Judgment :- Judgment dated 13-3-1992. disposing of this Original Petition. has been set aside as per order on R.P.78 of 1992. Thereafter. learned counsel appearing on either side were heard in detail. Hence this revised judgment. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of the case arc as follows:- Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Operator in Kerala Water Authority in the district of Kannur. Petitioner among others. applied for the post. While preparing the ranked list. Public Service Commission included the name of the petitioner in the supplementary list of Ezhavas with rank No.6. Main list consisted of 21 persons. That list was brought into force with effect from 9-1-1989. Managing Director. Kerala Water Authority reported 37 vacancies. As sufficient number of candidates were not available to be advised against the 37 vacancies. only 24 candidates could be advised. The advice was made on 30-1-1990. For advising the candidate. all those included in the main list got advised. Candidates up to rank No .5 in the supplementary list of Ezhavas were also advised. Candidates for 13 vacancies could not be advised as there was no candidate left in the main list for filling up the next open competition turn. Thereafter. as per letter dated 14-6-1991. Water Authority reported four non joining duty vacancies. That communication was received by the Commission on 17-6-1991. Later. one more non joining duty vacancy was reported on 23-12-1991. Since the main list was exhausted by 30-1-1990. no candidate was advised from the supplementary list for filling up the non joining duty vacancies. According to the Public Service Commission. supplementary. list can be operated on only if the main list is alive. If main list is not in existence. supplementary list can. under no circumstance be operated on. 3. From the counter affidavit of the Public Service Commission. five non joining duty vacancies reported by the Water Authority are seen to be of the following turns: From this. it is evident that non joining duty vacancy was to be filled up by three candidates of Ezhava community because when it is found that Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian candidate were not available. first and fourth vacancy noted above must go to Ezhava candidates. The third vacancy mentioned above was that of an Ezhava. While advising 24 candidates on 30-1-1990. it is evident that non joining duty vacancy was to be filled up by three candidates of Ezhava community because when it is found that Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian candidate were not available. first and fourth vacancy noted above must go to Ezhava candidates. The third vacancy mentioned above was that of an Ezhava. While advising 24 candidates on 30-1-1990. principles contained in Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules were complied with. To satisfy that requirement. five candidates from the supplementary 'list of Ezhavas were advised. For that advice-lobe effective. the candidates so advised should have been appointed. From the materials given in the counter affidavit. it is evident that atleast one Ezhava candidate did not report for duty. The resultant vacancy could be filled up by advising a candidate of that community. because candidate in the supplementary list was available. The Ezhava candidate. who was advised as per Rules ] 4 to 17 of Kerala Slate and Subordinate Services Rules out of the 24 candidates advised. did not join duty So. the benefit that should occur to the community will be lost if a candidate from the supplementary list is not advised. For advising such a candidate from the supplementary list. existence of main list is not at all relevant. Even if the main list was alive. to satisfy the communal rotation of Ezhavas. no one from that list was to be advised. Only a candidate from the supplementary list could satisfy that requirement. Viewed in this light. the non joining duty vacancy caused by the non joining duty of an Ezhava candidate should have been filled up by advising a candidate from the supplementary list of Ezhavas. For this purpose. the existence or otherwise of the main list is irrelevant because the main list did not contain names of candidates belonging to the community. The fact that such candidates were advised while the main list was operative is not sufficient. Only if those candidates join duly. can it be said that Rules 14 to 17 have been complied with. When they do not join duty pursuant to orders of appointment. candidates belonging to those communities have to be advised to give effect 10 the reservation principles. Supplementary list. in the present case. was in existence and that could be operative for filling up non joining duty. Otherwise. When they do not join duty pursuant to orders of appointment. candidates belonging to those communities have to be advised to give effect 10 the reservation principles. Supplementary list. in the present case. was in existence and that could be operative for filling up non joining duty. Otherwise. this reservation principles contained in Rules 14 to 17 of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will be defeated. Such a step is not to be resorted to by the Public Service Commission. At this juncture. I consider it worthwhile to quote the following observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1981 KLT 321): "Dc hors any rules it appears to us that the rule of reservation would be effective only if to a post reserved for a community a person is actually appointed. It is more so when. as the facts of this case show. there may be quite often cases where a candidate advised for appointment may not be available for appointment. In the scramble to get an appointment to one post or other candidates may have applied for appointments to several posts at the same time. 'There is nothing wrong in making such applications.' may be that they may get advice for appointment to more than one posts and they might have accepted appointment pursuant to the earliest advice. Naturally therefore when they arc advised a second lime to another post. they would decline. 'The mere fact that the candidate advised is not available for appointment should not result in the class to which the person advised belongs losing such right when eligible candidates arc available for appointment to such posts. Otherwise it would be a reservation in form only and not in substance. When once a person advised is appointed whether subsequently he continues or not in that post is another matter. Out in the mailer of appointment to the posts the principle of reservation would have to be adhered to in such a case. To treat the reservation as applicable at the stage of advice and not at the stage of appointment may not. in circumstances where many of the people advised may not be able to join because they are already appointed. satisfy the rule of reservation in its true form and spirit as envisaged". 4. In the instant case. while advising 24 candidates. in circumstances where many of the people advised may not be able to join because they are already appointed. satisfy the rule of reservation in its true form and spirit as envisaged". 4. In the instant case. while advising 24 candidates. 5 from the supplementary list of candidates belonging to E/hava community were advised by the Public Service Commission. By this advice. the entire main list was exhausted. Out of the candidates so advised. one candidate belonging to the Ezhava community did not report for joining duty. Resultant non joining duty vacancy can be filled up only by a candidate belonging to that community. Two other non joining duty vacancies were also to be filled up by candidates from that community. Candidates of that community were available in the supplementary list. To fill up that vacancy of non joining duty of an E/hava candidate. that supplementary list alone could be operated. It is more so when it is seen that no candidate of the Ezhava community was available in the main list for complying with the principles contained in Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. So. the expiry of the main list was of no consequence for advising candidates belonging to that community from the supplementary list to fill up the non joining duty vacancies. 5. As staled earlier. the ranked list for the post of Operators in the Kerala Water Authority in Kannur district was brought into force with effect from 9-1-1989. In the ordinary course. that list was to be in force for three years. While advising candidates on 30-1-1990. the main list was exhausted. The non joining duty vacancies were reported to the Public Service Commission on 17-6-1991 and 23-12-1991. well within three years from the date of publication of the ranked list. So. the non joining duty vacancies. resulting from the failure of candidates belonging to reserved community in joining duty. must be filled up by advising candidates from the supplementary lists. Otherwise. the principles contained in Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will be defeated. To make that principle effective. for filling up non joining duty vacancies. candidates ranked in the supplementary list should have been advised. This having not been done. must be filled up by advising candidates from the supplementary lists. Otherwise. the principles contained in Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules will be defeated. To make that principle effective. for filling up non joining duty vacancies. candidates ranked in the supplementary list should have been advised. This having not been done. I direct Public Service Commission to advise candidates from the supplementary list to the post of Operator under the Kerala Water Authority in Kannur district without any delay. On getting the advice. first respondent must issue appointment orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of the advice. Original Petition is allowed in the above terms. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.