JUDGMENT B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. The first respondent, the District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission, Kasaragode in O.P. 12297/96 has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 28th January 1997 of the learned Single Judge by which he was directed to advise candidates including the petitioners therein against the vacancies reported on 27th June 1996 and received by him on 28th June 1996. 2. The petitioners in the O.P. who are respondents 1 and 2 herein requested the third respondent herein to report the vacancy of H.S.A. (Natural Science Malayalam Medium) in Kasargode district to the appellant herein. The appellant was requested by the third respondent by his letter dated 27th June 1996 to advise the petitioners (Respondents 1 and 2 herein) who are enlisted in the ranked list which was to expire on 27th June 1996. The letter of the third respondent reached the appellant on 28th June 1996. The appellant declined to send the advice memo as requested. The respondents I and 2 filed the Original Petition challenging the said action of the appellant with a prayer to issue a direction to him to send the advice memo for appointment to the said post. Learned Single Judge by the impugned Judgment held that the petitioners were included in the ranked list prepared by the first respondent therein. The second respondent therein took time to report the existing vacancies till the last moment. In fact on 27th June 1996, vacancies were reported and it was sent through special messenger, but it reached the first respondent only the next day morning. The validity of the list expired on the midnight of 27th/28th June 1996. Therefore, this is a case where law can be stretched a little bit in order to render justice to the petitioners. Otherwise grave injustice will result by sticking to the letter of law regarding the interpretation of the time of expiry of the list. With these observations the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and issued the said direction which is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court in various decisions would show that the Public Service Commission cannot be directed under any circumstances to act contrary to the statutory provisions. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the law laid down by the Supreme Court and by this Court in various decisions would show that the Public Service Commission cannot be directed under any circumstances to act contrary to the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the rules should not be interpreted too technically and the court should be inclined in favour, of interpretation of the rule which would give benefit to a candidate in preference to an interpretation which would benefit none. 4. The only point for consideration is whether the relevant rule can be stretched beyond its scope of application to give benefit to respondents 1 and 2. 5. Under similar such circumstances, the Supreme Court in State of U. P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others (1996) 9 S.C.C. 309 held as follows: "The respondents approached the Allahadad High Court in the year 1990 alleging, inter alia, that though there existed vacancies during the year 1987 and the select list was prepared on 4th April 1987 but the appointing authority arbitrarily did not fill up the vacancies. Although the State contended that the life of the select list had expired by 4th April 1988, a Single Judge of the High Court negatived that contention and issued a mandamus to the State to recruit the respondents. Allowing the State's appeal, the Supreme Court held: In view of the Statutory Rules contained in R.26 of the U.P. Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, a select list prepared under the Recruitment Rules has its life only for one year from the date of the preparation of the list and it expires thereafter. Hence, the High Court's decision that the list does not expire after a period of one year on the face of it is erroneous. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in R.26, the High Court could not issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4th April 1987 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. Even if on some occasions appointments have been made by the appointing authority from a select list even after the expiry of one year from the date of selection, such illegal action of the appointing authority does not confer a right on an applicant to be enforced by a court under Art.226 of the Constitution." A Full Bench of this Court in Vimala Kumari v. State 1994 (2) KLT 47 held while interpreting R.13 of the P.S.G. Rules of Procedure that if no request is made by the State to the P.S.C. for advising candidates during the currency of a list, the Court cannot compel the P.S.C. to advise candidates after the expiry of the list. It was held that firstly, giving such a direction will be clearly violating the statutory rules and secondly, the mere fact that person's name has been included in a ranked list does not give him any fight to the post or to be appointed to that post. In Balakrishnan v. Public Service Commission 1994 (1) K.L.T. 490 , a Division Bench (in which one of us namely, Balakrishnan, J. was a member) laid down as follows: "It may be noticed that under R.13 of the P.S.C. Rules of Procedure, the ranked list published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. So, we are of the view that the vacancies shall be reported by the appointing authority before the expiry of the ranked list and if any vacancies are reported subsequent to that date the Public Service Commission is not competent to issue advice memo under R.14. Therefore, it is clear that under R.14, vacancies should be notified before the expiry of the list." Reporting implies the act of making known of a fact to the person to whom the report is given. Until the fact is made known to the other party, no action can be taken on it. Since the appellant received the report after the midnight of 27th/28th June 1996, it is to be inferred that he came to know of it on 28th June 1996 when the list stood expired. Day is to be reckoned from the preceding midnight to the following midnight. He was therefore, not in a position to advise the candidates of that list before 28th June 1996 or after 27th June 1996. 6. It has been pointed out by another Division Bench of this Court in Rangaswamy v. Kerala Public Service Commission 1982 K.L.T. 574 that laxity in one case will leave open the flood gate of requests to condone irregularities or omissions. Such cases cannot be decided on sympathies or by extending other extenuating considerations. A case here or a case there may invoke sympathy or may deserve sympathy, as in this case. But it is not within the province of this Court to extend any sympathy in such cases. The Public Service Commission is a high constitutional authority. This Court will normally be loathe in interfering with its decisions, unless strong grounds are made out like malafides etc. 7. In the instant case, no doubt, the vacancy was reported before the midnight of 27th/28th June 1996. It was also sent by a special messenger. But it reached the Office of the P.S.C. on 28th June 1996, that is, at a time when the list stood expired. The P.S.C. authorities had no choice nor any discretion to advise a candidate enrolled in a list which had expired. 8. It was also sent by a special messenger. But it reached the Office of the P.S.C. on 28th June 1996, that is, at a time when the list stood expired. The P.S.C. authorities had no choice nor any discretion to advise a candidate enrolled in a list which had expired. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Shankar Sharma v. Union of India and others (1980) 3 S.C.C. 202 contended that the object of the relevant law or rules is not to do injustice to persons who are not at fault. The third respondent herein, for reasons best known to him, sent the report to the P.S.C. to advise the first and second respondents at the last moment before the list expired. The respondents 1 and 2 therefore should not be penalised for the laches committed by the third respondent. This argument certainly arouses sympathy in us, but in these matters sympathy of a Court cannot be extended to the extent of giving direction to violate the statutory rule. The P.S.C., according to the Supreme Court dictum, cannot be directed as has been directed by the learned Single Judge to advise the candidates from the ranked list which had expired on the previous day. We, therefore, do not agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. For the reasons stated above, the impugned Judgment is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The O.P. is dismissed. No costs.