Anu Sivaraman, J.

1. W.P.(c). No. 15838 of 2020 is filed challenging Exhibit P4 order of the Government dated 25-02-2018 to the extent it restricts appointment in existing vacancies by direct recruitment and seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to report all existing vacancies of last grade servants to the Kerala Public Service Commission, untrammelled by the said stipulation.

2. An interim order was passed on 2-08-2021 recording that there are four vacancies of last grade servants which have not been reported to the Public Service Commission only due to the condition provided in Exhibit P4. Since it was noticed that the ranked list would expire on 4-08-2021, the GCDA was directed to report four vacancies of the last grade servants to the District Officer, Public Service Commission on or before the closing of working hours on 3-08-2021. However, it was directed that advice need not be made against the said vacancies. It is submitted that four vacancies stood reported by the GCDA to the Kerala Public Service Commission on 3-08-2021. It is stated that the reporting was specifically of the vacancies which arose due to promotion and resignation. The Public Service Commission issued advice against the said vacancies. The GCDA thereupon alerted the Public Service Commission that the advice made against those four vacancies which were reported only provisionally pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 2-08-2021 was irregular. The said advises were withdrawn. It is contended that the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 15838 of 2020 were advised for appointment against other vacancies which were reported within the extended validity of the ranked list which ultimately expired only on 23-09-2021. It is submitted that the said writ petition, therefore, has been rendered infructuous.

3. However, W.P(c) No. 24266 of 2022, was filed on 25-07-2022 by other persons included in the ranked list, who had not been advised for appointment. They contend that the reporting of the four vacancies by the GCDA was never noted as provisional by the PSC and that the petitioners were under the impression that those four vacancies had been regularly reported. It is submitted that the said four vacancies have admittedly arisen during the validity of the ranked list and that the proforma submitted by the GCDA would show that those vacancies were not retirement vacancies at all, but vacancies which arose on account of promotion and resignation. It is, therefore, contended that those four vacancies, which were reported by the GCDA pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 2-08-2021, were regular vacancies, which were liable to be reported to the PSC and advice is also to be made from the ranked list to the said vacancies as well.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government order dated 25-02-2018, specifically prohibits the filling up of vacancies which arise due to retirement, since the staff strength had been considerably reduced by the Government in exercise of its powers. It is submitted that the specific contention of the GCDA in W.P.(C). No. 15838/2020 was that there were four retirement vacancies available which could have been reported to the PSC, had it not been for Exhibit P4 order. It is submitted that it is taking note of this contention that the interim order was rendered by this Court on 2-08-2021 and therefore the said vacancies could not have been reported and no advice is liable to be made against the said vacancies. It is further contended that W.P(C). No. 15838 of 2020 is rendered infructuous by the advice of the petitioners therein to later vacancies and that the later writ petition has been filed only long after the expiry of the ranked list and no relief can be granted to the petitioners therein who did not approach this Court in time. Judgment dated 8.8.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in OP)KAT) No. 196/2022 is also relied on by the learned Government Pleader in support of the said contention.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the GCDA would also contend that the GCDA had filed a statement in the earlier writ petition specifically stating that there were four vacancies available, which could not be filled up because of the interdiction by the Government that retirement vacancies should not be filled up. It is, therefore, contended that the vacancies in question are retirement vacancies and that the same are not liable to be filled up.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(c)No. 24266 of 2022 has urged several contentions with regard to the powers of the Government under the Town Planning Act 2016, I am of the opinion that the dispute raised in the writ petition falls in an extremely narrow compass and the said questions do not have to be decided for a proper adjudication of this writ petition. It is on record that four vacancies of last grade servants had been reported by the GCDA to the PSC on the basis of the interim order dated 2-08-2021.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(c) No. 24266 of 2022, submits that the vacancies reported by the GCDA on 3-08-2021, are specifically those vacancies which have occurred due to promotion and resignation as is evidenced by Exhibit P7.

8. The learned counsel for the PSC has also made available the proforma which accompanied Exhibit P7 letter of reporting of vacancies where also the nature of vacancies are specifically stated as promotion and resignation vacancies. Admittedly, the interdiction in the Government order is as against the filling up of retirement vacancies which occur in the GCDA. If that be so, there appears to be no interdiction whatsoever with regard to the filling up of the vacancies which were reported by the GCDA which were promotion and resignation vacancies.

9. The learned counsel for the GCDA as well as the learned Government Pleader would contend that the reporting of the vacancies as promotion and resignation vacancies is an evident mistake and that the GCDA should be permitted to correct the mistake. However, in view of the fact that the vacancies stand specifically and voluntarily reported to the PSC as resignation and retirement vacancies, I am of the opinion that no such correction is possible even at the instance of the appointing authority.

10. With regard to the further contention raised by the respondents that the petitioners in the subsequent writ petition could not have filed the said writ petition claiming appointment against the vacancies which stood reported, I am inclined to accept the contention that the vacancies were not shown as provisionally reported in the site of the PSC and that it was only after the cancellation of the advice made against the said vacancies that the fact that those vacancies were provisionally reported pursuant to the interim order of this court, became clear.

11. In any view of the matter, since the vacancies admittedly stand reported to the PSC during the currency of the ranked list, the respondents cannot have a contention that only those persons who have approached this Court can be appointed against the vacancies. If the vacancies are properly reported to the PSC during the currency of the list, whatever be the rank of the persons, who had initially approached this Court, once the vacancies stood reported, advice could be made only on the basis of the ranking in the ranked list. Therefore, the question would only be whether the vacancies stand reported and whether those vacancies existed as on the relevant date. It is trite law that once the vacancies are reported during the currency of the ranked list prepared by the PSC, and if the vacancies do exist, advice has to be made against the reported vacancies from the said list, even if the validity of the list has expired. Since it is already found that the vacancies had already been reported and since it is also found that the vacancies were reported as promotion and resignation vacancies, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any interdiction to filling up of promotion and resignation vacancies arising in the GCDA in the post of last grade servants and also in the light of the specific contention raised in both the writ petitions that the GCDA is continuing to engage temporary hands to the post of last grade servants, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. The reporting of the four vacancies of last grade servants on 3-08-2021 will, therefore, be deemed to be regular and the PSC shall issue advice against the said vacancies at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.