JUDGMENT : The petitioners assert to be candidates who had applied for the post of Painter Grade-II in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) under Exhibit P1 notification issued by the second respondent-Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC). 2. The qualifications in Exhibit P1 for the post is that the candidates should have minimum literacy to read and write either Malayalam, Tamil or Kannada and that they should be able to paint alphabets and numbers and also to mix colours with adequate proficiency. In addition to this, the candidates are seen required to have a minimum of five years' experience as a painter. 3. The PSC initially brought out Exhibit P2 provisional list and called the candidates, included therein, for verification of their original documents. Subsequently, Exhibit P3 addendum notification was brought out, including certain persons whose register numbers were not shown in the probability list published earlier. The ranked list for the post of Painter Grade-II (state wide) was thereafter published as per Exhibit P4, wherein, according to the petitioners, certain candidates who belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) communities have been included even though they did not have the five years' experience as was required in Exhibit P1. The petitioners allege that, therefore, Exhibit P4 is vitiated and bad in law. 4. They have also mounted a challenge against Exhibit P5 circular, which is one issued by the Government of Kerala authorising the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Undertakings to review the experience, prescribed as being one of the qualifications for recruitment, to make it not applicable to the case of SC/ST candidates. The petitioners impugn this circular obviously because it was based on this that the PSC has made inclusion of inexperienced candidates in Exhibit P4 from among the candidates belonging to SC/St communities. 5. I have heard Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the third respondent. 6. 5. I have heard Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the third respondent. 6. The pleadings on record would show that the third respondent has been impleaded by the petitioners in a representative capacity and that in I.A.No.8886/2015 the petitioners had sought for permission to cause a publication to be made in a newspaper so as to complete the process of service of notice to all candidates who may be affected by the orders in this case by representation generally and that it was so ordered by this Court. The petitioners appears to have taken recourse to this method for service of notice because, according to them, there are several candidates in Exhibit P4 rank list who are not determinable and that, therefore, it was only possible for them to take out a public notice by newspaper publication in order to serve notice on all those people whose interests would be affected by any proceedings in this writ petition. 7. This writ petition contains several assertions and contentions. Some of them are in the realm of facts and some of them are in the domain of law. But most of the issues presented are virtually mixed questions of facts and law and therefore, I will have to be very circumspect while deciding and concluding upon such issues. 8. The first issue that the petitioners raise is that the PSC could not have included candidates belonging to from the SC/ST communities in the main list by relaxing the mandatory and imperative qualifications prescribed in Exhibit P1 notification, under the umbra of Exhibit P5 circular. Exhibit P5 circular appears to instruct the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Undertakings to review the relevant special rules and executive orders, in which experience has been prescribed as one of the qualifications, with a view to provide that 'such experience qualification' will not be applicable in the case of SC/ST candidates and the Public Sector Undertakings were further directed therein to prepare appropriate schemes to give effective training to such unqualified candidates. The petitioners assert that Exhibit P5 is not an affirmative or imperative instruction to the PSC to relax the qualifications in Exhibit P1. The petitioners assert that Exhibit P5 is not an affirmative or imperative instruction to the PSC to relax the qualifications in Exhibit P1. They maintain that Exhibit P5 is only an instruction to the heads of the Public Sector Undertakings, under which they were given the liberty to make relaxation in qualifications in appropriate proceedings. The petitioners avouch that the KSRTC did not make any such orders, consequent to Exhibit P5, relaxing the qualifications and that therefore, the PSC could not have unilaterally invoked what is stated in Exhibit P5 for the purpose of offering relaxation in qualifications, even to candidates belonging to SC/ST communities. 9. I find substantial force in what the petitioners are contending for several reasons. For the first, Exhibit P1 notification provided ineluctably that five years' experience shall also be a qualification. It did not provide for any exemption even for the candidates belonging to SC/ST communities. In the absence of any such specific exemption, it will be difficult to even countenance that they have the power to unilaterally cause relaxation after the process is over, taking refuge under Exhibit P5 circular. For the second, Exhibit P5 circular was not intended to the PSC. It was intended to the Public Sector Undertakings giving them liberty to cause relaxation if they so require. For the third, there is nothing on record to show that the KSRTC had, pursuant to Exhibit P5, sought that qualifications be relaxed even for the candidates belong to SC/ST communities. In such factual scenario, it becomes virtually irrefragable that the inclusion of unqualified persons, even from among the SC/ST communities in Exhibit P4 would not obtain the sanction of law. 10. That having been said, I am now drawn to decide what is the nature of relief that the petitioners can be granted. I am afraid that some of the reliefs that the petitioners have asked for cannot be considered by this Court for reasons that I will presently say. 11. The petitioners have approached this Court nearly a year and three months after the date on which Exhibit P4 rank list was published. As per the provisions of the KS & SSR, if the petitioners had approached the PSC within a period of one year making their complaint against inclusion of such candidates, it would have been certainly incumbent upon the PSC to have considered such complaints and made rectifications, if required. As per the provisions of the KS & SSR, if the petitioners had approached the PSC within a period of one year making their complaint against inclusion of such candidates, it would have been certainly incumbent upon the PSC to have considered such complaints and made rectifications, if required. The petitioners have, of course, offered an explication in their pleadings that they were unable to come to this Court earlier because they did not get sufficient information regarding the number and the identity of the unqualified candidates who are allegedly included in Exhibit P4. However, I do not think that it would be sufficient for the petitioners to merely plead this because I see from the averments in the writ petition that they are conspicuously silent as to when they had received such information or that they had made any specific attempt to obtain such information within one year of the publication of the rank list. In the absence of such specific pleadings, I am unable to approbate the submission of the petitioners that they were unable to come to this Court on account of paucity of information at their hands. 12. The second obstacle for the petitioners that comes to my mind is that there are several persons who are included in Exhibit P4 who are alleged to be not qualified and these are allegedly candidates belonging to SC/ST communities. I am certain that any order that I issue in this judgment in favour of the petitioners, would obviously go to the detriment to such individual candidates. Since they are already in service and they are certainly determinate in number and identity, it would be grossly unjustified and even impermissible for this Court, going by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siraj v. High Court of Kerala (2006 (2) KLT 923 (SC)), to issue any order to their detriment merely by causing a public notice being published with the third respondent alone on the party array, albeit, in a representative capacity. I say this for one added reason and that is that the third petitioner, who has been impleaded, is not an unqualified person. He is represented by a counsel before this Court and he has filed pleadings to show that he, in fact, has five years of experience and that his inclusion was legitimate. I say this for one added reason and that is that the third petitioner, who has been impleaded, is not an unqualified person. He is represented by a counsel before this Court and he has filed pleadings to show that he, in fact, has five years of experience and that his inclusion was legitimate. When the third respondent is not a person who belongs to the category of unqualified persons who are allegedly included in Exhibit P4, his presence in these proceedings would not, in my view, be sufficient representation for all other candidates who are said to be not qualified even though a paper publication has been properly done by the petitioners. In any event of the matter going by the ratio of Siraj's case (supra), since the alleged unqualified candidates who are included in Exhibit P4 are determinate and identifiable, I do not intend to nor will I be forensically justified in making any order to their detriment with none of them being on the party array. 13. That brings me to consider as to what manner of relief that can now be granted to the petitioners in the light of the limitations in exercise of jurisdiction as noticed above. I have already found that the PSC was wrong in having unilaterally taken upon themselves that the mandate of Exhibit P5 is that candidates of SC/ST communities be included in Exhibit P4, in relaxation of the requisite qualification. It is probable that had such candidates been not included, the petitioners would obtain a legitimate opportunity of being appointed under a valid advice. 14. However, the difficulty that I see for the petitioners now is because the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC says that there are no more vacancies. I also notice that the ranked list is due to expire in a day or two. 15. Therefore, I have given a substantial thought as to how the petitioners can be granted relief equitably so that their legitimate claim for being appointed may not be frustrated on account of the irregular action of the PSC in having adopted Exhibit P5 and accommodating ineligible candidates. 15. Therefore, I have given a substantial thought as to how the petitioners can be granted relief equitably so that their legitimate claim for being appointed may not be frustrated on account of the irregular action of the PSC in having adopted Exhibit P5 and accommodating ineligible candidates. For this I have made a survey of all the precedents and I see that a learned Judge of this Court had, while dealing with a slightly different issue, in W.P.(C)No.12956/20104 relating to the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, having found that inclusion of certain people in the relevant ranked list was inappropriate, issued certain directions to re-work the appointments made from the rank list and to issue orders appointing the petitioners therein in supernumerary vacancies. In the case at hand, I see that the KSRTC's position is very clear that there are no further vacancies. Therefore, even if I adopt the mentation of the learned Single Judge in the case referred to above, I would not be able to order that the petitioners be accommodated in supernumerary posts. This is more so taking into account the precarious financial constrains of the KSRTC. 16. I, therefore, have to evolve a method under which the petitioners' claims can be equitably protected and preserved but without causing prejudice or detriment to the candidates already appointed or even to the KSRTC. After a lot of thought, I am of the view that the best method forward for the petitioners would be that they be given an option for being appointed in future vacancies as and when such vacancies arise in the service of the KSRTC. However, this would depend upon whether the petitioners or any of them would have been entitled eligible for being appointed, had the unqualified candidates among the SC/ST communities not been included in the main list of Exhibit P4. This is an issue that the PSC alone is competent to consider. The PSC has to re-work the rank list, without affecting the right of any one who has already been appointed under a valid advice, and to see whether the petitioners or any of them would have obtained a chance to have been issued with an advice memo, had the unqualified candidates not been included in the rank list. The PSC has to re-work the rank list, without affecting the right of any one who has already been appointed under a valid advice, and to see whether the petitioners or any of them would have obtained a chance to have been issued with an advice memo, had the unqualified candidates not been included in the rank list. Even if the petitioners or any of them are found to be eligible, I am not saying that any person who has already been appointed be disturbed, but that if the petitioners are so found, after an inquiry by the competent authority of the PSC, then they can certainly be considered for future vacancies as and when it arises. This, I think, would be the best possible manner in which I can reconcile the dialectical and rival claims of the parties in this case. 17. In the conspectus of the facts and reasons stated above and founded on my observations indicated herein, I direct the second respondent-PSC to look into Exhibit P4 and consider whether the petitioners or any of them could have been issued an advice memo had the unqualified candidates from the SC/ST communities not being included in the main list of Exhibit P4. If, after such an inquiry, the PSC finds that the petitioners or any of them were so eligible, then they shall notify that factum to the KSRTC who will thereafter stand obligated, by the terms of this judgment, to consider the appointment of such number of petitioners who are so found by the PSC to be eligible for being appointed to future vacancies, as and when it arises in the service of the KSRTC, notwithstanding that Exhibit P4 rank list has expired. 18. The exercise as afore directed shall be completed by the competent authority under the PSC not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered as above. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.