Judgment : The petitioner responded to a notification issued by the 2nd respondent public service Commission {for short ‘the Commission’} inviting application for the post of Forest Guard, in the Forest Department. The notification inviting application was published on 27.4.2004. The selection was conducted and Ext.P1 rank list was published on 19.2007. 83 persons were included in the main list and 225 persons were included in the supplementary list. The petitioner was included as Rank No.10 in the Muslim supplementary list. According to the petitioner, there were 105 vacancies of Forest Guard in Ernakulam District, at the time of publication of Ext.P1 rank list. Four Muslim Candidates included in the rank list viz., persons with Rank Nos.67 and 79 in the main list and Rank Nos.7 and 9 in the supplementary list, had relinquished their claim for advice as per the rank list. The petitioner contends that, going by the details given by the Commission in its counter affidavit, the date of publication of the rank list, the date of first advice and the date of receipt of relinquishment by the 4 Muslim candidates are given as hereunder: “Date of publication of the rank list 19.2007. Date of first advice 210.2007. Sl.No Rank No. Name of Candidate Date of receipt of relinquishment 1. 67 Alshan 10/10/07 2. 79 Rafi A 10/10/07 3. S/L 7 Shamsudeen 03/11/07 4. S/L 9 Shamnad S 03/11/07” .2. The petitioner contends that the relinquishment effected by four persons the details of which are given above is valid in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the names of those persons, who had validly relinquished their claims to be considered for appointment for the post in question, should have been deleted from the rank list. Again, as a consequence thereof, the Commission should have issued advice memos to the other candidates who continue in the rank list. If this had been done, then obviously, the Commission would not have advised the aforementioned four persons. But going by the number of vacancies which were available viz., 108, the main list and the supplementary list would have been continued .to be operated and this would have definitely resulted in advice memos being issued to rank Nos.8 and 10 in the supplementary list reserved for Muslims and consequently the petitioner would have been advised for the post. But going by the number of vacancies which were available viz., 108, the main list and the supplementary list would have been continued .to be operated and this would have definitely resulted in advice memos being issued to rank Nos.8 and 10 in the supplementary list reserved for Muslims and consequently the petitioner would have been advised for the post. It is on this premise, the petitioner prays for a direction that the vacancies of Forest Guard covered by Exts.P2 to P5 relinquishment letters (which are the same as Exts.R1(a) to R1(d) produced by the 1st respondent) are to be considered as vacancies which arose during the currency of Ext.P1 rank list. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Commission. It is pointed out that the rank list which was brought into force on 19.2007 contains the names of 83 candidates in the main list and 235 candidates in the supplementary list. 108 vacancies were reported. 92 vacancies out of the same were fresh ones and 16 were NJD vacancies. Advice memos were issued in relation to 108 vacancies. Therefore, the rank list got itself exhausted, pursuant to all the candidates in the main list being advised. 4. The principal contention raised by the commission, qua the relinquishment letters sent by the Muslim candidates is that in terms of Rule 18 (ii) of the Rules of procedure, a valid relinquishment could be effected only if the relinquishment was prior to the date of receipt of requisition by the PSc. It is pointed out with reference to Exts.R1(e) and R1(f) reports of vacancies received from the competent authority by the Commission, that the vacancies of Forests Guards were reported under Ext.R1(f), as early as in 2004 and under Ext.R1(f) as early as in 2006 i.e. to say, all the vacancies, against which the rank list was operated, were reported to the Commission prior to 19.2007 i.e. date of publication of the rank list and consequently, the relinquishments covered by Ext.R1(a) and R1(b) dated 10.2007 could not have been treated as valid relinquishments in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure. 5. 5. The crucial question for consideration is whether a relinquishment in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure to be valid should invariably be received prior to the date on which the requisition was made by the competent authority, requiring the Commission to conduct a selection in respect of specific number of vacancies. .6. Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure around which the controversy arose is extracted hereunder: .“(ii) Any candidate whose name has been included in a ranked list prepared by the Commission many relinquish his claim for appointment in writing giving his full address and signature attested by an officer not below the rank of a Tahasildar under his seal, on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice against which he/she is to be advised. The Commission shall thereupon remove his name from the ranked list and advise another candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the ranked list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission. This amendment shall have effect from 1st December 1983”. 7. The competence of the Commission to prescribe the procedure to be followed in the matter of issuing memos of advice to candidates included in the rank list and also in prescribing the procedure governing the relinquishment of the claim of any person, who is included in the rank list cannot be doubted. .8. TheRules of Procedure are internal Rules formulated by the Commission. This, the Commission has the competence to do in terms of Article 320 of the Constitution of India. But the question here is one which requires a reasonable reading of Rule 18 (ii) of the Rules of Procedure. Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure enables a person, whose name is included in the rank list to relinquish his claim for appointment in writing. But, such relinquishment in writing should be effected before the date of receipt of requisition for advice by the Commission. In such cases, the relinquishment will be treated as valid and the name of the person, who has relinquished his claim will be deleted from the rank .list. In such circumstances, the commission gets the authority to issue advice memo to another candidate for appointment. 9. In such cases, the relinquishment will be treated as valid and the name of the person, who has relinquished his claim will be deleted from the rank .list. In such circumstances, the commission gets the authority to issue advice memo to another candidate for appointment. 9. What I find from the reading of the Rule is, therefore, that there should be a conscious act of relinquishment made by a person before his name is included in the rank list, qua any appointment in relation to the rank list that has been prepared and published by the Commission. The requirement of the signature being attested by an officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar is an indication of the gravity and seriousness with which the act of relinquishment has to be carried out by the person concerned. A casual intimation by ‘A’ that he is not interested in securing appointment to the posts in question will not suffice. It need not be responded to by the commission. But where there is a valid relinquishment, there are two consequences emanating therefrom. First, the Commission shall accept the relinquishment and delete the name of the person from the rank list. The person who relinquishes his claim for appointment may not really be concerned about it, in the sense that, he has consciously relinquished his claim for appointment to the post in question and therefore, he would be obviously be not affected by the deletion of his name from the rank list. No further adverse consequence is contemplated insofar as the person who relinquishes his claim is concerned. 10. But the matter does not end there. There is yet another consequence provided by the act of relinquishment on acceptance of a valid relinquishment from the incumbent. There is an obligation on the part of the Commission to advice another candidate in that place. No doubt, to a limited extent, this obligation on the part of the Commission to advice another candidate, according to the Rules, as a consequence of a valid relinquishment, cannot be brushed aside. It is, in this context, the stand taken by the Commission that a valid relinquishment should always precede the publication of the rank list will have to be assessed. 11. Sri. Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there could be two stages at which a requisition is received by the Commission. It is, in this context, the stand taken by the Commission that a valid relinquishment should always precede the publication of the rank list will have to be assessed. 11. Sri. Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there could be two stages at which a requisition is received by the Commission. One would be a case where there is a requisition for a specific number of vacancies sent by the competent authority to the Commission. Such requisition essentially triggers the recruitment process into motion. It is common that the Commission while inviting application for a particular post, may not really be aware of the specific number of vacancies for which the selection process is conducted. In many cases, the Commission could be required to select candidates for a post wherein the number of vacancies is described as probable. Even after the selection process is set into motion, the vacancies which arise in the post are obliged to be reported to the Commission and the selection proceedings under way will obviously comprehend such vacancies as well. It would obviously not be in public interest and a serious drain on the time taken by the Commission to burden the commission with an obligation to initiate a fresh selection wherever there is a requisition made by the competent authority. At any rate, Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure makes it clear that vacancies which arise during the currency of the rank list will have to be reported to the Commission to be filled up by operation of the rank list in question. There are several instances where vacancies which arise up to the last date of validity of the rank list are directed to be reported to the Commission as such. This court has, time and again, shown anxiety to impress upon the Government and other authorities, the necessity to fill up all available vacancies in the department or organizations, as far as possible, only with the hands selected by the Commission and that provisional appointments, casual engagements or ‘appointments’, which are euphemistically called “back door appointments” shall not be resorted to. Therefore, there are obviously cases where requisitions are received by the Commission prior to the commencement of the selection process and would be continued to be received during the currency of the selection process and during the currency of the rank list, after it has been published. Therefore, there are obviously cases where requisitions are received by the Commission prior to the commencement of the selection process and would be continued to be received during the currency of the selection process and during the currency of the rank list, after it has been published. .12. Once this position is accepted, the further question is, who has a right of relinquishment in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure and what is its mode of exercise. Mr. Jaju Babu contends .that the right of relinquishment could be exercised only by a candidate whose name has been included in the rank list and therefore, the right of relinquishment is available to be exercised only after the publication of the rank list. 13. Mr. Alexander Thomas submits that even if that be true, the right of relinquishment of a person, whose name has been included in the rank list, would be available to be exercised only in cases where vacancies are reported after the publication of the rank list as such. 10.14. A literal reading of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules, I agree, may admit of the interpretation as suggested Mr. Alexander Thomas. The words “before the date of requisition for advice” contemplate a situation that the relinquishment will have to precede the date of requisition given to the commission. But, as I have found above, though acceptance of the relinquishment may not entail any civil consequence for the person who relinquishes his claim, albeit to a limited extent there is a consequence which is provided qua a person who comes lower down in the rank list. This is because once there is a valid relinquishment, then the name of the person who has relinquished his claim should stand deleted from the rank list and the Commission is obliged to operate the rank list further, in accordance with the Rules. In cases where the relinquishment is by a candidate who has been included in the list in the reservation quota, the next candidate in the list from the same reservation quota will therefore, have, atleast, a right to expect the commission to act under Rule 18(ii) to advice the candidates in accordance with the Rules. In cases where the relinquishment is by a candidate who has been included in the list in the reservation quota, the next candidate in the list from the same reservation quota will therefore, have, atleast, a right to expect the commission to act under Rule 18(ii) to advice the candidates in accordance with the Rules. If that be so, then one will have to proceed on the premise that the act of relinquishment Is not intended to operate in a vacuum, nor can the relinquishment be treated like a floating charge, intended to be acted upon by the Commission in future. If a literal interpretation is therefore given to Rule 18(ii) as requiring a valid letter of relinquishment to always precede the rank list, then in cases where the requisition of vacancies are made to the Commission as a means of triggering selection process in motion, as has been done in the present case, then a person, who is yet to respond to the notification issued by the Commission would be expected to relinquish his claim for appointment against the posts which might crystallize in future. Such an interpretation which brings about unworkable consequences obviously cannot be advocated. Moreover, since the act of relinquishment will have to be exercised qua an existing right and not a right which might arise in future, it is only a candidate whose name has been included in the rank list, that is entitled to relinquish his claim for appointment. If this be so, then, I think, the reasonably way of interpreting Rule 18(ii) would be in the following manner: 115. The claim for appointment can be relinquished by a candidate whose name is included in the rank list. Obviously he can do so only if the rank list is published. The words “before the date of requisition for advice” going by Rule 18(ii) of the Rules will have to be construed as the date on which the commission normally decides to send advice to the appropriate person against a vacancy which is available to be advised. No doubt, this would postulate certain amount of subjectivity by the Commission. There is no reason for this court to be anxious about the bona fides of the Commission in deciding, on a case to case basis, as to whether the relinquishment is valid or not. No doubt, this would postulate certain amount of subjectivity by the Commission. There is no reason for this court to be anxious about the bona fides of the Commission in deciding, on a case to case basis, as to whether the relinquishment is valid or not. Where, after the publication of the rank list, the candidate whose name has been included in the rank list sends a valid relinquishment and such letter of relinquishment is received by the Commission before the dispatch of an advice memo to him, them it can be treated by the Commission as a valid letter of relinquishment for the purpose of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules. 116. In my view this is the only reasonable and harmonious view on consideration of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules, in the context of the fact that only a candidate whose name is included in the list, is competent to send a letter of relinquishment and the act of relinquishment is always operated qua an existing right and not a right which arise in future. I am also persuaded to take this view in circumstances where the acceptance of a valid relinquishment by the Commission brings about a consequence for the persons who are included in the rank list as such. 117. Having held as above, it has to be made clear, as a corollary, that this interpretation placed above would be applicable only in cases where there is requisition of vacancies, received by the Commission before the publication of the rank list. In respect of vacancies which are reported after the publication of the rank list, the relinquishment should necessarily precede the requisition. 118. Mr. Alexander Thomas refers to the judgment of the Bench of this court in Balakrishnan Vs. Public Service Commission {1994 (1) KLT 490}. He referred to paragraph 34 of the judgment to contend for the position that the letter of relinquishment must have preceded the requisition as such. I find from the said decision that the Division Bench had not specifically considered the question in the context of vacancies having been reported to the public service commission prior to the publication of the rank list or as in this case, vacancies being reported as a measure to trigger the PSC to commence the process of selection. The question which arises in the present case did not arise for consideration before the Division Bench. 119. The question which arises in the present case did not arise for consideration before the Division Bench. 119. In the result, I hold that the stand taken by the Commission in respect of Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) relinquishment letters cannot be accepted. It is unsustainable. Since in this case, the first advice memo was issued by the Commission on 210.2007 and Exts.R1(a) and R12(b) were received by the Commission on 10.2007, the said two letters of relinquishment are eligible to be treated as valid in terms of Rule 18(ii) of the Rules. Accordingly, the public service Commission shall consider whether the candidates comprehended by Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) with Rank Nos.67 and 79 in the main list were actually advised against Muslim reservation turns. If they were so advised, then as a consequence of treating Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) as valid relinquishments, the Commission shall proceed further to advice candidates against the vacancies consequent upon the relinquishment by the two persons. The said two vacancies shall not be treated as NJD vacancies and in the circumstances, the rank list shall be operated upon and advice memos shall be issued to two other eligible candidates in the rank list, depending upon the availability of Muslim candidates in the main list and supplementary list. This process shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above.