Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. The petitioner was included in the supplementary ranked list for the post of Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) (Non I.T.I. Category) prepared by the first respondent for Kollam District. The above list was brought into force with effect from 30.3.1995. All the candidates included in the main list were advised. According to the petitioner the third candidate from Viswakarma community in the supplementary list had already been advised and appointed. The petitioner, being the 5th candidate in the supplementary list, is entitled to be advised, from the community. According to the petitioner there are more than 100 vacancies still remaining to be filled up in Kollam District. Therefore, this Original Petition has been filed for a direction to the first respondent to advise the name of the petitioner for being appointed as Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) in the service of the second respondent. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the counter affidavit, the main list of the ranked list for Non I.T.I, category got exhausted on 27.3.1996. The candidate with rank No.1 in the supplementary list for Viswakarma Community in the Non I.T.I, category was advised for appointment against a Viswakarma turn on 27.3.1996. No N.J.D. vacancy of Viswakarma is pending to be advised. Moreover, 106 fresh vacancies which included ITI category and Non I.T.I. category have been reported. Steps are being taken to notify the above vacancies for fresh selection. 3. Sri. K.C. John, learned Senior Counsel argued that the first respondent is bound to advise the candidates from the supplementary select list even after the main list was exhausted, against the fresh vacancies now reported to the first respondent by the second respondent. Learned Senior Counsel invited my notice to R.12 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure: "12. K.C. John, learned Senior Counsel argued that the first respondent is bound to advise the candidates from the supplementary select list even after the main list was exhausted, against the fresh vacancies now reported to the first respondent by the second respondent. Learned Senior Counsel invited my notice to R.12 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure: "12. All Ihecandidatesinten'iewedandwhoobtainednotlesstliantlieminimummarksfixed by the Commission shall be included in the ranked list prepared in the order of merit: Provided where the candidates have been called for interview for the purpose of satisfying the rules of reservation alone such candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview shall be included in the supplementary list or lists arranged in the order of merit among the candidates belonging to each class: Provided further that the Commission may also prepare list or lists of such categories of candidates who have got not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview and who are entitled to priority according to the terms of the notification inviting applications. Provided further that the Commission may also prepare lists of over aged candidates who have secured not less than the prescribed minimum marks in the interview and who are eligible to be considered for appointment in the absence of candidates who conform to the rules regarding age limits." The above rule contemplates four kinds of lists. All the candidates who obtained not less than the minimum marks shall be included in the rank list prepared, in the order of merit. This is called the main list. The candidates intended to satisfy the rules of reservations and who got not less than the prescribed minimum marks shall be included in the supplementary list. The purpose of preparing this list is to recoup the deficiency of backward communities who are not sufficiently represented in the main list. The third and fourth lists contemplated under R.12 are not relevant or material for deciding this case, 4. The learned Senior Counsel also invited my attention to the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Raman Namboodiri v. Rajan, ILR 1984(2) Ker. 641. The above ruling dealt with the question whether the Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the 'Commission') can advise candidates after the expiry of the list if the vacancies were reported before the date of expiry. 641. The above ruling dealt with the question whether the Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the 'Commission') can advise candidates after the expiry of the list if the vacancies were reported before the date of expiry. This Court held that the Commission is well within its jurisdiction to act on the reporting of the vacancies before the expiry of the list and to advise the candidates even after the expiry of the list. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Commission invited my attention to a latest Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Benoy v. Public Service Commission, 1997 (2) KLT 492. The question involved in the above case is whether the persons who are included in the supplementary list are entitled to get appointment when once the main list was exhausted. While holding that N. J.D. vacancies could be filled up by candidates included in the supplementary list even if the main list was exhausted or expired, the Division Bench observed that once the main list was exhausted or expired, the candidates included in the supplementary list had no right to claim appointment as regards "fresh vacancies that arose subsequently. The appointment of candidates included in the supplementary list could be done only to fill up the vacancies that ought to have been filed up along with the candidates who are appointed from the main list. If any N.J.D. vacancy arose in the open competition category, the same could be filled up in the next batch of appointment whereby the rights of the open competition candidates can very well be protected without any violation of the proviso to R.15 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. 6. The contention of the learned senior counsel espousing the cause of the petitioner who was included only in the supplementary select list is that the supplementary list must continue to be operated so long as fresh vacancies are available and reported to the Commission. But it must be remembered that the purpose of the supplementary list is only to recoup the deficiency of backward communities who are not sufficiently represented in the main list. There is no supplementary list for open merit quota candidates. Therefore, if fresh vacancies are reported, only persons belonging to reservation communities can be advised. The open merit candidates have to wait till a fresh selection is made by the Commission. There is no supplementary list for open merit quota candidates. Therefore, if fresh vacancies are reported, only persons belonging to reservation communities can be advised. The open merit candidates have to wait till a fresh selection is made by the Commission. Thus it will definitely violate the right to equality of opportunity in the matter of employment under Art.16 of the Constitution of India. That is not the intention of preparing a supplementary select list. Only to the NJD vacancies, which were reported during the currency of the list, can be advised from the supplementary list. Once the main list got exhausted and no NJD vacancies were reported before the expiry of the list, the supplementary list cannot be made use of for advising candidates against reporting of fresh vacancies. 7. There is yet another argument against the proposition made by the learned Senior Counsel regarding the recruitment to the fresh vacancies which arose long after the preparation of the ranked list. If the vacancies which arose and reported later are all to be filled up from the supplementary list till it was exhausted, then, for a long time there will not be any opportunity for candidates who became qualified in the meanwhile to get appointment. This question has been considered by the Supreme Court at least in two decisions. In the ruling reported in Ashok Kumar v. Chairman, B.S. Recruitment Board, AIR 1996 SC 976, the Supreme Court has held that the appointment of persons kept in the waiting list by the respective Recruitment Board to the vacancies that had arisen subsequently, without notifying them for Recruitment, is unconstitutional and is violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The same view was reiterated and followed in a latter ruling reported in Prem Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, (1996) 4 SCC 319. Under these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel and to direct the first respondent to advise the petitioner from the supplementary list. The Original Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.