JUDGMENT : - This group of writ petitions is filed against the common order dated 30.9.2011 in O.A. No.5695 of 2009 and batch passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The cases, as per the ratio in L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India ( AIR 1997 SC 1125 ) were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and the judgment was delivered on 27.2.2012. The two learned Judges constituting the Bench delivered two separate opinions; one learned Judge upheld the impugned order of the tribunal and the other learned Judge reversed the same. The matter is therefore listed before this Court. Brief fact of the matter The following short fact of the matter is not in dispute. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (the Commission) issued a brief notification dated 30.12.2008 inviting applications online on Commission website for 217 vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors (AMVIs) in Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service governed by the Special Rules of similar title. This one being Notification No.45 of 2008 informs that the detailed notification with (i) break-up of vacancies, (ii) scale of pay, (iii) age, (iv) community, (v) educational qualifications, and (vi) other instructions. It states that the prescribed application proforma will be available on Commission’s website www.appsc.gov.in on 13.4.2009 and that the desirous eligible candidates may apply online before 30.04.2009. For ready reference the relevant portions in the brief notification are quoted below. Applications are invited On-line through the proforma Application available on Website (www.appsc.gov.in) from 13/04/2009 to 30/04/2009 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in A.P. Transport Subordinate Services. … Detailed Notification with breakup of vacancies, scale of pay, age, community, Educational Qualifications and other instructions along with prescribed Application proforma may be viewed at Website (www.appsc.gov.in). After filling the necessary details, the application form along with chalan will be generated in downloadable/printable PDF. Candidates are required to take printout of the online application along with the chalan which may be retained with the candidates for reference. Through chalan form candidates are required to pay the amount indicated in the chalan in any branch of State Bank of India across the counter. … Detailed Notification along with proforma application will be available at Website (www.appsc.gov.in) from 13.04.2009. Through chalan form candidates are required to pay the amount indicated in the chalan in any branch of State Bank of India across the counter. … Detailed Notification along with proforma application will be available at Website (www.appsc.gov.in) from 13.04.2009. Three months thereafter, on 13.4.2009, the Commission released the detailed notification containing 10 pages on its website giving all the details including the breakup of vacancies zone-wise for reserved categories and open competition in Annexure-I. The proforma application in two pages was also made available on the website only on 13.4.2009. The detailed notification has 12 paragraphs. Paragraph 1 invites applications online in the proforma giving the number of vacancies, age, qualifications, scale of pay and the essential formalities like payment of process/examination fee, the certificates to be enclosed etc. Paragraph 8 contains instructions as to the method of applying by a candidate. As per paragraph 8(a)(iv) in written/typed/photocopied/outside printed application forms will not be accepted and are liable for rejection. Para 1 also contains a note of important legal provisions governing the recruitment process and Note-2 thereof is to the effect that the recruitment process shall be in accordance with the Special Rules/Ad hoc rules governing the recruitment including the Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 19.2.2009. Note-2 makes it clear that those Rules which were issued/promulgated on 19.2.2009 will apply to the recruitment. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 deal with educational qualifications, age and payment of fee. As per para 5, there shall be written examination (objective type) followed by interview for those who qualified as per the rules and the candidates in the ratio of 1 : 2 shall be called for interview. The minimum marks in the written examination are also prescribed Paragraph 7 speaks of scheme of examination and syllabus for the examination and paragraph 6 speaks of reservation to local candidates. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 are general in nature and they give details of examination centres, the instructions to the candidates who attend the examination and the rules for debarment etc. At this stage, a brief reference need to be made to the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (the General Rules) and the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 (the Special Rules) to which a reference is made by the counsel. The General Rules shall apply to the services under the State Government. At this stage, a brief reference need to be made to the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (the General Rules) and the Andhra Pradesh Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1999 (the Special Rules) to which a reference is made by the counsel. The General Rules shall apply to the services under the State Government. As per Rule 1(d) thereof, if there is a conflict between the General Rules and the Special Rules, the latter shall prevail. Otherwise with regard to method of recruitment, qualification for direct recruitment, declaration of probation, fixation of seniority, promotion and other conditions of service, the General Rules govern all the Services under the State. Rule 12 of the General Rules deals with qualifications for direct recruitment. Rule 12(1)(v) is to the effect that so as to be eligible for direct recruitment, a person should not be less than 18 years and should not be more than 34 years as on 1st July of the year in which the notification for selection to the relevant post is made. Here a reference may be made to ad hoc rules issued by the Government in exercise of their powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India vide G.O.Ms.No.79, GAD (Ser.A) Department, dated 25.11.2008. Thereunder the maximum age limit prescribed for direct recruitment was raised by five years i.e., 34 years to 39 years. This ad hoc rule shall apply notwithstanding anything contained in the General Rules or the Special Rules. Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules speaks of the cut-off date for the purpose of reckoning the qualification for direct recruitment, which reads as below. 12. (3)(a) Qualifications for direct recruitment A candidate should possess the academic qualifications and experience including practical experience prescribed, if any, for the post on the date of notification for direct recruitment issued by the concerned recruiting agency. (emphasis supplied) The Special Rules of 1999 promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.529, dated 04.6.1999 govern, among others, the post of AMVIs. This was amended from time to time. In 2009 by G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 19.2.2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the Special Rules, 2009 in supersession of the earlier Rules in G.O.Ms.No.529, dated 04.6.1999. (emphasis supplied) The Special Rules of 1999 promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.529, dated 04.6.1999 govern, among others, the post of AMVIs. This was amended from time to time. In 2009 by G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 19.2.2009, the Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated the Special Rules, 2009 in supersession of the earlier Rules in G.O.Ms.No.529, dated 04.6.1999. There is no gain saying to mention that when a new set of Rules are promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 in supersession of earlier Rules, the new Rules alone would govern the conditions of service of the particular service. Any reliance on the superseded Rules or any claim to enforce the right under such Rules is ordinarily barred unless under the superseded Rules a vested enforceable right is accrued to a Government servant (State of Orissa v Titaghur Paper Mills Co., Ltd., ( AIR 1985 SC 1293 )). As per 1999 Special Rules, minimum age was prescribed as 21 years and maximum age was 28 years. Under 2009 Special Rules the maximum age limit was raised to 34 years while keeping minimum age at 21 years. A reference to this aspect has become necessary because when the brief notification was issued by the Commission, Special Rules, 2009 were not in existence and therefore the brief notification only applied the relevant age criteria as per the General Rules referred to hereinabove. A candidate to be eligible for the post of AMVI must hold a degree in mechanical engineering or automobile engineering of a recognised university or a diploma in automobile engineering granted by the State Board for Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh or technological diploma or any equivalent qualification in addition to educational qualifications. One must hold motor driving licence and have experience in driving motor vehicles for a period not less than 3 years and possess Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) endorsement. This qualification of having HTV endorsement was however relaxed in the case of women candidates and they are allowed to acquire HTV endorsement within two years of their joining service as AMVI. In the case of men, however, a candidate is required to have HTV endorsement. The petitioners in these cases numbering 19 applied for the post of AMVI online after downloading the same from the Commission’s website which was made available on 13.4.2009. The last date for sending online applications was 30.04.2009. In the case of men, however, a candidate is required to have HTV endorsement. The petitioners in these cases numbering 19 applied for the post of AMVI online after downloading the same from the Commission’s website which was made available on 13.4.2009. The last date for sending online applications was 30.04.2009. After scrutiny the Commission published on its website on 03.10.2009 the list of candidates whose applications were rejected presumably for the reason that they did not either have qualifications or over-aged or some other reasons. The petitioners’ names were not in the rejection list. A written examination in the morning and afternoon on 14.11.2011 was held. Indisputably, all the petitioners obtained minimum qualifying marks and they were declared successful when the results were announced on 09.2.2010. On 22.2.2010 or thereabout the Commission sent communication to qualified candidates to attend the Commission’s office with the certificates for verification. As per the procedure adopted, after the verification of the certificates so as to satisfy whether candidates possess requisite qualifications or not, they will be sent to medical board at Gandhi Hospital for verification of physical standards (as per Paragraph 2 of the detailed notification). At that stage, the petitioners were not short listed. There is some dispute as to whether the Commission informed the petitioners the reasons for not referring them to medical board. Whatever be the reason the petitioners in these cases were not allowed to participate in further selection process. The petitioners filed original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the tribunal praying for declaration that the action of the Commission in not sending them to medical board as illegal and arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned tribunal passed interim orders in April, 210 directing the Commission to permit the petitioners to appear for further selection process and oral test along with others according to the merit list prepared based on the marks obtained in the written examination. The Commission was also directed not to publish the results of the selection till the disposal of the OAs. The Commission was also directed not to publish the results of the selection till the disposal of the OAs. The tribunal by impugned common order came to the conclusion that the brief notification dated 30.12.2009 satisfies all the requirements of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (PSC Rules) and, therefore, as per Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules the cut-off date for qualification is the brief notification. There is no dispute that all the petitioners did not have valid HTV endorsement by 30.12.2008. Some of them obtained such endorsement thereafter but before 13.4.2009. Some of them who had such endorsement already got renewed it between the period of brief notification and detailed notification. Thus if it is held that for the purpose of Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules the cut-off date is 30.12.2008, all the petitioners would be ineligible for the post of AMVI. If it is held that all the petitioners are qualified as on the date of release of the detailed notification on the website i.e., 13.4.2009 (though it is dated 30.12.2008) they would be eligible and some of them may come up for consideration as per merit. Submissions The counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the Commission made their submissions reiterating their position before the learned tribunal. A reference is also made to Bhupinderpal Singh v State of Punjab ( (2000) 5 SCC 262 : AIR 2000 SC 2011 ), Nair Service Society v District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission ((2003) 12 SCC 1210), Alka Ojha v Rajasthan Public Service Commission ( (2011) 9 SCC 438 ) and Somaganti Venkata Subbamma v District Panchayat Officer (2006 (4) ALD 1). Whether the brief notification dated 30.12.2008 which was published in the newspapers or the detailed notification put in the website of the Commission on 13.4.2009 is “the notification” for the purpose of Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules. These two interconnected issues for consideration can be dealt with together. In Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition, 2004), the term “notification” is explained as follows. A formal announcement of a legally relevant fact, action, or intent, such as notice of an intent to withdraw from a treaty. These two interconnected issues for consideration can be dealt with together. In Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition, 2004), the term “notification” is explained as follows. A formal announcement of a legally relevant fact, action, or intent, such as notice of an intent to withdraw from a treaty. A person receives notification if someone else (1) informs the person of the fact or of other facts from which the person has reason to know or should know the fact, or (2) does an act that, under the rules applicable to the transaction, has the same effect on the legal relations of the parties as the acquisition of knowledge. In Words and Phrases (Vol.28A, Permanent edition, West Publishing Company), we have the following elucidation of “notification” is given. A person is given notification by another if the latter (a) informs him of the fact or of other facts from which he has reason to know or should know the fact; or (b) does an act which, under the rules applicable to the transaction, has the same effect on the legal relations of the parties as the acquisition of knowledge. The word “notify” is not synonymous with “notice”. “Notification” is the act of notifying. Clause in license contract to make, use, and sell patented device, providing that licensee should be relieved of paying royalties if licensor, upon being “notified” that unlicensed party was manufacturing similar device, should fail to institute infringement suit within specified time after such “notification”, held to require actual notification and not mere knowledge by licensor. (emphasis supplied) In Subhash Ramkumar Bind v State of Maharashtra ( (2003) 1 SCC 506 : AIR 2003 SC 269 ) dealing with the purport and meaning of “notification”, the Supreme Court held that, “notification in common English acceptation means and implies the formal announcement of a legally relevant fact and in the event of a statute speaking of a notification being published in the official gazette, the same cannot but mean a notification published by authority of law in the official gazette. It is on formal declaration and publication of an order and shall have to be in accordance with the declared policies or in the event the requirement of the statute then in that event in accordance therewith”. It is on formal declaration and publication of an order and shall have to be in accordance with the declared policies or in the event the requirement of the statute then in that event in accordance therewith”. Therein a question also arose as to whether a note in the office files amounts to administrative instruction having the effect of taking away the rights vested in the persons governed by the Act. The Supreme Court said that if a note attached is not referable to any statutory authority it cannot be permitted to bring about divesting of the rights of the person governed by the statute. Thus a notification so as to be called as such must have a backing of a statute or administrative instructions or in discharge of public duty, if it is intended to announce a policy. Indeed Article 366 (19) of the Constitution defines “public notification” as “a notification in the official Gazette of India or official gazette of a State”. Further Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 creates a presumption in relation to publication of an order, notification or rules made under an Act. When once such rules, the orders or directions are published in the official gazette, they shall be deemed to have “published and effective”. In Harla v State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1951 SC 467 ), the Supreme Court held that a statutory instrument which has the influence of effecting large body of persons must be broadcasted in some recognizable way so that all men may know what it is. If a decision is taken in the secret recess of a chamber to which the public have no access and to which even acquainted representatives have no access, it is no decision at all and in the absence of any law, rule, regulation or custom, the promulgation or publication of the decision or policy is essential. A decision or a notification containing a decision issued in exercise of the powers under the constitution or related statutory instruments must contain legally relevant facts about policy and those people who desired to act on such things must be able to effectively act on it. Mere announcement that Government has taken a policy or they are proposing to administer in a particular manner would be of no avail. Mere announcement that Government has taken a policy or they are proposing to administer in a particular manner would be of no avail. The persons to whom such policies are relevant must have access to such policy and if necessary must act in accordance with such policy to have the advantage of it. Whether the brief notification can be considered as the recruitment notification or it is only an announcement in the form of advance intimation to eligible candidates about the release of detailed notification in future? The answer to this question would be crucial because indisputably all the petitioners are qualified as on 13.4.2009 and even if they were not having HTV endorsement as on 30.12.2008 (the date of brief notification) they would be entitled to exercise their constitutional right of equal opportunity in public employment. As elucidated in the extract supra (‘Words and Phrases’, Permanent Edition), a notification has two purposes. One to inform a person of the fact or other facts from which he can reasonably draw or know a fact. The second aspect is to reiterate or remind the legal obligations or relation of the parties that would flow from the factum of being made known of the facts. In this case, applying these rules, this Court is of considered opinion that the preliminary or brief notification issued on 30.12.2008 satisfying the first condition and by itself does not create any legal relations. The second or detailed notification released on the web side on 13.04.2009 satisfies the condition of having the effect of legal relationship of the parties i.e., APPSC as recruiting agency and those candidates who are qualified to the post of AMVI. As the right to apply or right to claim equality of opportunity in the recruitment process flows only from the day of applying the pursuant to the detailed notification, the earlier brief notification cannot be the notification which can fall within the phrase ‘on the date of notification of direct recruitment’ issued by the Commission appearing in Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules. To reiterate, the brief notification does not confer any right of any candidate to apply. As seen earlier, no application which is not in the proforma prescribed or written applications are liable to be rejected. To reiterate, the brief notification does not confer any right of any candidate to apply. As seen earlier, no application which is not in the proforma prescribed or written applications are liable to be rejected. A candidate so as to compete in the recruitment has to necessarily apply only using the proforma application which was not made available in the website of the Commission as on 30.12.2008 when the brief notification was published in the newspapers. It only informs the proposal to undertake recruitment to AMVI posts and propose to invite applications from 13.4.2009. Further when the website opened on 13.04.2009, a proforma application attached, the petitioners and other candidates formed same class from the point of view of right to download application. As on 30.12.2008, all the candidates were in the same position, in the sense though they knew about impending AMBI recruitment, they could not apply due to non-availability of proforma application. The Commission or committee of Hon’ble members were not involved in the decision to reject petitioners treating 30.12.2008 as cut-off date. It was only at the time of scrutiny of the certificates the Assistant Secretary took such a decision which was endorsed by he Secretary. The decision was not even placed before the Commission. That a candidate cannot immediately apply on 30.12.2008 when the brief notification was published in the newspapers, that a candidate can apply only in the proforma application to the post of AMVI and that the proforma application was made available on the website from 13.4.2009 strengthen the conclusion that the brief notification is not the notification as is referred to in Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules. A Service Commission for the State is established under Article 315(1). It is vested with the duty to conduct examination for appointment to the services of State and if so requested is entitled to advise the Government on various matters enumerated under Article 320(3) of the constitution. So as to function as a constitutional authority with high degree of accountability, and have transparency in its functioning, the Commission made PSC Rules. It has Part-A and Part-B. The former deals with direct recruitment and the latter deals with recruitment by transfer/promotion. Rules 3 and 6 are relevant and are quoted below. So as to function as a constitutional authority with high degree of accountability, and have transparency in its functioning, the Commission made PSC Rules. It has Part-A and Part-B. The former deals with direct recruitment and the latter deals with recruitment by transfer/promotion. Rules 3 and 6 are relevant and are quoted below. Rule 3.Where any Competitive examination is to be conducted the commission for the purpose of direct recruitment to a state or Subordinate services, the Commission shall: (i) announce - (a) the number of vacancies, subject to variation invite applications; Provided that when the approximate number of vacancies to be filled is not ascertainable, the Commission may invite applications in anticipation of vacancies likely to a rise. (b) the conditions of admission to the examination; (c) the subjects schemes or syllabi of the examination; (ii) make necessary arrangements for the conduct of the examination; (iii) constitute where necessary, Interview Board for interviewing candidates selected for such interview with one or more Members of the Commission; Note 1 and Note 2 (omitted as not relevant) (iv) invite, whenever it considers necessary, any University professor or professors or any other person or persons with expert knowledge in particular subject, to be on its Interview Board. Such advisers may take part in the deliberations of the Commission and help the Commission in grading the candidates but shall not be entitled to award marks; (v) invite the Head of the Department concerned to be present or nominate an officer ordinarily a rank immediately below the Head of the Department to be present at such interview; and the person present may take part in the deliberations of the commission but shall not be entitled to award marks; (vi) arrange the candidates selected by it in the order of merit; (vii) announce the results on the notice board of the Commission; (viii) forward the list of candidates selected to the appointing authority, simultaneously communicating the result to the successful candidates and releasing the notification to be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. Rule 6.The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/categories notified by the Unit Officers/Government. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. Rule 6.The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/categories notified by the Unit Officers/Government. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. Whenever the Commission conducts competitive examination for direct recruitment they have to notify or announce (a) number of vacancies, (b) conditions of admission to the examination, and (c) subjects, schemes or syllabi of examination. A reading of Rule 3 read with Rule 6 makes it clear that the Commission shall announce the above particulars in a notification as a condition precedent for conducting competitive examination. Further as Rule 3 refers to Commission, there should be proper authority or authorisation for issuing notification for competitive examination. Rule 17 deals with allocation of business among members of the Commission and it is to the effect that various items of business of the Commission shall be allocated to the members by the Chairman. The Commission has produced before this Court the minutes of the Chairman in office order No.5/SP&VG Cell/2008, dated 13.10.2008 whereby the Chairman of the Commission allocated different items of work to either individual members including himself or to committees of two or three members. Recruitment to the post of AMVIs was allocated to Hon’ble Member Sri B.R.K. Raju who was at the relevant time Hon’ble Member No.2. The subject of issuing notifications was allocated to Hon’ble Member Sri M. Pochaiah, Member No.9 and Hon’ble Member Sri Md. Nauman, member No.3 at the relevant time. So as to pass a valid notification in accordance with Rule 3, it must be demonstrated that the brief notification contains the three essential requirements as noticed herein above and that it was approved by the Commission or the concerned committee to whom the work was entrusted. A bare perusal of the brief notification would show that it contains only the number of vacancies and the conditions of admission to the examination. It does not contain the subjects, scheme or syllabi of the examination. It cannot therefore be upgraded as the notification for the purpose of Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules. Secondly as directed by this Court the Additional Advocate General has placed before this Court the file C.No.1497/RN/1/2008 along with note file. It does not contain the subjects, scheme or syllabi of the examination. It cannot therefore be upgraded as the notification for the purpose of Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules. Secondly as directed by this Court the Additional Advocate General has placed before this Court the file C.No.1497/RN/1/2008 along with note file. The approval of the note orders before publication of the brief notification on 30.12.2008 was accorded by the committee of the Commission comprising Hon’ble Members-9 and 3 as well as the Chairman. Orders were passed only to issue a brief notification and publish it in daily newspapers, namely, Eenadu, Vaartha, Hindu and Munsif. The note also refers to the reasons as to why the maximum age is taken as 39 years saying that the ad hoc rule promulgated in G.O.Ms.No.709, dated 25.11.2009 covers the recruitment. The Commission appears to be prompt in placing the detailed notification along with proforma application on 13.4.2009 in their website. The detailed notification as mentioned earlier runs into ten pages (excluding proforma application which is two pages). It gives details of vacancies, the break up of vacancies zone-wise, reservation, syllabi, scheme of examination and satisfies all the requirements as per Rule 3 of PSC Rules. A perusal of the file would show that a note was put up to the committee at pp.257-258 which was approved by the Secretary of the Commission as well as Hon’ble Members-9 and 3 and the Chairman on 09.4.2009. It is only thereafter the detailed notification was released on the website of the Commission on 13.4.2009.This note reads as follows. C.No.1497/RN/1/2008 Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector 21. Brief Notification for 217 posts of Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspectors has been issued duly inviting Applications from eligible candidates w.e.f. 13/04/2009 to 30/04/2009. 22. Detailed Notification is to be issued. a) The vacancies are 217, which includes 17 Backlog vacancies apart from 200 vacancies cleared by the Govt., in Finance Dept., vide D.O. Letter No.13860-B/737/A3/SMPC/2008-3, dt.3.06.2008. b) Qualifications and other Physical requirements as prescribed in Special Rules and as per G.O.Ms.No.71 T.R. of Building (Ser.IV) Dept., dt. 19/02/2009, have been taken and incorporated in the draft detailed notifications. c) Age limits are as follows:-Minimum Age 21 years and Maximum age 39 years as per G.O.Ms.No.709, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept., dt. 25.11.2008. b) Qualifications and other Physical requirements as prescribed in Special Rules and as per G.O.Ms.No.71 T.R. of Building (Ser.IV) Dept., dt. 19/02/2009, have been taken and incorporated in the draft detailed notifications. c) Age limits are as follows:-Minimum Age 21 years and Maximum age 39 years as per G.O.Ms.No.709, G.A. (Ser.A) Dept., dt. 25.11.2008. However, 17 backlog vacancies are not covered in the said G.O. A clarification is needed with regard to the applicability of age relaxation to these 17 posts. However, as per the Rules of Procedure, under Rule 6, the fallout vacancies if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. d) The post is organized into Six Zones being Non-Gazetted and as per prescribed orders, 1975. e) Rule of reservation is applicable as per General Rule 22 & 22(A). f) Physically Handicapped persons are not entitled for reservation. g) The other important things such as legal provisions, procedure of selection, local reservation, how to apply, inspection to candidates, debarment etc., have been incorporated in the draft detailed notification. h) Break-up vacancies as furnished by the recruitment section has been included as Annexure-I. i) Scheme and Syllabus has provided by the S&S Section is added to the draft notification as Annexure-II. j) The examination centres for written examination may be Five. 1) Hyderabad, 2) Visakhapatnam, 3) Vijayawada, 4) Tirupathi, 5) Warangal. 23. Subject to orders a draft detailed notification is prepared and put up at flag ‘A’ for approval. 24. After approval, the notification may be sent to CGG (Centre for Good Governance) to display the same in the commission’s website and also to design application format. 25. The detailed notification for AMVI recruitment is for approval of the Commission. 26. In the brief notification the vacancies notified are 217 (200 + 17 earlier Recruitment (women) vacancies) by setting apart 1 woman vacancy to comply the court orders. The recruitment section has obtained order not to set aside 1 vacancy and to add to this recruitment. Thus the total number of vacancies are 218. 27. The following note may be added beneath the vacancy statements in Annexure-I. “One (W) vacancy was set apart for the purpose of complying the court orders pertaining to earlier recruitment. Since the issue is resolved, the vacancy is added to this recruitment and thus the total number of vacancies are 218”. 28. 27. The following note may be added beneath the vacancy statements in Annexure-I. “One (W) vacancy was set apart for the purpose of complying the court orders pertaining to earlier recruitment. Since the issue is resolved, the vacancy is added to this recruitment and thus the total number of vacancies are 218”. 28. The minimum age is 21 as per the Rules. A corrigendum may be issued in this regard (displayed on the website). 29. The online submission to commence from 13/4/2009. The last date: 30/4/2009. A reading of the above would show that the detailed notification consisting of the requirements as per Rule 3 of PSC Rules itself was prepared by the office of the Commission on 02.4.2009 which was approved and ordered to be released online on 09.4.2009. This leaves no doubt that the notification for the purpose of the General Rules and PSC Rules was made available to the eligible candidates more than three (3) months after the issue of the brief notification. The brief notification, therefore, can only be treated as advance intimation as it does not specify the requirements of notification as per the dicta of the Supreme Court in Subhash Ramkumar Bind. The Additional Advocate General relying on Nair Society would contend that PSC Rules being non-statutory are not relevant in construing the nature of the brief notification. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission. In the just mentioned case as requested by the State Electricity Board, Kerala Public Service Commission initiated recruitment process for the posts of Sub-Engineers. After completing it, a rank list as well as supplemental list in respect of reserved category candidates was prepared. There was, however, no supplemental list for open category candidates. After making recruitment, there remained vacancies due to non-joining of service by the selectees. Those included in the supplemental list approached the High Court to enforce the right to be appointed after exhaustion of main rank list. The question was whether after the exhaustion of the main rank list the supplemental list survives on its own. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and the appeals by the Service Commission were dismissed by the Division Bench. Nair Service Society then obtained leave and filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The question was whether after the exhaustion of the main rank list the supplemental list survives on its own. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and the appeals by the Service Commission were dismissed by the Division Bench. Nair Service Society then obtained leave and filed appeals before the Supreme Court. The question whether the petitioners would be entitled to appointment based on supplemental list after the main list gets exhausted when they did not have any legal or fundamental right for selection and that supplemental list shall not survive on its own, was answered in the negative. Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha in his concurring opinion observed that the PSC Rules which required the preparation of supplemental lists under separate groups are non-statutory in nature. Even if Rule 3 of the PSC Rules is non-statutory, there is no dispute before us that except in 2008, the commission had been issuing only one notification as and when an indent for recruitment is received from Government department. It is only in 2008 the Commission was requested by the Government to undertake recruitment to as many as 2422 vacancies in 54 departments. So as to manage their affairs in a planned manner the Commission chose the method of first issuing brief notification of intimation which was published in newspapers and as per their own schedule of recruitment went on issuing detailed notifications. Though there was no specific decision of the full Commission or designated committee of Members to this method, as we mentioned earlier, the authorised committee approved the issue of brief notification presumably to allow smooth running of the recruitment process for various reasons. An idea to reduce the cost of publication – of publishing detailed notification consisting of 20 pages in the newspapers, may have weighed with the decision maker. If for their own convenience a commission issues initial intimation which they call as brief notification and after some time issues a detailed notification releasing proforma application, in the considered opinion of this Court, the brief notification cannot be considered as the notification for the purpose of Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules. When the brief notification was issued on 30.12.2008 it does not refer to the General Rules or the Special Rules. This is understandable. When the brief notification was issued on 30.12.2008 it does not refer to the General Rules or the Special Rules. This is understandable. Regulation 14A of the APPSC Regulations, 1963 made in exercise of their powers under Article 318(3) of the Constitution and Article 320(3) binds the Commission to strictly adhere to the Rule of reservation as per Rules 22 and 22A of the General Rules; A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of local cadres and regulation of direct recruitment) Order, 1975; various Rules, Regulations and instruments issued by the government with regard to the selection of candidates by direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer and any other rules or orders passed by the Government from time to time governing the recruitment. Curiously the detailed notification which was released on 13.4.2009 on their website contains a note below Paragraph 1. This note contains 13 classification points. Point 2 thereof is relevant for considering the argument made across the bar and that the same is quoted as below. 2. The Recruitment will be processed as per this Notification; Instructions issued by the Government and also as decided by the Commission from time to time in terms of respective Special Rules/Adhoc rules governing the Recruitment issued in G.O.Ms.No.529 TR&B (Trans.1) Department, dated 04/06/1999, G.O.Ms.No.32, TR&B (Ser.IV) Department, Dt.22/02/2008, G.O.Ms.No.213, TR&B (Ser. IV) Department, Dt.5/08/2008, G.O.Ms.No.375, TR&B (Ser.IV) Department, Dt.27/12/2008, and reissued in G.O.Ms.No.71, TR&B (Ser. IV) Department, Dt.19/02/2009 and other related G.Os, Rules etc. applicable in this regard. (emphasis supplied) The above point refers to the Special Rules of 1999, amendments made to it by three subsequent orders and the Special Rules of 2009 (which supersedes 1999 Special Rules) promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 19.2.2009. These are referred to in the said note and say that the recruitment will be processed as per these Rules as applicable to the notification and all the Rules applicable in that regard. If the brief notification dated 30.12.2008 was intended to be relevant for cut-off date, it could not have referred to the Special Rules, 2009 (G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 19.2.2009). This would certainly goes to show that these Rules read with Regulation 14A(iv) would show that the notification which was released on the website on 13.4.2009 was considered to be the notification for the purpose of cut-off date for qualifications. This would certainly goes to show that these Rules read with Regulation 14A(iv) would show that the notification which was released on the website on 13.4.2009 was considered to be the notification for the purpose of cut-off date for qualifications. There was some argument made with regard to the phrase used in point-2, namely, “the recruitment will be processed as per this notification”. “This notification” is emphatic in the sense it refers to the notification placed in the website on 13.4.2009 and the recruitment which is intended to be processed in accordance with the applicable statutory Rules, namely, Special Rules of 2009. This Court has closely perused the file relevant to the notification being C.No.1497/RN/1/2008, AMVI-45/2008 the relevant note orders are also extracted herein above. It would show that even the commission never intended to treat the brief notification as the one for the purpose of determining the cut-off date for qualifications. The commission decision while ordering the release of detailed notification in the website is silent. But reading Regulation 14A and Rule 12(3)(a) of the General Rules, it becomes clear that the Commission intended ’13.4.2009’ as cut-off date. Be it noted, it is only on that date (1) the proforma application, (2) number of vacancies, (3) conditions of admission to the examination, (4) scheme and syllabi of the examination and all other details were made available. The detailed notification contains minute things spread over 12 paragraphs and no doubt is left in the minds of any one aspiring to the post of AMVIs. The same is not the case with the brief notification and it has number of gaps which were left to anybody’s imagination. There was debate on the issue of brief notification, detailed notification, and they allegedly being the same with slight variation. If the Commission for its own convenience adopts one method of dealing with brief notification, it has no importance at all for considering the legal issue. As held by the Supreme Court a bilateral notification should always contain information either to create rights or remind people of their rights to be claimed. It is no doubt true as held by the Supreme Court in number of cases a person has no right to public employment. He has only right to be considered along with others for Government service under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. It is no doubt true as held by the Supreme Court in number of cases a person has no right to public employment. He has only right to be considered along with others for Government service under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. A recruiting agency or appointing authority has a right to withdraw recruitment notification at any stage before a person actually joins in service. Unless it is shown that such withdrawal of recruitment is arbitrary and irrational, no person has enforceable right (Shankarsan Dash v Union of India) ( (1991) 3 SCC 47 : AIR 1991 SC 1612 ). The brief notification only intimates the candidates that the recruitment is commencing on 13.4.2009 and the applications will be available in the website from that date to be sent on or before 30.4.2009. When the brief notification was issued, there was no right absolutely to anybody and the Commission cold have in one go withdrawn the same. The detailed notification is not on the same footing. Though it does not confer an absolute right to seek appointment to the post of AMVIs, it certainly creates a right apply to the post and a right to appear for the examination if qualified and right to be considered for the post in accordance with law. Therefore when brief notification does not create any rights whereas the detailed notification creates a right to be considered for public employment, it must be held that the notification which was released on 13.4.2009 in the website must be reckoned as the notification for the purpose of Rule 12 (3)(a) of the General Rules. In that view of the matter the tribunal was in error and was incorrect in holding that the brief notification is complaint with Rule 3 of the PSC Rules. In the result, for the above, reasons, the writ petitions are allowed without any order as to costs. The Registry is directed to post these writ petitions before the Division Bench which decided the matter earlier for pronouncing judgment/final orders, as per by the High Court Standing Order 215-18.