JUDGMENT Jagannadha Raju, J. 1. These four O.Ps. deal with a common question. Hence it would be proper to consider them together and dispose of the same by a common judgment. 2. O. P. No. 5040 of 1993 is filed by Sri K. Velappaa who is working as Preventive Officer. He was aspiring for his promotion as Excise Inspector, when suddenly the Service Commission started the process of recruitment of 40 direct recruits to the cadre of Excise Inspectors. The process of recruitment commenced in 1988, applications were called for in 1989 and the select list was published, on 12th June 1992. When note 3 was added to General R.5 on 5th December . 1992 the present Writ Petition is filed claiming that direct recruitment can be made only for 10 posts and not for 40 posts, and recruiting 40 persons directly would adversely affect the claim of promotion of the petitioner. 3. O.P. No. 11360 of 1992 is filed by 18 persons who ate in the select list prepared by the Public Service Commission, and which was published on 1.2th June 1992. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3, to make appointments only in accordance with the ratio fixed under the Special Rules for direct recruitment and promo tees. They also seek a writ of mandamus to direct the Government of Kerala to immediately report all vacancies of Excise Inspectors including those occupied by promo-tees to the Kerala Public Service Commission for filling up the vacancies in accordance with Ext. P1. 4. O.P. No. 4096 of 1993 is also filed by a person who is in the select list and who is accorded rank No. 66. O.P. No. 8199 of 1993 is filed by in service candidates and the prayer is similar to the prayer in O.P. No. 11360 of 1992. 5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner in O.P. No. 5040 of 1993 that in view of addition of Note 3 to R.5, the direct recruitment should be confined to 25 per cent of the cadre strength and the direct recruitment cannot be extended to 25 per cent of the vacancies. According to the petitioner's advocate the cadre strength is 244 and this is not disputed. According to the petitioner's advocate the cadre strength is 244 and this is not disputed. Out of this, 61 vacancies will have to be filled up by direct recruits and 183 vacancies will have to j be filled by promo-tees and persons recruited by transfer. There are already in service 51 direct recruits in the cadre of Excise Inspectors, and hence the vacancies available for direct recruitment is only 1.0. The Government is not justified in issuing a requisition for recruitment of 40 direct recruits towards the quota of direct recruits. 6. Sri C. S. Rajan appearing for the petitioners in O.P. No. 8199 of 1993 contends that while the Special R.2 talks of every fourth vacancy being filled or reserved to be filled by direct recruitment, the amendment is now made to General R.5. General R.5 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules relates only to method of recruitment: (1) direct recruitment and (2) recruitment by transfer. It does not refer to appointment by promotion. According to Note 1 all permanent vacancies and temporary vacancies except those of short duration shall be treated as substantive vacancies. Leave vacancies and vacancies of less than six months' duration shall be treated as short duration vacancies, according to note 2. Note 3, which is now added on. 5th December 1992, specifically refers to different modes of recruitment and the percentage or ratio shall be decided on the basis of the cadre strength of the post, and not on the basis of that vacancies existing at that time. Sri Rajan contends that R.5 and its amendment have absolutely no application, so far as Excise and Prohibition Subordinate Service, especially in view of the fact that though special R.2 was amended after creating the post of Assistant Excise Inspector as category 1A, R.5 dealing with qualifications for the post of Excise Inspector is not amended, especially with regard to promotion. Considering the fact that R.28 of the general rules alone deals with appointment by promotion, the addition of Note 3 to R.5 has absolutely no effect in this case. He also contends that whenever there is conflict between the special rules and the general rules, as per general R.2 the provisions of the special rules will prevail over the general rules. The addition of Note 3 to General R.5 only provides a method for calculating the vacancies. He also contends that whenever there is conflict between the special rules and the general rules, as per general R.2 the provisions of the special rules will prevail over the general rules. The addition of Note 3 to General R.5 only provides a method for calculating the vacancies. Sri Rajan relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Divakaran Pillai v. State of Kerala ILR 1976 (2) Kerala 552. In that decision, a Division Bench of this Court dealing with an almost identical situation, observed as follows: "We do not think that we would be justified in limiting the direct recruitment provided by the rule only to a direct recruitment to a substantive vacancy ia the permanent cadre...... it appears to us that the provisions in the Special Rules detailing the mode of recruitment and promotion to the category of Research Officers, does not at all speak of recruitment of transfer to a substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre, but speaks generally of all categories of service without any limitation. We would not, in the circumstances, be justified in importing any limitation into the, Special Rules that the recruitment could only be had against a substantive vacancy in the permanent cadre...., there is clear repugnancy between that provision and the provision in the General Rules, i.e., R.5 providing for recruitment. By reason of R.2 of Part II of the General Rules, the revision in the Special Rules should prevail. The learned Judge was therefore right in holding that under the Special Rules the direct recruitment is not confined to substantive vacancies in the permanent cadre. We affirm his judgment and dismiss the appeal...." 7. Sri S. N. Prem who filed a petition for impleading in O. P. No. 11360 of 1992 contends that Note 3 has to be taken into account before reporting the number of vacancies for direct recruitment. According to him, the newly introduced Note 3 to general R.5 cannot be brushed aside. According to him, adding of Note 3 cannot be said to be a provision in conflict with the Special Rules. Note 3 is to restrict what is generally understood under R.5 (a) and (b). 8. Sri K. A. Abdul Gafoor who also has filed a petition for impleading contends that general R.5 deals only with method of recruitment. Promotion is not a method of recruitment. Note 3 is to restrict what is generally understood under R.5 (a) and (b). 8. Sri K. A. Abdul Gafoor who also has filed a petition for impleading contends that general R.5 deals only with method of recruitment. Promotion is not a method of recruitment. It is advancement of the existing status. Direct recruitment is recruitment from outside. Recruitment by transfer is recruitment from another service. A promotion will not come within the scope of general R.5. Under the Special Rules, for the post of Excise Inspector, direct recruitment, recruitment by transfer and promotion are the three sources. In such circumstances R.5 of the General Rules will have no application for recruitment of Excise Inspectors. When R.5 has no application, there is no question of Note 3 which is added to general R.5 being applied. We have to proceed only by the Special Rules. He also submits that the process of direct recruitment commenced from 1988. Applications were called for in 1989. The select list was published on 12th June 1992. The so-called addition of Note 3 to general R.5 is done on 5th December 1992, that is six months after the list was published by the Service Commission. It was actually published in the Gazette dated 2nd February 1993. In the very nature of things, this rule can only have prospective operation and it cannot have retrospective operation. For the present direct recruitment, this rule cannot be made applicable. The learned Government Pleader supports the arguments of M/s Gafoor and Rajan. Sri Sugathan appearing for the petitioner in O.P. No. 4096 of 1993 contended that the recruitment was made earlier to the change of the rules. Before the Special Rules came into force, there were executive instructions, which are in consonance with the Special Rules. 9. Replying to these arguments, Sri Aravindakshan Pillai contends that the Writ Petitions filed by people in the select list have no legs to stand. The decision of this Court in Simon Lukose v. D. S. P., Kottayam 1990 (2) KLT 371 clearly laid down in Para.12 at page 378 as follows: "Rule 3 (b) of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules states that inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of approved candidates in any service or any class or category in a service shall not confer on him any claim to appointment to the service, class or category. Thus, a mere inclusion of the name in the list prepared by the Commission will not confer on anyone any claim to appointment.,..." He also relies upon a decision if this Court in Mohammed Majim v. State of Kerala 1993 (2) KLT 721 which lays down that: "The Government have the power to amend the rule retrospectively even after the selection process has started. Such retrospective operation of any such rule shall not operate as to affect the constitutional rights of a person." In that decision the recruitment process commenced according to particular rules, but, subsequently the rules were amended with retrospective effect from 24th February 1981. In such a background, the court held that the petitioner does not have any vested right and since the amendment was retrospective and since no constitutional rights of the petitioners are affected, they cannot be heard to say that they should be appointed as Amins from out of the select list, ignoring the amendment. The petitioners' right is only to take their chance under the amended rule, for appointment, if no suitable attenders or last grade servants are available. Accordingly the Writ Petition was dismissed. 10. Considering the fact that the amendment is made on 5th December 1992, and as the amendment does not mention when it comes into force, it is presumed that it comes into force only from the date on which it is published in the Gazette, namely, 2nd February 1993. It cannot have retrospective operation. As indicated supra, general R.5 would be applicable to cases of recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment. It has no application to a special rule which also contemplates appointment by promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. As pointed out by learned advocates general R.5 is in conflict with the special rule and even the amended R.5 does not in any way affect the process of determining the number of vacancies. Special Rules speak of vacancies only. However, in this case as the Government by its second statement calculated the available vacancies for direct recruits as only 1.4 by 30th November 1993, and as the Court has already passed the interim orders to the effect that only 14 persons should be recruited towards the quota of direct recruits, we feel that these four Original Petitions can be terminated confirming the interim order passed by the court on 20th October 1993 in C.M.P. Nos. 9194 and 3334 of 1993. The fourth Writ Petition are accordingly terminated. No relief can be granted. Each party to bear its own costs.