Judgment :- 1. This petition has been referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Khalid J. as the decision in the petition involves the question of application of the carry forward rule contained in R.15 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as amended and its impact on R.7 of the said Rules dealing with discharge. After hearing both sides we have considerable doubt whether on the facts in the case this question does really arise though as the parties have pleaded their case it does arise. We are saying so because at the close of the hearing learned Government Pleader has made available to us the file and particularly a letter from the Kerala Public Service Commission from which it would appear that the facts are not as pleaded by the petitioner though specifically these facts are not refuted in the counter-affidavit of the State. Since, for the purpose of this case, it is sufficient to refer to the controversy as pleaded we will confine our consideration to that case. 2. The contention of the petitioner who was appointed as a full time lecturer in the Government Law College, Calicut in February 1974 on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission is that she was appointed in the turn of rotation for the Latin Catholic Community, to which she belongs, for appointment as lecturer in Law Colleges which turn actually arose in 1971 but was then passed over for want of suitable hands and, that being the case, when she was appointed later in February, 1974 she would be deemed to have been appointed to the vacancy which had arisen in 1971 and to which a member of her community would have been appointed if one was available. Consequently it is pleaded that the petitioner should not be treated as junior to one Sri Marcus and assigned place below him which may cause her reversion. Sri. Marcus would be senior in case the petitioner is taken to have been appointed when she was actually appointed. But if her appointment is to be projected back to an earlier date, a date when according to her, a person from the Latin Catholic Community should have been appointed and none was appointed for want of qualified hands, she would be senior to Sri. Marcus and therefore would not be sent out. But if her appointment is to be projected back to an earlier date, a date when according to her, a person from the Latin Catholic Community should have been appointed and none was appointed for want of qualified hands, she would be senior to Sri. Marcus and therefore would not be sent out. There is a further contention which is not adverted to in the order of reference and that concerns the interpretation of R.7 (a) and (b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 3. R.15 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules deals with I filling up of posts in case candidates belonging to groups of communities are not available in the turn allotted for them in the integrated cycle of rotation for selection. R.15 reads: "15. If, there is no suitable candidate for Selection from a particular community classified as "Other Backward Classes" or from the group of communities classified as "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" in the turn allotted for them in the integrated cycle combining the rotation, in clause (c) of R.14 and the sub-rotation in sub-rule (2) of R.17, the said community or group shall be passed over and the post shall be filled up in the following manners: If a suitable candidate is available for selection in the community or group immediately next to the passed over community or group in the said cycle, he shall be selected. If no such candidate is available in that community or groups, selection shall be made from the community or group next following, strictly in the order of rotation. If no suitable candidate is available for selection in any of the said communities or groups, selection shall be made from among the open competition candidates. If no such candidate is available in that community or groups, selection shall be made from the community or group next following, strictly in the order of rotation. If no suitable candidate is available for selection in any of the said communities or groups, selection shall be made from among the open competition candidates. The benefit of the turn thus forfeited to a community or group by reason of it being passed over shall be restored to it, at the earliest possible opportunity, if a suitable candidate from that community or group is available for selection by making adjustment against the claims of the community or group that derive the extra benefit by reason of such passing over: Provided that in no year reservations including carrying forward vacancies to a category of post shall exceed 50 percent of the total number of vacancies for which selection by direct recruitment to that category is restored to in that year: Provided further that the right of restoration of the turn shall lapse with the expiry of three years from the date of the passing over. Provided also that the said right of restoration shall not extend to a case where the selection has gone, to an open competition candidate". Evidently the rule provides that where a suitable candidate is not available in the particular community or group of communities it goes to one available in the community or group of community immediately next and if one is available in the next one and so on. It none is available in any of the said communities or groups for which sub-rotation is provided for in R.17 the selection goes to the open competition candidate. If the selection so goes to the open competition candidate there is no benefit of restoration of the turn thus lost by a community or group of community. If on the other band the benefit of the turn is availed of by any community or group of community that benefit will be adjusted against the claims of the community or group of communities that derived the extra benefit by reason of passing over when a suitable candidate from the community or group of communities passed over for want of suitable candidate becomes available later. As and when such a candidate becomes available the benefit of the turn is to be restored to the community or group of communities at the earliest possible opportunity. 4. If the turn of a Latin Catholic was passed over for want of a suitable candidate at any time in 1971 the benefit of the restoration to that post will be carried forward to the subsequent years and therefore a candidate of that community will get the benefit of restoration at the earliest opportunity after a suitable candidate becomes available. The petitioner became available in 1973 and therefore she can very well claim restoration of the turn if one was passed over in 1971. For the purpose of this petition we will assume that it had been so passed over in 1971 though from the materials brought to our notice and to which we have adverted earlier there does not appear to have been any such passing over in 1971, since the turn, it would appear, did not arise in 1971. The restoration contemplated by the rule is evidently that of the turn missed but the petitioner's counsel very vehemently argues that the restoration is not only of the turn but of the rank or in other words, when once restored the person from the community or group selected in the turn which had been passed over earlier must be deemed to have been selected at a time when the number of his community or group of community would have been selected on the basis of the rule of rotation contemplated in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. On the facts of this case the plea is that the reservation for the Latin catholic Community being of a post which arose in 1971 and that having been passed over for want of a suitable candidate, when the petitioner was selected in 1973 she should have been given the benefit of a selection made in 1971 and also consequent seniority, which would protect her from being ousted applying R.7 (a) and (b) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. We are afraid, this is to read more than what is in R.15 for that rule evidently contemplates only restoration of the turn. We are afraid, this is to read more than what is in R.15 for that rule evidently contemplates only restoration of the turn. The purpose of the rule is to protect or preserve the right of a particular community or group of communities entitled to a particular quota of reservation by assuring that it does not miss that quota in case a suitable candidate of that community or group of communities does not become available for selection, provided one becomes available within a period of three years of the date of passing over for want of suitable candidate. Evidently the limitation as to time is to see that there is no perpetual carry over and within a reasonable time some candidate from the community or group is available for filling up the reserved quota. Within the limits so specified there is reservation of the quota or turn, so that ultimately a community or group does not suffer by the mere accident of the non-availability of a suitable candidate when its turn in the table of rotation is reached. There is no further provision that there will be restoration of rank or that there should be a further assumption of a fictional date for commencement of service of the candidate selected later. It is pointed out that to accept the petitioner's case as to the meaning of R.15 would yield anomalous results. By way of illustration it is said that if the appointment were to be deemed fictionally to be on an earlier date when the turn was passed over it may be possible to envisage a person deemed to have been appointed before he acquired the requisite qualifications or even before he attained majority. We do not think that the rule contemplates anything more other than protection by carrying forward the turn missed by a particular community or group and does not envisage projecting back the date when once the benefit of such turn is given'at the earliest possible opportunity'. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that R.7 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules obliges a departure from the usual rule 'last come first go' in the case of persons belonging to the backward classes. R.7 (a) and R.7 (b) with the Ist proviso reads: 7(a). 5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that R.7 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules obliges a departure from the usual rule 'last come first go' in the case of persons belonging to the backward classes. R.7 (a) and R.7 (b) with the Ist proviso reads: 7(a). The order in which probationers and approved probationers shall be discharged for want of vacancies shall be: first, the probationers in order of juniority, and second the approved probationers in order of juniority. (b) Approved probationers and probationers who have been discharged for want of vacancies shall be re-appointed as vacancies arise in the inverse of the order laid down in sub-rule (a): Provided (1) that the said order may be departed from in cases where such order would involve excessive expenditure on travelling allowance or exceptional administrative inconvenience, and (2) that such order may be departed from in the case of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and other Backward Classes in accordance with the provisions in the Special Rules contained in Part III relating to the relevant service:" It is the 1st proviso that is adverted to. Clause (2) of the proviso is particularly relied on for, according to the counsel, that provides that the order of discharge of a junior in preference to a senior may be departed from in the case of other backward classes. But the Rule, it may be noted, specifies that departure may be made in accordance with the provisions of the Special Rules contained in Part III relating to the relevant service. It is not an arbitrary departure that is contemplated but departure in case that is warranted by special rules relating to the particular service. Evidently there is no such Special Rule. At any rate none has been brought to our notice. Therefore that proviso is inapplicable to the case before us. 6. May be, if there are vacancies now, sufficient to accommodate the petitioner also, in the Law colleges under the State Government there is no need now to discharge the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner is that merely because of the dismissal of this petition it may perhaps be taken that the retention of the petitioner in any subsequent vacancy cannot be considered. The apprehension of the petitioner is that merely because of the dismissal of this petition it may perhaps be taken that the retention of the petitioner in any subsequent vacancy cannot be considered. We are dismissing the case only on the points urged before us and retention of the petitioner on other grounds and on account of changed circumstances with which we are not concerned in this petition is open to consideration. The petition is in the circumstances dismissed but we direct the parties to suffer costs. Dismissed.