ORDER: This writ petition is filed by one S.Palaniswami praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents viz., the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Agricultural Department, and the Chief Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, to comply with Rules 10 (a)(i) and 10 (a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, Part II (General Rules) and to appoint the petitioner who is an “approved candidate” immediately in the post of Geological Assistant in the Agricultural Engineering Branch of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Services or in any other equivalent post of the said department. 2. The brief facts which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner, who is a M.Sc. post-graduate in Geology, applied for the post of Geological Assistant in the Agricultural Engineering Branch of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service, in response to an advertisement of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) dated 27-4-1981, notifying 13 vacancies for the said post, to be filled up. These 13 posts were earlier filled up by temporary hands under the ‘emergency provisions and this notification is for regular appointments. The petitioner appeared for interview in February, 1982, before the Commission and his selection for the post was initmated to him in the second respondent's letter E E 1/24233/82 dated 12-3-1982, and the letter of the Commission 1407-04/81 dated 22-3-1982. The list of the 13 selected candidates for filling up the 13 vacancies was published in the Commission's bulletin No.14 dated 1-7-1982. The petitioner was the seventh candidate in the list. The petitioner has submitted a physical fitness certificate in March, 1982, as instructed by the commission, as per the memorandum dated 12-3-1982 of the office of the Chief Engineer (Agricultural Engineering), Madras. 3. According to the petitioner, he did not hear anything further and therefore he sent a letter dated 22-12-1982 to the second respondent by registered post requesting the latter to take appropriate action so as to enable him to join the Department, with copies addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu, and to the first respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, he did not hear anything further and therefore he sent a letter dated 22-12-1982 to the second respondent by registered post requesting the latter to take appropriate action so as to enable him to join the Department, with copies addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu, and to the first respondent. As there was no response, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 30-9-1983 to the Chief Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, with copies to the first and the second respondents pointing out that there had been a delay of more than 18 months in giving a post, though he was selected by the Commission in March, 1982. This also had not evoked any response from the respondents. According to the petitioner, he is an approved candidate as defined in Rule 2(2) of Part I - Preliminary of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules). The grievance of the petitioner is that there are ten temporary geologists appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i) in January, 1979, who are to be ousted under rule 10 (a)(iii) of the Rules on the approved candidates selected by the Commission joining the posts, but out of the 13 approved candidates selected by the Commission, only the first four candidates have been appointed in September, 1983, leaving out the other selected candidates inclusive of the petitioner, while at the same time allowing the temporary candidates to continue in the department, which action of respondents 1 and 2 is in flagrant violation of the Service Rules. Hence this writ petition for the above relief. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit would state that 13 Geological Assistants temporarily working in the second respondent's department from 1979 onwards had also applied for selection and of those persons two candidates have been selected by the Commission. Some temporary Geological Assistants working in the department have represented to the Government that they have not been called for interview and requested that a special selection might exclusively be conducted for them so that they might be absorbed in the agricultural Department on regular basis. Some temporary Geological Assistants working in the department have represented to the Government that they have not been called for interview and requested that a special selection might exclusively be conducted for them so that they might be absorbed in the agricultural Department on regular basis. The Government requested the Commission, in their letter No.l296/IA III/82-1, Agriculture, dated 17-7-1982, to interview the remaining 11 temporary agricultural Assistants and consider their suitability along with the other candidates already interviewed, and also intimated that they were willing to relax the Rules in their favour in case they were selected by the Commission. According to the Ad Hoc Rules governing the post of Geological Assistant, the minimum educational qualification prescribed in only B.Sc, Geology, whereas all the candidates selected by the Commission possess M.Sc, in Geology. The question of ousting the temporary hands was under the continuous consideration of the Government. While so, two new posts were sanctioned apart from the 13 posts under consideration. From the approved list of 13 candidates, S1.Nos.1 and 3 were appointed to the new posts following the order of seniority, and S1.No.2, who was already working in the Department under Rule 10 (a)(i) and who was selected by the Commission, has been regularized in the appointment. S1.No.4 was appointed against the vacancy caused due to the resignation of one temporary Geological Assistant, who also was selected by the Commission and placed as S.No.8. According to the respondents, as the temporary candidates have gained much experience due to their long service, the Government are considering ways and means to avoid ouster and this has caused delay in absorbing the remaining candidates. 5. Mr.K.S.Sivasubramaniam learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, drew the attention of this Court to Rule 10 (a)(i) and (iii) of part II (General Rules) of the Services Rules, and submitted that temporary appointments can be made only in circumstances causing undue delay in making regular appointments in accordance with the Rules and that a person appointed on temporary basis, whether or not he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the service for which he is temporarily appointed, should be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or an. approved candidate qualified to hold the post. approved candidate qualified to hold the post. According to him, applying the above principle, the petitioner, who is an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules, ought to have been appointed replacing the temporarily appointed persons. He would further state that the petitioner, who has been selected as one of the 13 candidates for the 13 vacancies and ranked as No.7 among them, as per the list published in the Commission's Bulletin No.14 dated 1-7-1982, is an approved candidate as defined in Rule 2 (2) of Part I (Preliminary Rules) of the Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such he ought to have been appointed in 1982 itself and there is no justification on the part of the respondents for delaying in making the petitioner's appointment. 6. Countering the above argument, Mr.Kanakaraj, learned Additional Government-Pleader (writs) would submit that there is no legal duty imposed on the Government to make an appointment merely because there are vacancies of permanent posts and because the Service Commission has selected and prepared a list of candidates eligible for consideration for appointment and that there is no legal right vested in the selected candidates inclusive of the petitioner to compel the Government to make the appointments and therefore no mandamus can be issued as prayed for. 7. Now let me examine the respective contentions of the parties. 7. Now let me examine the respective contentions of the parties. Rule 10 (a)(i)(l) of Part II (General Rules) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules reads as follows: “Where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules and the special rules, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a person, otherwise than in accordance with the said rules.” The other rule relevant for the disposal of this writ petition is rule 10 (a)(iii), which reads thus: “A person appointed under clause (i) shall, whether or not he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the service, class or category to which he is appointed, be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the said Rules.” From the above rules, it is clear that a temporary appointment can be made only when it becomes necessary in public interest owing to an emergency and that when there is an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules the temporary candidate should be replaced as soon as possible by such approved candidate. The expression ‘approved candidate’ is defined under rule 2(2) of Part I (Preliminary Rules) of the Services Rules, which is as follows: “Approved candidate” means a candidate whose name appears in an authoritative list of candidates approved for appointment to any service, class or category.” In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, the petitioner has averred: “I am the seventh candidate as published in the list. I am thus ‘approved candidate’ as defined in Rule 2(2) of Part I Preliminary of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Article 309 of the Constitution of India...” While answering this, in paragraph 7 of the counter, the first respondent does not refute the claim of the petitioner as an approved candidate, but has only stated that the question of ousting the temporary candidates and the posting of the selected candidates is under the active consideration of the Government. Therefore, there is no other alternative except to hold that the petitioner is an approved candidate. Therefore, there is no other alternative except to hold that the petitioner is an approved candidate. In this connection, learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Dayal v. Union of India. Kalyani Dayal v. Union of India. (1980)3 S.C.C.245 wherein, having regard to the facts of that case, the following observations have been made: “The inevitable sequitur from these constitutional provisions is that the President, acting directly or through officers subordinate to him, is free to constitute a service (with as many cadres as he chooses), to create posts without constituting a service or to create posts outside (the cadres of) the constituted services. The President (or the person directed by him) may, or again, if he so chooses he may not, make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service or posts. He is also free to make or not to make rules of recruitment etc., before a service may be constituted or a post created or filled. But if there is an Act of Parliament or a rule under the proviso to Article 309 on the matter, the executing power, under Articles 53 and 73, may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to such Act or rule. (Vide B.N.Nagara-jan v. State of Mysore B.N.Nagara-jan v. State of Mysore (1967)2 S.C. ‘J.664=(1966)3 S.C.R.682=A.I.R.1966 S.C.1942. State of Kerala v. M.K.Kri-shnan Nair State of Kerala v. M.K.Kri-shnan Nair (1978)1 S.C.C.552=(1978)2 S.C.C.531=(1978)2 S.C.R.864=A.I.R. 1978 S.C.747.” Reliance was also placed by the petitioner on yet another decision, viz., State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Kesav Lal (1983)1 S.C.R.287= (1983)2 S.C.C. 33 =(1983) Lab. I.C.391=A.I.R.1984 S.C.161, wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court of Gujarat was justified in directing the State Government to discharge a statutory duty to make orders for the equation of posts and to extend the benefits arising out of the reports of the two Pay Commissions in question, which benefits had been denied to the local cadre only. This decision is relied upon for the purpose of showing that this court would be justified in directing the State Government in the present case to discharge its statutory duty of giving postings to the approved candidates empanelled in the list published by the Public Service Commission in the place of temporary employees. This decision is relied upon for the purpose of showing that this court would be justified in directing the State Government in the present case to discharge its statutory duty of giving postings to the approved candidates empanelled in the list published by the Public Service Commission in the place of temporary employees. In this case, the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, Rules , framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, required a person appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i) to be replaced, as soon as possible, by a member of service or approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the said Rules. It cannot be controverted that the Government, which is not disputing the claim of the petitioner to be an approved candidate, has not taken any action to give immediate effect to the selection list, but is adopting dilatory tactics or; at least taking a lethargic attitude in making the postings to the approved candidates. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. S.C. Marwaha State of Haryana v. S.C. Marwaha (1974)3 S.C.C.220=A.I.R.1973 S.C.2216=(1974)1 S.C.R.165 submits that a writ of mandamus will not issue as there is no statutory obligation or duty on the part of the Government to make appointments of the candidates selected by the Commission and as the selected candidates have no vested right and the mere selection would not vest any right in the petitioner and other candidates selected. But, the’ fact remains that the respondents, in their counters, have not taken such a stand, but would approach the matter in an entirely different manner, repeatedly, pointing out that the government are considering ways and means to avoid ouster of temporary candidates who have gained much experience in the Agricultural Engineering Department on account of their long services and the delay in posting the selected candidates has occasioned as the government has to take a decision on the question of either outing or retaining the temporary employees and that the expression ‘as soon as possible’ occurring in Rule 10 (a)(iii) does not contemplate any ultimation regarding time. This statement of the respondents in their counter implies that the government intend to appoint the petitioner and other selected candidates after a final decision is taken on the question of ousting or retaining the temporary employees. Therefore, the present argument advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader does not assume any significance or merit acceptance in view of the specific stand taken in the counter. Above all, rule 10 (a)(iii) of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution states that a temporary candidate, irrespective of the qualification prescribed for the service, shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules. Therefore, the conclusion would be that the Government are bound to give postings to the candidates selected by the Service Commission (approved candidates) according to the ranks allotted to them, as contemplated under Rule 10 (a)(iii). In fact, when this writ petition came up for hearing, adjournments more than one were given for the Government to take a decision on the question of. ousting or retaining the temporary employees and giving posting to the petitioner. But, no positive reply has been given by the respondents, except saying that they are considering the matter. 9. The Government would not be justified in saying that the expression “as soon as possible” occurring in Rule 10 (a)(iii) ‘does not provide any ultimation regarding the time’ and prolong the making of the posting of the petitioner endlessly despite the fact that the selection list published in the Commission's Bulletin No.14 dated 1-7-1982 and that S1.Nos.1 to 4 of the selected candidates have been pointed. The meaning of the expression ‘as soon as possible is given in words and phrases legally defined by John B.Saunders, Second (1969) Edition, Volume 1, at page 121, as follows: To do a thing ‘as soon as possible’ means to do it within a reasonable time, with an undertaking to do it in the shortest practical time … ”. Hydraulic Engineering Company Ltd. v. M chaffie Hydraulic Engineering Company Ltd. v. M chaffie (1878)4 Q.B.D.670 (C.A.) per Bramwell, L.J. at p.673.” In the present case, 2½ years have elapsed since the publication of the list. There can be no justification for the respondents to further delay the appointment, purporting to take shelter under the expression ‘as soon as possible’. Hydraulic Engineering Company Ltd. v. M chaffie Hydraulic Engineering Company Ltd. v. M chaffie (1878)4 Q.B.D.670 (C.A.) per Bramwell, L.J. at p.673.” In the present case, 2½ years have elapsed since the publication of the list. There can be no justification for the respondents to further delay the appointment, purporting to take shelter under the expression ‘as soon as possible’. In my view, what the respondents are doing is to make the appointments of the selected candidates as late as possible, instead of ‘as soon as possible.” 10. For all the reasons stated above, there will be an order directing the respondents to give posting to the petitioner within three months from this date. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.