for reporting of existing vacancies, as the first Ranked List (RL-I) was to expire soon. Vide order dated 13.7.2015, the Tribunal directed that a total of 118 vacancies be reported to the KPSC and the KPSC to issue advice qua the reported vacancies forthwith.

#10. Due to publication ofthe second Ranked List (RL-II), applications (O.As.) were preferred before the Tribunal by aggrieved candidates including the appellants, seeking direction for reporting of vacancies and issuance of advice on the basis of the first Ranked List (RL-I) (till that list ceases to exist) and to declare that the first Ranked List (RL-I) was valid and had not expired and would remain in force till the expiry of one month from the date on which the last batch of candidates is advised from that list (in accordance with the first proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976 – for short, “the 1976 Rules”).The Tribunal while admitting the O.As. (O.A. No. 306 of 2016 and connected O.As.), vide order dated 5.4.2016, directed provisional reporting of 285 vacancies before 11.4.2016 and that no advice be made against those provisional reported vacancies. On 14.7.2017, after analysing the 1976 Rules, the Tribunal dismissed the applications by observing thus: - “Accordingly, we hold as follows: - (a) The ranked list dated 11.9.2013 has expired on 26.5.2015 due to cancellation by the Public Service Commission. (b) The sanctioned strength being 2024, for direct recruitment 50% of the same (1012) will have to be reckoned. (c) There are no other excess vacancies to be reported for filling up the 50% quota except 93 NJD vacancies reported on 12.7.2016. A B C D E F G H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. A B C D E F G (d) The NJD vacancies will have to be filled up by advising candidates from the ranked list dated 26.5.2015 for which the Public Service Commission is directed to take steps. ……………..”

#11. The appellants, therefore, preferred writ petitions before the High Court seeking direction to report 362 vacancies, to advice 93 NJD vacancies on the basis of the first Ranked List (RL-I) and to declare the decision of the KPSC of cancelling the first Ranked List (RL-I) as illegal, amongst other reliefs. On 16.11.2018, the Division Bench of the High Court passed a “Reference Order”, thereby referred the matter to Full Bench, having noticed the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench, which in its opinion was debatable. However, the Division Bench also made certain observations. It observed that the first Ranked List (RL-I) was in operation only for 85 days (till 5.12.2013 - due to an interim order passed by the Tribunal) and that there remained a total period of 280 days for completion of the duration of the first Ranked List (RL-I)after 13.10.2015 in accordance with the respective Rules. Thus, it held that the first Ranked List (RL-I)expired only on 19.7.2016. The Division Bench then proceeded to observe that there cannot be an automatic cancellation of the first Ranked List (RL-I), thereby it must remain in force for a minimum period of one year (till 19.7.2016). It concluded by observing that the 93 NJD vacancies reported on 12.7.2016, should be filled up by the candidates empanelled in the first Ranked List (RL-I). The Division Bench, however, noticedthe dictum in Kerala Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair & Ors.2 wherein the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit was not held to be applicable to decide the life of a Ranked List. The Division Bench observed thus:- “10. But we are confronted with the decision in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair [1977] KLT 818 (DB)]cited by the contesting respondents which may have a bearing on this batch of cases. It has been held therein that the maxim – actus curiae neminem gravabit – cannot be made applicable to decide the life of a ranked list published by the PSC. The reason stated is that inclusion of the name of a candidate in a ranked list does not confer him any right to claim appointment relying on Rule 3(b) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services H 2 ILR 1977 (2) Kerala 687 ANEESH KUMAR V.S. & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 639 Rules. Firstly, we fail to understand the relevancy of Rule 3(b) of the KS & SSR in the applicability of the maxim afore-quoted which can be called in aid by any one prejudiced by an act of Court. Secondly, the decision in Dr. Kesavankutty Nair’s case (supra) concerned a ranked list published on 27.2.1973 much before the Rules came into force on 16.8.1976. The Division Bench obviously did not have the opportunity to consider the purport and import of the words ‘shall remain in force for a period of one year’ in Rule 13 of the Rules. We doubt the correctness of the decision in Dr. Kesavankutty Nair’s case (supra) and judicial propriety compels us to refer this batch of cases to a Full Bench therefore.” (emphasis supplied)

#12. The Full Bench vide impugned judgment dated 21.2.20193, analysed Rules 13 and 14 of the 1976 Rules and held that Rule 14 mandates the KPSC to advise candidates from a Ranked List in force in respect of all the vacancies reported and pending before them, as also in respect of vacancies which may be reported to them during the period the said Ranked List is still in force, and such candidates would get guaranteed entitlement for being considered against the reported vacancies. However, after going through the various orders passed and taking into account the efficacy of the first proviso to Rule 13, the Full Bench held that the first Ranked List (RL-I) expired on 1.6.2016. For, admittedly, the last batch in reference to the first Ranked List (RL-I) was advised by KPSC on 11.11.2015; and their training had begun on 1.5.2016.The Full Bench then adverted to the settled legal position regarding the maxim of actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means the act of the Court shall prejudice no one. It observed that no prejudice had been caused to any of the appellants in these cases. Further, even if there was to be no litigation(s) and even if there were to be no interim order(s) issued, the empanelled candidates would get advisement only against the vacancies reported during the life of the Ranked List. However, in this case, the first Ranked List (RL-I) had already expired on 1.6.2016, before the 93 NJD vacancies were reported to the KPSC on 12.7.2016. Lastly, the Full bench adverted to Dr. Kesavankutty Nair (supra) and noted that the principle enunciated therein (that candidates included do not gain an indefeasible right to be appointed) is 3Unnikrishnan Nair G.S. and Anr. vs. State of Kerala and Ors. 2019 (2) KLJ 152 A B C D E F G H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H restated in judgments of this court including (in S.S. Balu & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Ors.4 and Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India5) and thus it needed no further discussion. In conclusion, the Full Bench observed thus:- “88.To sum up: (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