JUDGMENT 1. When C. M. P. 10013/1991 came up for orders, learned counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petition itself heard and disposed of. In view of this submission, I am disposing of the Original Petition, after hearing counsel at length. 2. Public Service Commission invited applications for selection to the post of Village Extension Officer Grade II, as per notification in the Gazette dated 9th February 1982. After a due process of selection, a ranked list of candidates for appointment to the post in Waynad District was published on 13th August 1984. Petitioner, who is a member of the Ezhava Community, was assigned rank No. 55 in that list. Commission advised candidates for vacancies already reported and to those reported immediately after the ranked list came into force. 3. Public Service Commission took the view that the ranked list ceased to be in force on the expiry of one year of its publication. This view was challenged before this Court in O.P. 5967/1987 and connected petitions. By Exhibit P-1 judgment, dated 9th March 1988, this Court took the view that the ranked list should be in force for a period of three years. Consequently the ranked list of Waynad District, which came into force with effect from 13th August 1984, continued to be in force till 12th August 1987. 4. Among the candidates advised by the Public Service Commission, one candidate belonging to Ezhava community did not join duty. Hence, there arose a non-joining duty vacancy. Further it is alleged by the petitioner that 10 more vacancies were reported by the Government to the Public Service Commission during the currency of the list. Therefore, Public Service Commission, it is alleged, had to advice one non-joining duty vacancy of Ezhava candidate and to advice 10 more candidates for the 10 vacancies reported to it prior to the date of expiry of the list. Sri K. P. Vijayan was the seniormost among the Ezhava candidates to be advised for appointment to the vacancy due to an Ezhava candidate. He informed the Public Service Commission that he does not want appointment as Village Extension Officer. Next to him came the petitioner in the ranked list. Therefore, it is the petitioner's case that when Public Service Commission advised candidates for appointment to the post of Village Extension Officer in Waynad District petitioner is the legitimate claimant for the 11th vacancy. He informed the Public Service Commission that he does not want appointment as Village Extension Officer. Next to him came the petitioner in the ranked list. Therefore, it is the petitioner's case that when Public Service Commission advised candidates for appointment to the post of Village Extension Officer in Waynad District petitioner is the legitimate claimant for the 11th vacancy. Pointing out this claim, he submitted representations before the Commission. By Exhibit P-2, petitioner was told that he is not entitled to get appointment for the reason that the non-joining duty vacancy is also included in the 10 vacancies reported to the Public Service Commission by the Government. In this Original Petition, petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit P-2 communication and to direct the Commission to advice petitioner for appointment as Village Extension Officer from the ranked list, which came into force on 23rd August 1984. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Public Service Commission. The contentions taken therein are to the following effect:-As per the requisition, dated 5th March 1984 of the Secretary to Government, Rural Development (E) Department, 13 candidates were advised on 28th August 1984. 7 more candidates, for filling up one non-joining duty vacancy and another 6 vacancies, were advised on 16th November 1984. On 25th March 1986, Secretary to Government reported the non-joining duty of Sri P. Prabhakaran, a candidate advised on 16th November 1984 and requested to cancel the advice of Prabhakaran. No candidate was asked to be advised in that vacancy. Sri Prabhakaran was advised for recruitment against the turn M.R.I. (Main Rotation-I) 19 OC (Open Competition). Considering the request of the Government, no substitute was advised. Later Government reported 10 more vacancies as per letter dated 24th January 1987. The position as to whether a separate non-joining duty vacancy, other than the 10 vacancies reported is available, was ascertained by contacting the Commissioner over the phone. It was confirmed that 10 vacancies reported were inclusive of the non-joining duty vacancy of Sri Prabhakaran. 10 candidates were advised on 7th May 1988. It is inclusive of the non-joining duty as well. As per Rules, the turn in the rotation chart which became unfilled due to the non-joining duty of the candidate advised would be filled up first and then the other turn in the rotation chart would be continued. 10 candidates were advised on 7th May 1988. It is inclusive of the non-joining duty as well. As per Rules, the turn in the rotation chart which became unfilled due to the non-joining duty of the candidate advised would be filled up first and then the other turn in the rotation chart would be continued. On the ground that out of the 10 candidates advised on 7th May 1988, only 3 candidates reported for training and the remaining 7 candidates failed to report, Government by letter dated, 19th November 1988 requested the Commission to advice candidates against the 7 non-joining duty vacancies. But, the ranked list finalised on 13th August 1984 had been cancelled with effect from 13th August 1987 on the expiry of three years and so, no candidate was advised to the 7 non-joining duty vacancies. Sri K. P. Vijayan, made mention of by the petitioner, requested to delete his name from the list as he did not want appointment. His request for relinquishment was received on 10th August 1987. While filling up the 10 vacancies on 24th January 1987, including the non-joining duty turn of Sri Prabhakaran, the turn of Sri K. P. Vijayan, who desired to relinquish his claim for appointment, did not arise and hence his request for relinquishment was not entertained. In this situations, the question of advising the petitioner in the Original Petition, who secured rank No. 55, did not arise. 6. The contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioner are two-fold. The first one is that the number of vacancies reported on 24th January 1984 were 10, excluding the non-joining duty of Sri Prabhakaran. The second contention is that even if the vacancies were 10 only, in filling up that vacancy since the Public Service Commission began with turn No. 19, candidate in turn No. 28, Ezhava, should have been advised. I shall proceed to deal with this argument in detail. 7. It is common case that out of the candidates advised earlier, namely 19, the last candidate Sri Prabhakaran did not join duty. Sri Prabhakaran was advised as turn No. 19, Open Competition. The 19 candidates were advised during the first year of reservation, i.e. between 13th August 1984 and 12th August 1985. During the second year of reservation in relation to this ranked list, namely 13th August 1985 to 12th August 1986, no vacancy was reported. Sri Prabhakaran was advised as turn No. 19, Open Competition. The 19 candidates were advised during the first year of reservation, i.e. between 13th August 1984 and 12th August 1985. During the second year of reservation in relation to this ranked list, namely 13th August 1985 to 12th August 1986, no vacancy was reported. In the third year of reservation, namely 13th August 1986 to 12th August 1987, further vacancies were reported. According to the petitioner, in the third year 11 vacancies were reported and as per the contention raised by the Public Service Commission, only 10 vacancies were reported. While advising candidates in the third year, a candidate will have to be advised first to fill up the non-joining duty of the candidate advised during the first year of reservation. 8. When Sri Prabhakaran, who was advised in the first year of reservation, did not report for duty, Government sent letter No. 50004/B1/85/DD, dated 11th March 1986. That letter is in the following terms: "I am to invite to your attention to the letter cited and to request you to cancel the advice in respect of Sri P. Prabhakaran as he has not reported for pre-service training, I am also to inform you that substitutes need not be advised for the above candidate". By communication dated 24th January 1987, Exhibit P-5, Government informed the Public Service Commission that there exists 10 vacancies of Village Extension Officers Grade II in Waynad District. According to the petitioner, the number 10 mentioned in Exhibit P-5 is over and above the non-joining duty made mention of in the communication dated 11th March 1986. For understanding the scope of communication dated 11th March 1986, one has to refer to the communication from Government reporting non-joining duty. One such communication seen in the file made available to Court by the learned counsel representing the Commission is Letter No. 43049/E2/84/DD, dated 6th November 1984. It is in relation to the non-joining duty of candidates advised earlier. That letter reads: "I am to inform you that of the candidates advised for appointment as Village Extension Officer Grade II in the Community Development Department. Shri Rajendran, P. Sl. No. 2 in the advice list has not reported for pre-Service 'Training so his advice may be cancelled and another candidate may be advised in his place. That letter reads: "I am to inform you that of the candidates advised for appointment as Village Extension Officer Grade II in the Community Development Department. Shri Rajendran, P. Sl. No. 2 in the advice list has not reported for pre-Service 'Training so his advice may be cancelled and another candidate may be advised in his place. I am also inform you that 6 more candidates are also required for appointment as Village Extension Officer in Waynad District and therefore to request that a total number of 7 (Seven) candidates may be advised for appointment as Village Extension Officer Grade II in the Community Development Department." In this letter, there is a specific request by the Government to advice candidate in the non-joining vacancy. Such a request is conspicuously absent when the non-joining duty of Sri Prabhakaran was reported. Government informed the Public Service Commission by the letter dated 11th March 1986, referred to earlier, not to advise substitute for Sri P. Prabhakaran. This shows that the Government while requesting the Public Service Commission to recruit 10 vacancies by Exhibit P-5 communication, took note of all the vacancies in Waynad District. The total number of vacancies has been assessed; at 10. In the light of communication dated 11th March 1986, it cannot be held that the 10 vacancies made mention of in Exhibit P-7 was excluding the one caused by the non-joining duty of Sri Prabhakaran. The vacancy caused by the non-joining duty of Prabhakaran was known to the Government. In the letter dated 11th March 1986, Public Service Commission was requested not to advise any candidate to fill up that vacancy. In such a situation, when 10 vacancies were reported on 24th January 1987, it can be taken that that number of vacancies took in the non-joining duty of Sri Prabhakaran as well. In this view, I hold that there existed only 10 vacancies of Village Extension Officer for the Public Service Commission to advise candidates from the list. The first contention raised by the petitioner is answered accordingly. 9. As stated earlier, during the first year of reservation, namely 13th August 1984 to 12th August 1985, 19 candidates were advised by the Commission to the post of Village Extension Officer in Waynad District. 19th turn was open competition. The candidate advised was Sri Prabhakaran. Since Prabhakaran did not report for duty, that vacancy should be filled up first. 9. As stated earlier, during the first year of reservation, namely 13th August 1984 to 12th August 1985, 19 candidates were advised by the Commission to the post of Village Extension Officer in Waynad District. 19th turn was open competition. The candidate advised was Sri Prabhakaran. Since Prabhakaran did not report for duty, that vacancy should be filled up first. So, the 19th turn was filled up by open merit. The 19th turn was thus assigned to the first year of reservation. During the third year of reservation, remaining 9 vacancies have to be filled up. The 9 vacancies begin with turn 20. 20th turn went to a candidate belonging to the Viswakarma community. 21st turn was open competition. 22nd to Latin Catholic/Anglo-Indian. 23rd turn is open competition. 24th turn goes to Scheduled Caste. Since no candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste was available, a candidate belonging to the Muslim community was advised. 25th turn is of open competition. 26th it of a Muslim candidate and it was filled up by advising a Muslim candidate. 27th again goes to open competition. 28th is of an Ezhava candidate. But, the Ezhava candidate was not advised and in his place, the 29th turn, namely a candidate in open competition, was advised. It was so done by temporarily passing over the turn of the Ezhava candidate. According to the learned counsel representing the Public Service Commission, it was so done on account of the proviso to R.15(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. As per that proviso in no year, reservation to a category of post shall exceed 50 per cent of the total number of vacancies for which selection by direct recruitment to that category is resorted to in that year. In the third year of reservation, in the instant case, out of 9 candidates advised, not more than 4 candidates of Backward Community can be advised. If the 28th turn due to the Ezhava community is filled up by advising a candidate belonging to that community, then the number of candidates, belonging to the Backward Community will become 5 and candidates in the open competition will be reduced to 4. This will violate the provision contained in the proviso made mention of earlier. 10. Learned counsel representing the petitioner would submit that the non-joining duty vacancy should also have been taken into consideration in the third year of reservation. This will violate the provision contained in the proviso made mention of earlier. 10. Learned counsel representing the petitioner would submit that the non-joining duty vacancy should also have been taken into consideration in the third year of reservation. If it was so taken, there could have been 5 candidates belonging to Backward Communities and 5 in open competition. That would not have violated the proviso to R.15(c). In that case petitioner could have been advised as coming in turn 28. This argument would appear to be attractive on the facts of this case. But, it cannot be accepted as a wholesome principle. If the non-joining duty vacancy of the previous year is not assigned to that year, the working of communal rotation as per R.14 to 17 of the General Rules will land in difficulties. Principles of reservation have to be worked oat with reference to the year of reservation. Mere advice of candidate during a year will not satisfy the principles of communal rotation if the candidates do not join duty. Only on the candidate joining duty can it be said that the principles of communal rotation has been complied with. In other words only after the advice materialise into appointment can one hold that principles of R.14 to 17 have been followed in a particular year. Viewed in this light, for the non-joining duty vacancy caused for a particular year, when candidates are advised they must be considered as having been advised for that year and not of the year of advice. If in the first year of reservation, in the instant case the non-joining duty was of 3 members belonging to the Backward Community and those 3 are to be taken in the second year of reservation, 3 members of the backward community from among the candidates ranked will have to be advised first. Thereafter, there will remain 7 vacancies. That 7 will have to be shared between the two groups, Backward Community 3 and open competition 4. In that case, in the second year there will be 6 from reservation communities and 4 from open competition. This will violate the provision in the proviso to R.15(c). Not more than 50 per cent of the vacancy can go to reservation, so, the Backward Communities will have to surrender one seat. In that case, in the second year there will be 6 from reservation communities and 4 from open competition. This will violate the provision in the proviso to R.15(c). Not more than 50 per cent of the vacancy can go to reservation, so, the Backward Communities will have to surrender one seat. If the three vacancies are assigned to the first year, three candidates among reservation communities will get it as of the first year. Thereafter in the second year, another three will get advised. This principle will advance the working of reservation principle. The Public Service Commission is adopting and following it. I do not find any ground to interfere with it. 11. Further, as stated earlier, an advice can materialise only when the candidate advised joins duty. If the candidate does not join duty, the non-joining duty must relate to that year otherwise it will prejudicially affect the working of R.14 to 17 of the General Rules. Viewed in that light, I find no illegality in the action taken by the Public Service Commission in filling up the post, which became vacant by the non-joining duty of Prabhakaran by assigning it to the first year of reservation During the second year, there were only 9 vacancies to be filled up. While advising candidates for those vacancies, the proviso will have to be complied with, namely the number of candidates belonging to the Backward Community cannot exceed the number of candidates of open competition. If turn No. 28 was allotted to an Ezhava, Backward Communities will get 5 seats and 4 seats alone will be available for open competition. To bring the advice in conformity with the Rule, the turn of Ezhava was temporarily passed over. Consequently it went to open competition. According to me, the Public Service Commission has done it in strict compliance with the Rules. No illegality is seen committed for this court's interference. 12. In the above circumstances, the Public Service Commission was perfectly justified in temporarily passing over the 28th turn, which should have gone to a candidate belonging to an Ezhava Community, for satisfying the requirement of the proviso to R.15(c). Any other mode of advice, if adopted, would have gone to violate the terms of the proviso to R.15(c) of the General Rules. Any other mode of advice, if adopted, would have gone to violate the terms of the proviso to R.15(c) of the General Rules. In view of what has been stated above, I hold that petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for. Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.