Judgment :- In all these Original Petitions, petitioners are provisional employees appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. They have approached this Court apprehending termination of their service. 2. Petitioners, having been appointed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, (for short 'the rules') have no right to continue in service beyond the term of their appointment. A Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in Sini P. Kuriakose v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 425), held that when appointments are made under a statutory provision 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. Therefore, it was held that provisional employees have no statutory right to continue in service and they cannot be allowed to remain in service against the statutory rules. This decision has been taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court by way of S.L.P. No. 12345/87, but the same was dismissed. Therefore, it has to be held that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court has been approved by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in Dr. Santhosh Babu v. State of Kerala (1990(1) KLT 68 (SN)) followed the same principle and held that provisional hands cannot claim any right higher than the one which the statute has prescribed, nor can they claim any right inconsistent with the statutory provisions. It was further held that a provisional employee has no right to continue in service beyond the statutory period, against the statutory provisions, and that there is no provision of law on the basis of which a person appointed under rule 9 of the Rules can claim regularisation in service. 3. It is thought that the Supreme Court, in the decision reported in Jacob v. Kerala Water authority (1990(2) KLT 673), has made an inroad to the above principles laid down by the two Division Bench decisions referred to above, and that the said Division Bench decisions have been overruled impliedly by the Supreme Court. 3. It is thought that the Supreme Court, in the decision reported in Jacob v. Kerala Water authority (1990(2) KLT 673), has made an inroad to the above principles laid down by the two Division Bench decisions referred to above, and that the said Division Bench decisions have been overruled impliedly by the Supreme Court. But on an examination of the decision in Water Authority's case, it is seen that that decision has to be confined to the facts of and circumstances of that case alone. In that decision the Supreme Court has noted that Rule 9(a)(i) of the Rules has no application to the service of the Authority statutorily and held that Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules having been adopted by the Water Authority by, a resolution, without the prior approval of the Government, the rules do not continue to remain statutory in their application to the staff of that Authority. They are like any other administrative rules which do not have statutory force. In that context, the Supreme Court categorised the provisional employees under the Kerala-Water Authority and formulated a scheme for regularisation/ continuance of this service. 4. A Division Bench of this Court, in the decision in W.A. No. 858 of 1990, considered the effect of Water Authority's case on the earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court and held that the earlier Division Bench decisions still hold good and govern the field of appointments covered by Rule 9(a)(i) of .the Rules. Referring to Water Authority's case, the Division Bench held as follows: "In the said case, the Supreme Court was concerned with the applicability of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules to staff members of the kerala Water Authority, an independent statutory authority. The provisions of Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1986 (Kerala) (Act 14/86) and the adoption of Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules by resolution of the authority and its legal effect was considered in the said decision. In that context, the scope of rule 9(a)(i) was also considered. As stated by the learned single judge, the said decision is not an authority for the proposition, that in all cases where provisional appointments are made in Government service under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, the appointee has a right to be regularised in service. As stated by the learned single judge, the said decision is not an authority for the proposition, that in all cases where provisional appointments are made in Government service under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, the appointee has a right to be regularised in service. Jacob's case (1990(2) KLT 673) was rendered in the peculiar context of Act 14/86". What exactly is the peculiar circumstances will be seen on a reading of the decision of the Supreme Court itself. The petitioners before the Supreme Court were serving in different capacities such as cleaners, pump operators, draftsmen, drivers, etc. They were appointed through the Employment Exchange between 1981 and 1988. They were compelled to approach the Supreme Court when they apprehended termination of service. When special leave was granted, the Supreme Court, in one batch of cases, ordered on the facts and circumstances of that case, that the services of the appellants in those cases possessing requisite qualifications should be regulated in accordance with the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional functions as respects certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970 and until such regulation is made, no appointment on similar posts from outside be made. Even in that order, it was made clear that the recruitments in future will, however, be made in accordance with the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional functions as respects certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1970, and the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. In another batch of Special Leave Petitions by employees of the same Authority, while granting Special leave, it was ordered that every step should be taken by the Water Authority to regularise the services of such people who can be appointed under the direction already issued by the Supreme Court. It is also stated that there will be no further direction in that case. In the case of yet another batch of petitions, the Supreme Court granted three months' time to the Authority to examine the individual cases of three groups of employees under the Authority and to take a decision. The authority was directed to place its conclusion before the Court before giving effect to them. Status quo was directed to be maintained until further orders. However, no action was taken by the authority within the time allowed, in implementation of the order of the Supreme Court. The authority was directed to place its conclusion before the Court before giving effect to them. Status quo was directed to be maintained until further orders. However, no action was taken by the authority within the time allowed, in implementation of the order of the Supreme Court. The petitioners also contended before the Supreme Court that the employees are compelled to knock at the doors of different courts as the Authority continues to terminate the services of the employees notwithstanding the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Counsel, therefore, made a fervent plea to the Supreme Court for laying down guidelines for regulation of the service of not only the petitioners, but also of all others similarly placed, so that those low income group employees are not required to knock at the doors of different courts to protect themselves from the threatened arbitrary action of the Authority terminating their services. In short, counsel for the employees wanted the Supreme Court to formulate a scheme for regularisation of services of all similarly placed employees which would put an end to all pending cases, and future cases which are bound to arise if the Authority continues its present policy. It is in that context, the Supreme Court formulated a scheme for regularisation of the services not only of the petitioners before the Supreme Court, but also of all other provisional employees under the Authority. But the Supreme Court was not giving a direction in respect of all employment covered under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. 5. Examining the scope of Rule 9(a)(i) of the Rules, the Supreme Court observed that: "These rules would undoubtedly be statutory in character in their application to the members of the Kerala Subordinate Services for whom they were enacted but when any other statutory authority adopts them by a resolution for regulating the services of its staff, the rules do not continue to remain statutory in their application to the staff of that Authority." Therefore, the Water Authority's case cannot bean authority for the proposition that whenever provisional appointments are made under R.9(a)(i) of the Rules, they have a right to be regularised in service if their appointment is continued beyond the period of 180 days. 6. 6. Rule 3 of the Rules states that all first appointments to the service covered by the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules shall be made by the appointing authority on the advice of the Public Service Commission where the posts fall within the purview of the Commission. For making regular appointments, Government has to ascertain the number of vacancies available in the Department and require the Public Service Commission to prepare a select list of candidates for appointment. When vacancies are so notified to the Public Service Commission, the Commission has to issue notification inviting applications from eligible candidates. Applications received pursuant to the notification will have to be scrutinised and a rank list of candidates will have to be prepared after a written test and interview. To complete all these processes, sufficient time is required, in any case more than six months, and very often, about two years. As it may not be possible to keep the posts vacant till such time as the process of selection is completed, provisional appointments may have to be resorted to. If the provisional appointees appointed in such circumstances get a right to be regularised, in service only because their appointments continued beyond the period of 180 days, it may not be possible to accommodate the candidates who came out successful in the process of selection through Public Service Commission and hence their hopes will become frustrated. 7. It is true that in many cases like these, there 4s a human problem involved. This has been noted by the Supreme Court in P.K. Narayani' s case (1984 KLT 17). In that case, to alleviate their grievances, the Supreme Court granted a direction to continue the services of provisional hands until Public Service Commission hands join duty, provided there were vacancies in which they could be allowed to continue, making it clear that the direction will not confer any right on the employees to continue in service or to be selected by the Public Service Commission otherwise than in accordance with the rules and regulations. The human problem involved has been eloquently voiced in yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of appointments made in the cadre of Second Division Clerks on the establishment of Subordinate Courts in Karnataka State in the decision in H. C. Puttaswamy v. The Hon'ble C.J. of Karnataka High Court OT1990 (4) SC 474). The human problem involved has been eloquently voiced in yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of appointments made in the cadre of Second Division Clerks on the establishment of Subordinate Courts in Karnataka State in the decision in H. C. Puttaswamy v. The Hon'ble C.J. of Karnataka High Court OT1990 (4) SC 474). The Karnataka High Court invalidated the appointments made of employees who had been serving for more than ten years, but taking a humanitarian approach, the Supreme Court held: "The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seek to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now averaged for entry into any other service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under R.6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection." But there is a distinctive feature in these cases. The appointees whose appointments were invalidated by the Karnataka High Court were all appointed on a permanent basis. But in these cases, I am concerned with appointments on temporary/ provisional basis wherein the appointees were told that they are to hold the post only for a period of 180 days and that they have to vacate the post after the expiry of the period of 180 days or whenever Public Service Commission hands or regular hands join duty. Right of the employee for appointment and duty of the employee to the employer are two sides of the same coin. It will be perfectly within the right of the employee to seek another appointment and get relieved from the provisional employment. Right of the employee for appointment and duty of the employee to the employer are two sides of the same coin. It will be perfectly within the right of the employee to seek another appointment and get relieved from the provisional employment. A provisional employee can have no right to continue in service beyond the period of their appointment or for regularisation in service. Likewise, the employer also has no right on his service beyond the period of appointment. Therefore, if the decision is to be based on humanitarian grounds, the Court will be forsaking clarity and certainty of the law for a principle which itself will be very subjective and elusive. 'Prophesies of what the Courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentions, are what I mean by law' said Holmes, J. long ago. My duty in these cases, therefore, is to apply the law, whatever be the impact of the same on the parties before me. I am poignantly aware of the fact that administration of justice is not deciding disputed cases alone. But judges are no 'free wheelers' and they must operate within the four corners of law. The Division Bench of this Court has declared the law, and I feel that it will not be right on my part to deviate from the decision on humanitarian considerations forcefully pressed before me for my acceptance in these cases. 8. Further, in a State like Kerala where educated unemployment is in the increase, and where there are a large number of persons waiting in the queue for employment, if the Government takes a policy decision that until regular appointments through Public Service Commission or otherwise is made the vacancies available should be filled up by employing candidates from Employment Exchange for a period of 180 days and repeating the said process by employing another batch of employees for the same period, it cannot be stated that such a policy is violative of principle of equality or any other fundamental rights. If such a policy decision is taken by the Government, it may not be fair on my part to interfere with such a decision. If such a policy decision is taken by the Government, it may not be fair on my part to interfere with such a decision. So long as the petitioners have no right to hold the post beyond the term of their appointment, and so long as they have no right to get their provisional appointment regularised, I will not be justified in issuing a direction to regularise their services on humanitarian grounds. Many of the persons who are now functioning as provisional employees may have appeared for and failed in the test conducted by the Public Service Commission for selection for regular appointments. If such a candidate gets precedence for regularisation of appointment over a candidate selected by the Public Service Commission, it may not be in the interest of" excellence and efficiency of administration as well. 9. It is brought to my notice that in some cases the administration is allowing the provisional employees to continue until Public Service Commission hands or regular hands report for duty. It is also brought to my notice that there are vacancies even after appointing candidates advised by the Public Service Commission. If there are vacancies, I make it clear that nothing mentioned herein will deprive the right of the employer to continue the employment until Public Service Commission hands or other regular hands join duty, on the specific understanding that such continuance will not confer on them any right contrary to the rules. 10. In the light of the above, I hold that all provisional hands appointed for 180 days or till regular hands join duty, can have no right to continue or get their employment regularised. The administration can terminate the appointment on the expiry of the period of 180 days. If they are continuing on the basis of an order of the Court, on final decision being rendered, their employment can be dealt with according to the judgment. 11. If the provisional employment of any of the petitioners is not terminated on expiry of the term of appointment as above, but they were allowed to continue by the administration, it is to be presumed that the administration has permitted them to continue in service till regular appointments are made through Public Service Commission or otherwise according to their rules. If the provisional employment of any of the petitioners is not terminated on expiry of the term of appointment as above, but they were allowed to continue by the administration, it is to be presumed that the administration has permitted them to continue in service till regular appointments are made through Public Service Commission or otherwise according to their rules. In that event, their appointment can be terminated only to accommodate regular hands or Public Service Commission hands, as the case may be. In other words, after permitting them to continue beyond the term of their appointment even without any order from any Court, the administration cannot terminate the appointment to accommodate another batch of provisional hands. Their continuance shall be in terms of the direction contained in the decision in Narayani' s case (1984 KLT 17), provided, there are vacancies and on condition that their continuance shall not confer any right on the persons to continue in service and that they will have to vacate the place as and when regularly recruited candidates or Public Service Commission hands report for duty. 12. Before parting, I may point out that Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules provides for making temporary appointment for a period not exceeding 180 days. The human problem referred in this petition arose on account of the fact that the provisional employees are allowed to continue even after 180 days for a long period. The problem arose because of the inaction of the administration in not terminating the employment and permitting the provisional employees to continue against the clear provisions of the rules. The Supreme Court in the decision in A.K. Bhainagar v. Union of India (J.T. 1990 (4) SC 610) observed as follows: "On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the Union and the State Governments that once they frame rules, their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation. Very often Government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules. The rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the rules does create problem and dislocation. Very often Government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the rules. We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the Government both at the Centre and in the States would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules." The statutory and other authorities amenable to writ jurisdiction also do well to heed to this caution and sentiments administered and expressed by the Supreme Court. It will be in the interest of administration as well as provisional employees in future strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the appointment order so that the human problem so poignantly placed before me can be avoided in future. All these Original Petitions are disposed of accordingly.