S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE writ petitions are directed against the judgments and orders dated 26. 11. 1999 passed by the State administrative Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A recruitment notification was issued for special recruitment of Urdu Teachers on 23. 5. 1997. The respondents in these writ petitions appeared for special recruitment of urdu Teachers in various districts of Andhra pradesh and the interviews were held in july/august, 1997. ( 3 ) A clarificatory letter dated 17. 10. 1997 was issued by the Director of school Education drawing the attention of the concerned Collectors and District magistrates to the recruitment notification regarding the number of vacancies to be filled up. Therein, it was clarified that the vacancies of Urdu Teachers (S. G. T. , Urdu munshi, School Assistants) as on the date of commencement of interviews in the districts can be filled up. It is not in dispute that thereafter, another recruitment notification for various posts available in all the districts was issued by the Director of School Education. The respondents herein questioned the order of recruitment as illegal insofar as their cases for appointment to Secondary Grade Teachers had not been considered. By reason of the impugned judgment and order, the learned tribunal disposed of the application directing: secondly, the selections took place during 1997 in July and August. Any selection list or waiting list under Rule 15 cease to exist only on the expiry of March, 31 of the succeeding year i. e. , 31st March, 1998. Interestingly, the respondents have estimated the availability of vacancies in the first week of March, 1998 itself, even before the expiry of 31. 3. 1998 which reflects the anxiety of filling of these S. G. Teachers (Urdu medium) and Urdu Pandits Gr. II. The special selection process and the general notification issued in March, 1998 do confirm the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants about the availability of vacancies and the anxiety of the respondents to fill up these vacancies at the highest level. ( 4 ) THE reasons assigned in support thereof in the own words of the Tribunal are: the learned Counsel for the appellants referred to G. O. Ms. No. 472, General administration (O. L. I.) Department dated 4. 7. ( 4 ) THE reasons assigned in support thereof in the own words of the Tribunal are: the learned Counsel for the appellants referred to G. O. Ms. No. 472, General administration (O. L. I.) Department dated 4. 7. 1997 wherein the Government of Andhra pradesh have recognised Urdu in addition to telugu in the State of Andhra Pradesh as second language. Para 3 of the said G. O. reads as follows: as a regional language Urdu shall be accepted as a qualification for recruitment to ministerial and Judicial Ministerial services in all nine districts of Telangana as also in guntur, Kumool and Cuddapah Districts. Under para 8 of the said G. O. "instructions shall be provided in Urdu in Elementary and primary Schools where there is a minimum of 10 pupils per class or pupils per school, and in secondary schools where there is a minimum strength of 45 pupils for Classes vi to VIII or VII to IX". The learned Government Pleader contended normally 1:40 teacher student ratio is taken into consideration by the department for mentioning of posts. The learned government Pleader could not produce any material to show that G. O. Ms. No. 472 is given a go-bye by the Government at any time. The obvious inference is that the education Department is bound to maintain 1:10 teacher students ratio where Urdu is taught. It is not in dispute that the districts in which these selections took place are governed by the said Government Order. It is not in dispute that the ratio of teacher- student is as laid down in this G. O. Keeping the facts and submissions in view and in the light of foregoing discussions, we direct the respondents to take cognizance of the vacancies as notified by the Headmasters of the various schools and other official agencies into consideration and also the vacancies notified in March, 1998 for issuing appointment orders to the candidates selected and waiting and also direct the respondents to issue appointment orders in order of merit against those vacancies. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. All the OAs are disposed of accordingly. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. All the OAs are disposed of accordingly. ( 5 ) THE learned Additional Advocate- general appearing for the petitioners would contend that the learned Tribunal committed illegality in passing the impugned orders insofar as it failed to take into consideration the provisions of statutory rules and proceeded on the basis that the vacancies are available having regard to the letters issued by the concerned Headmasters of the schools. The learned Counsel would urge that the learned Tribunal could not have relied upon the representation of some Urdu organisations for the purpose of aforementioned findings. ( 6 ) MR. J. Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing in some of the writ petitions however submitted that keeping in view the provisions of the rules, the vacancies should be declared upto September of the said year and as in the instant case, the interviews were held only in August, the vacancies which could arise upto September, could not have been directed to be filled up. Our attention has been drawn to the case in anantapur District and the submission was made on the basis thereof that the vacancies had not been filled up. ( 7 ) OUR attention has further been drawn to the fact that the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit and as such the allegations made in the petition to the effect that all vacancies had not been filled up and having not been denied or disputed, the impugned order should be sustained by this Court. The learned Counsel would urge that appointments had not been given from the wait list. ( 8 ) MR. P. Venkata Rao appearing on behalf of the respondents in WP No. 20406 of 2000 drew our attention to subsequent events and submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal, the District Educational Officers had been asked to notify the vacancies and despite the fact that page numbers of vacancies had been notified, no order of appointment had been issued. It was contended that in the district of Cuddapah, there exists 52 vacancies. ( 9 ) ALTHOUGH, we would like to consider the aforementioned submission, but, we may notice that no application whatsoever has been filed for taking subsequent events into consideration by this Court as additional evidence or otherwise. ( 10 ) MR. It was contended that in the district of Cuddapah, there exists 52 vacancies. ( 9 ) ALTHOUGH, we would like to consider the aforementioned submission, but, we may notice that no application whatsoever has been filed for taking subsequent events into consideration by this Court as additional evidence or otherwise. ( 10 ) MR. K. Amarender Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in wp No. 9395 of 2001 submitted that no order of stay was passed in relation to the vacancies in the district of Adilabad and despite 16 vacancies were existing only 14 had been filled up. ( 11 ) MR. J. M. Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in WP No. 5450 of 2001 submitted that only six out of 12 posts notified in Hyderabad District have been filled up. ( 12 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 78 and 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education act, 1982 (A. P Act 1 of 1982) and subsection (4) of Section 169 and sub-section (4) of Section 196 and Section 268 of the Andhra pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1994 as also proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of india, made rules for recruitment for the posts of teachers specified in the annexure to the said order. The said rules are called Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) rules, 1994. Rule 4 provides that in respect of each category of posts in Government schools under his jurisdiction the District educational Officer is the appointing authority and he shall estimate the number of vacancies existing on first April as also vacancies likely to arise upto the end of september of that year and intimate the same to the Member-Convenor of the District selection Committee duly indicating the number of vacancies reserved for various categories as per rules in force. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for a similar function by the Chief Executive Officer in respect of his estimation of vacancies in zilla Praja Parishad and Mandal Praja parishad schools. ( 13 ) THE notification is to be issued upon receipt of such information about vacancy position in terms of Rule 8. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for a similar function by the Chief Executive Officer in respect of his estimation of vacancies in zilla Praja Parishad and Mandal Praja parishad schools. ( 13 ) THE notification is to be issued upon receipt of such information about vacancy position in terms of Rule 8. The select list and the wait list are to be prepared upon holding a written examination and interview in terms of Rule 15, which reads as under: the number of candidates selected shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified. A waiting list of candidates not exceeding 5% of the number of posts or 50, whichever is less may be prepared so as to cater for a contingency where any selected candidate fails to join in the post within prescribed time. Such waiting list shall cease to exist soon after all the vacancies are filled up, or by March, 31 of succeeding year, whichever is earlier. The candidates who are in waiting list shall cease to exist soon after all the vacancies are filled up, or by march, 31 of succeeding year, whichever is earlier. The candidates who are in the waiting list shall not have any right/claim for appointment. ( 14 ) IT is not in dispute that the vacancies notified were variable ones and the same may be subjected to variation at any time. It has also been not in dispute that cases of such candidates who were qualified on the date of interview, were also required to be considered. Recruitment in question was a special recruitment for Urdu Teachers. Such recruitment drive was taken up by the District Selection Committee. The vacancy position of Urdu Teachers in each district is as under: ( 21 ) A submission has been advanced to the effect that Rules 4 and 5 are mandatory in nature in view of the fact that the word shall has been used thereunder. It is now a well settled principle of law that whether a statute shall be directory or mandatory depends on the text and context thereof. A statute shall not be held to be mandatory only because the word shall has been used. In view of Rules 4 and 5, the District educational Officer and the Chief Executive officer have been merely assigned with the duties to notify the vacancies. A statute shall not be held to be mandatory only because the word shall has been used. In view of Rules 4 and 5, the District educational Officer and the Chief Executive officer have been merely assigned with the duties to notify the vacancies. The vacancies had to be notified only on the basis of information received from the said authorities by the Director in terms of Rule 8 aforementioned. Assuming that certain mistakes have been committed by the DEO and the CEO, the same by itself would not give any right upon the petitioner so that a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the candidates beyond the notified vacancies and beyond the policy decision taken. ( 22 ) IN V. M. Kurian v. State of Kerala, (2001) 4 SCC 215 , it was held: the rules with which we are concerned here provide for regulation and construction of a building in an urban area. The object behind the rules is maintenance of public safety and convenience. The Municipal Corporation, gcda, and the Chief Town Planner are entrusted with the functions and duties for carrying out development and regulation of building in the urban area. These are the authorities on the spot who have special and technical knowledge to advise the government whether public safety and convenience requires dispensing with the provisions of the rules while permitting construction of an eight storeyed building. Thus, the meaning of the word recommend when read in the context of the rules shows that it means giving of a favourable report opposed to an unfavourable one . We, therefore, find that recommendations by gcda and the Chief Town Planner are sine qua non for granting exemption from operation of the rules by the State government. ( 23 ) IN any event, as the respondents were not found to be fit to be appointed, the question of their deriving any right in terms of Rules 4 and 5 does not arise. ( 24 ) BY clause (8) of the G. O. 472 dated 4. 7. ( 23 ) IN any event, as the respondents were not found to be fit to be appointed, the question of their deriving any right in terms of Rules 4 and 5 does not arise. ( 24 ) BY clause (8) of the G. O. 472 dated 4. 7. 1977, a provision is made to the following effect: instructions shall be provided in Urdu in elementary and primary schools, where there is a minimum of 10 pupils per class or 30 pupils per school and in secondary schools where there is a minimum strength of 43 pupils for Classes VI to VIII or VII to IX. ( 25 ) THE learned Tribunal misread and misconstrued the said provision by laying down the proposition that the vacancy position has to be determined on the premise that Education Department is bound to maintain 1:10 teacher-student ratio where urdu is taught. The said finding cannot be sustained on the plain reading of the G. O. extracted hereinbefore. It is now a well settled principle of law that where the literal meaning can be given no other principle of interpretation of statute shall be applied. In gurudevadatta Vksss Maryadit v. State of maharashtra, 2001 (4) SCC 534 , it has been held: further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning , unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law-giver. ( 26 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law-giver. ( 26 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. However, we must, keeping in view the materials placed before us as regards the subsequent events, deprecate the practice of the State to first issue instructions to implement the judgment and later on filing writ petitions before this Court after great delay when contempt petitions are filed before the Tribunal. The State should see that whenever it intends to give effect to the judgment of the Tribunal, no writ petition be filed after a long time. However, before parting with the case, we must say that the petitioners may rectify its mistake and proceed to fill up the existing vacancies in the event there exists vacancies. ( 27 ) IF vacancies had arisen subsequent to the recruitment notification, 1998, it is the Tribunal/court s duty to see that vacancies be filled up upon considering the cases of the candidates who had become eligible therefor as on the date of notification, the reason being that Article 16 of the Constitution contemplates consideration of all eligible candidates who had become subsequently qualified. Nonconsideration of the cases of such persons would in our considered opinion clearly violate the mandate of Article 16 of the constitution. ( 28 ) THE writ petitions are allowed with the aforementioned observations.