JUDGMENT 1. Assistant Public Prosecutors (Grade II) were selected for Malappuram District in the year 1993. One Smt. K. Hafsabi secured second rank in the merit list and she was appointed as per Ext. P-1 order dated 24th August 1993. But in 1995, Government reviewed the order as per Ext. P-5 which resulted in ouster of Smt. Hafsabi from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor ('APP' for short). In her place one Sri C. K. Krishnankutty (who is the additional 5th respondent in this appeal) has been appointed. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Smt. Hafsabi challenged Ext. P-5 in the Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. The Original Petition was disposed of by Sreedharan, J. who found that the appointment of Sri C. K. Krishnankutty is legally sustainable as the same was necessary for providing reservation for a Scheduled Caste Candidate. However, learned Single Judge noted that as three AP. Ps. were appointed during 1993 in Malappuram District reservation provision had exceeded 50 per cent which is in violation of the principle envisaged in the proviso to R.15(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (General Rules) (for short 'the K.S.S.R.). Hence learned Single Judge, while retaining the appointment of Sri C. K. Krishnankutty, quashed the appointment of Smt. E. Latha (appellant now) and directed the Government to appoint Smt. Hafsabi in that place. Hence this appeal by the aforesaid E. Latha. 2. As per the rank list of A.P.Ps. prepared, by the authorities as for Malappuram District, one P. Sakkir Hussain topped the list based on merits. Second place was secured by Smt. Hafsabi while third place was scored by the appellant. Sri C. K. Krishnankutty was ranked No. 8 (those candidates who secured ranks in between do not matter in this case and hence we skip them). When appointments were made Government did not correctly follow the communal rotation formulated as per R.14 to 17 of the K.S.S.R. and appointments were made through Ext. P-1 order. Three candidates so appointed were in the following order: (1) Sakkir Hussain (open merit), (2) Hafsabi (Muslim) and (3) E. Latha (open merit). By Ext. P-5 order, Government superseded Ext. P-1 in the following manner: "From the above ranked list Sri Sakkir Hussain, Smt. E. Latha and Smt, Hafsabi were appointed against the three vacancies in 1993. P-1 order. Three candidates so appointed were in the following order: (1) Sakkir Hussain (open merit), (2) Hafsabi (Muslim) and (3) E. Latha (open merit). By Ext. P-5 order, Government superseded Ext. P-1 in the following manner: "From the above ranked list Sri Sakkir Hussain, Smt. E. Latha and Smt, Hafsabi were appointed against the three vacancies in 1993. As per the method laid down by the High Court the appointments to be made were against turns No. 8, 9 and 10. Turn No. 8 is reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian community. Since no candidate from the above communities or from the next reservation community (Other Backward Classes) is available in the list, this turn has to be passed over to the next reservation turn (No. 12) earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. Sri C. K. Krishnan Kutty, the 8th rank holder in the list has to be appointed against this turn and the next turn for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe may be reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian community. But Sri P. Sakkir Hussain was appointed against this turn which is not in order. The next turn to be filled up in the district is turn No. 9 (Open Competition). The appointment of Sri P. .Sakkir Hussain, the first rank holder in the list has to be deemed to have been made against turn No. 9 and his rank and seniority in the cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II in the district will be re-fixed accordingly. The next turn to be filled up in the district is turn No. 10 reserved for O.B.C. As no candidate from O.B.C. or from the next reservation Community (S.C./S.T.) is available in the list this turn has to be passed over to Ezhava/Billava/Thiyya. Smt. E. Latha, the third rank holder, being a Thiyya candidate has to be appointed against this turn and the next turn for Ezhava/Billava/Thiyya may be reserved for O B.C. Since Smt. Latha has already been appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor, her appointment has to be deemed to have been made against turn No. 10. But Smt. Hafsabi was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against this turn which has to be cancelled." 3. Thus, three candidates were appointed in the order of (1) C. K. Krishnankutty (S.C.). (2) Sakkir Hussain (open merit) and (3) E. Latha. But Smt. Hafsabi was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against this turn which has to be cancelled." 3. Thus, three candidates were appointed in the order of (1) C. K. Krishnankutty (S.C.). (2) Sakkir Hussain (open merit) and (3) E. Latha. Learned Single Judge has rightly found that the above appointments offended one of the principles of reservation that more than 50 per cent cannot be given to reserved candidates during one year in one category of posts. Proviso to R.15(c) of the General Rules reads thus: "Provided that in no year reservations including carrying forward vacancies 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." 4. Shri K. P. Dandapani, learned counsel for the appellant contended that appointment of E. Latha can be protected by one of the following two premises. First is, when a "turn" (in the cycle provided for communal rotation) earmarked for a candidate belonging to Other Backward Communities (O.B.C.) is passed over due to non availability of a person belonging to any such community, the same can be filled up only with a candidate who belongs to another community in the list of O.B.C., but not with an S.C./S.T. candidate. Shri Kurian Joseph, learned Additional Advocate General, supported the said contention, particularly in view of the judgment rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in O.P. No. 1093/95, dated 12th September 1995 in which the said principle was adopted. 5. Second premise is that the limit of 50 per cent (for reservation) fixed in the proviso to R.15(c) is liable to be relaxed in appropriate cases and the appointment of appellant should have been treated as one such case because out of three candidates 50 per cent means one and one half and such a ratio could never be adhered to either strictly or liberally. 6. We shall first consider the former contention. R.14 of the K.S.S.R. stipulates that the unit of appointment shall be 20 of which two shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 8 shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes and the remaining 10 shall be filled on the basis of merit. Appointments shall be in the order of rotation specified as for every cycle of 20 vacancies. Appointments shall be in the order of rotation specified as for every cycle of 20 vacancies. As per R.15(a), if a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular community or group of communities specified in the Annexure, the said community or group shall be passed over and the post shall be filled up by a suitable candidate from the community of group of communities immediately next to the passed over community in the said Annexure in the order of rotation, As per the Annexure provided in the General Rules turn Nos. 4 and 12 are earmarked for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. According to the learned counsel, since another special provision is made for reservation of S.C./S.T. in R.15(b) the provision made in R.15(a) should be understood as not involving any candidate belonging to S.C./S.T. R.15(b) is extracted below: "(b) If a suitable candidate is not available for selection from the group of communities classified as 'Scheduled Caste' in the turn allotted for such a group in the Annexure the said group shall be passed over and the post shall be filled up by a suitable candidate from the group of communities classified as 'Scheduled Tribes' and vice versa. If no suitable candidate is available for selection in any of the two groups classified as 'Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes' selection shall be made from among the communities immediately next to the group of communities entitled to be appointed according to the turn allotted in the Annexure in the order of rotation. If no suitable candidate is available for selection in any of the communities or group of communities selection shall be made from open competition candidates." 7. The sub-rule makes it clear that the principle embodied therein is for giving preference to Scheduled Tribe candidates in the eventuality of passing over a turn earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates and vice versa. It is important to note, if neither of them is available, the said turn must go to a candidate belonging to O.B.C. (if available). The said vacancy can be utilised for open merit only in the event of non availability of any person from any of those communities. 8. It is important to note, if neither of them is available, the said turn must go to a candidate belonging to O.B.C. (if available). The said vacancy can be utilised for open merit only in the event of non availability of any person from any of those communities. 8. If a "turn" intended for S.C./S.T. candidates can be used, in their absence, for accommodating candidates belonging to O.B.C. we do not see any logic in the interpretation now advanced by the learned counsel, despite the support given by the learned Additional Advocate General that a turn fixed for O.B.C. shall not in any event be used to accommodate an S.C./S.T. candidate. Such an interpretation, apart from inflicting injustice to S.C./S.T. communities, would result in an incongruous situation where a vacancy intended for S.C./S.T. candidates would be filled up with a candidate from backward classes while a vacancy intended for backward class communities could never be occupied by a S.C./S.T. candidate. Why should the legislature make such a discrimination between these two categories of people entitled to reservation? It is quite possible to discern that what is provided in R.15(b) is not a complete departure from R.15(a), but only an internecine preference as between the two sections among the scheduled communities i.e., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. Sreedharan, J. has taken the contrary view in O. R 1093/95 that no S.C./S.T. candidate can be adjusted against a turn which is due to Other Backward Communities on the premise that it is specifically made clear by R.15(a) "wherein it is stated that if no suitable candidate of Other Backward Community is available for selection, selection shall be made from open competition candidates". The said view was taken on the erroneous assumption that the sub-rule has stated so. On the other hand what the sub-rule has provided is this: "If no suitable candidate is available for selection in any of the above communities or group of communities, selection shall be made from open competition candidates." Communities specified in the preceding portion of the sub-rule included "any particular community or group of communities specified in the Annexure". It is explicitly clear that such specified communities in the Annexure included Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes also. It is explicitly clear that such specified communities in the Annexure included Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes also. Then there is absolutely no scope for concluding that "the turn of a community belonging to Other Backward Classes in the 100 point roster is to be filled up only by a member of that community and not by a member of Scheduled Caste". Learned Single Judge has erred in excluding S.C./S.T. from the benefit of "passing over" envisaged in R.15 of the General Rules. 10. When we considered the next contention, we felt that the same has no merit at all. Learned counsel made a feeble attempt to get support to it from the observation of Sawant, J. in Para.472 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477 that for extraordinary reasons 50 per cent may be exceeded. But the ratio of the decision in Indra Sawhney's case AIR 1993 SC 477 is different. In unambiguous terms Supreme Court has held that reservation shall not exceed 50 per cent in any event. The contention of the learned counsel (that in a situation where three vacancies are to be filled up 50 per cent thereof would mean one and one half) was advanced on a wrong assumption that a legal obligation is cast on the State to see that reservation of posts in a category should not go below 50 per cent in any year. By fixing 50 per cent in the proviso to R.15(a) it was only the upper limit which has been fixed. We, therefore, reject the contention .that even 50 per cent can be crossed in some cases. 11. Learned counsel lastly pleaded that we too may direct the Government to take urgent steps to create more posts of A. P. Ps. Such a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. While we affirm the decision of the learned Single Judge, we affirm the said direction also. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.