Judgment :- 1. Same questions arise for consideration in these Original Petitions. Therefore I consider it advantageous to deal with them in this common judgment. 2. O.P.No. 503/1988 is filed by five petitioners. They were originally appointed as Electrical Helpers in the Electrical Wing of the Public Works Department on a provisional basis through Employment Exchange. They joined duty in August and September, 1982. On 4-3-1983 their services were terminated. They were re-appointed provisionally in the same post by Ext. P1 order dated 27-6-1983. Pursuant to that order they joined duty in June and July 1983. They are continuing in the service. While so, the Government issued Circular No. 11651/ SCI/87/P & ARD dated 19-10-1987. By that Circular direction was given to all Heads of Departments and Appointing Authorities to deal with the case of provisional appointed in accordance with Rules. Consequently the services of the petitioners are sought to be terminated. Hence this Original Petition. 3. The main argument advanced by the petitioners is that they are entitled to the benefits given to 'the provisional employees by the decision in Narayani A Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1984 K. L. T.17). In the light of that decision, it is contended, they should be allowed to continue in service till candidates advised by the Public Service Commission report for duty. 4. The sole petitioner in O. P. No. 599/1988 was provisionally appointed as Clerk-Typist in the Veterinary Poly Clinic, Munnar, Idukky District. She joined the service on 8-10-1982 and is continuing as such. The Public Service Commission has not so far invited applications for selection to the post of Clerk-Typist in Idukky District. There is no current list available with the Commission for advising candidates to the said post. In the light of decision in 1984 K. L. T.17 the Government issued Ext. P1, G. O. Rt. No. 2187/84/AD dated 28-8-1984 sanctioning the continuance of provisional employees till regular nominees of the Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioner is Serial No. 17 in that order. The said order is not liable to be varied. In the light of decision in 1984 K. L. T.17 the Government issued Ext. P1, G. O. Rt. No. 2187/84/AD dated 28-8-1984 sanctioning the continuance of provisional employees till regular nominees of the Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioner is Serial No. 17 in that order. The said order is not liable to be varied. According to the petitioner, she belongs to the backward class, that she got married with a physically handicapped Scheduled Caste man, that she has to be recorded as a member of the Scheduled Caste and that as per the 4th proviso to R.9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, she should be allowed to continue in service till a Public Service Commission recruit joins duty. The petitioner's services are now sought to be terminated on the basis of the Government Circular dated 19-10-1987. Hence this Original Petition. 5. Copies of these petitions were served as the learned Government Pleader. According to him, the petitioners before this court, eventhough entered the service prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayani & Ors. v. State of Kerala & ors. (1984 K.L.T. 17) they are having no right to hold on to the post in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench in Sini P. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) K.L.T. 425). The Special Leave Petition filed against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader contended that provisional employees who entered service even prior to the decision in 1984 K.L.T. 17 are not entitled to continue in service in violation of the provisions contained in R.9(a) (i) of the K.S. & S.S.R. 6. A person appointed under R.9(a)(i) of the K.S. & S.S.R. shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of the service or by an approved candidate qualified to hold the post. This provision does not lead to the inference that unless such a candidate reports for duty the service of the temporary hand should be allowed to continue. Temporary appointment under the Rule is made only to meet the emergency. It is a stop gap arrangement. A person who enters the service in pursuance to the order passed under R.9(a) (i) cannot be allowed to contend against the provisions in the said order. Temporary appointment under the Rule is made only to meet the emergency. It is a stop gap arrangement. A person who enters the service in pursuance to the order passed under R.9(a) (i) cannot be allowed to contend against the provisions in the said order. Provisional employees are not entitled to question the validity of the rule or legality of the order appointing them when their services are sought to be terminated under the very same rule by which they were appointed. 7. In none of the Original Petitions the petitioners have chosen to question the validity of R.9(a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. It can never be taken to have the intention of the Supreme Court to nullify the provisions of that Rule when Their Lordships rendered the decision in 1984 K.L.T. 17. In Parimalom v. State of Kerala (1985 K.L.T. 624) the Division Bench of this Court observed: "The directions in Para.6 of the judgement (1984 KLT 17) has to be appreciated and understood In the context and the circumstances in which it happened to be given, bearing particularly in mind, the restrictions carefully Imposed by the learned judges themselves in regard to the scope and ambit of the directions in the previous paragraphs. II would be totally untrue to the spirit of the directions contained in the judgment if we are to construe that the Supreme Court permitted a perpetual violation of R.9(a) (i), with particular reference to the second proviso thereto, which prohibited the continuation of the persons so appointed in service for a period exceeding 180 days." In Sankaran & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1987 (2) KLT 347) a direction similar to the one given in 1984 K.L.T. 17 was issued by the Supreme Court. The scope and ambit of that direction was considered by the Division Bench in Sini P. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 425). The Division Bench observed: "It is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that any principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court contrary to the decision of this court reported in 1984 KLT 312 and 1985 KLT 624. The Division Bench observed: "It is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that any principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court contrary to the decision of this court reported in 1984 KLT 312 and 1985 KLT 624. When appointments are made under statutory provisions for a definite period it is not possible to spell out any law to the effect that contrary to the said statute the appointee is entitled to continue in service beyond the period for which he was appointed In accordance with the statute. The power of this court is to keep within bounds of law and not to issue directions contrary to law. We are not inclined to take the view that the Supreme Court has taken any decision contrary to what we have said in the aforesaid decisions." This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The result, therefore is, a person who has got appointment for a fixed term under R.9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, has no right to hold on to the post beyond the said term. 8. The termination of service of a temporary appointee as per the provisions contained in R.9(a)(i) will not attract the provisions contained in Art 16 of the Constitution. If these temporary appointees are allowed to hold on to the post, it will in effect interfere with the equality of opportunity of ether members of public to seek employment. The rights of members of the public in claiming equality of opportunity in the matter of employment will be interfered wi I h if the termination of service of the provisional employees are prevented by this court. In this view, the provisional employees are not to take refuge under Art.16 of the Constitution. Therefore, I held that Art.16 will not have any application when the services of provisional employees are terminated. When the services of provisional hands are terminated there can be no discrimination and consequent violation of Art.14 or 16 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner in O.P. 599/1988 has taken a ground that she was allowed to continue in service by G.O.Rt.No. 2187/84/AD dated 28-8-1984 and that the said right cannot be taken away by the Circular No. 11651/SCI/87 P & ARD dated 19-10-1987. Ext. 9. The petitioner in O.P. 599/1988 has taken a ground that she was allowed to continue in service by G.O.Rt.No. 2187/84/AD dated 28-8-1984 and that the said right cannot be taken away by the Circular No. 11651/SCI/87 P & ARD dated 19-10-1987. Ext. P1 is the Government Order by which the petitioner's services were allowed to continue. That order is based on Government Circular No. 119890/SDI/82/GAD dated 5-12-1983. That Circular has now been varied. The Government's power to vary that Circular is undisputed. The right which followed from the Circular dated 5-12-1983 should stand varied in accordance with the Circular dated 19-10-1987. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention that the petitioner's rights under Ext. P1 in O.P. 599/1988 is infallible. 10. The petitioner in OP. No. 599/1988 has raised yet another contention that she is entitled to benefits under the 4th proviso to R.9 (a) (i) of the K.S. & S.S.R. According to her herself being a member of a backward community having married a physically handicapped Scheduled Caste man, is entitled to the benefits and protection that are available to Scheduled Caste personnel. Apart from these averments there is noting on record to substantiate the said contention. In such a situation, I find it difficult to accept her contention and I over-rule the same. 11. In view of what has been stated above, I find no merit in these Original Petitions. They are accordingly dismissed.