JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The inexorable desire, unceasing hope and hortative expectation of aspirants to various posts in public services under the Government of Kerala is the soul of all these proceedings. 2. We are herein dealing jointly with five writ appeals impugning the judgments of a learned Single Judge of this Court and eleven other original petitions impugning the orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for brevity). All the writ appeals and original petitions have been filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), save W.A.No.1865/2017, which has been filed by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.18673/2017. Since the foundations of all the assertions and averments in these appeals and original petitions are analogous, if not identical, to each other, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all these matters taken together by this judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, we treat W.A.No.1757/2017 as the lead case and unless otherwise specified, all references to the parties and documents in this judgment will be as arrayed and shown in the said writ appeal. 3. The common cause shown by the various party respondents in the appeals and original petitions and the appellants in W.A.No.1865/2017, who will hereafter be referred collectively as petitioners/applicants for convenience, is against the alleged selective extension of the rank lists prepared by the PSC, to the various posts in various services in Government of Kerala, through its order, which was called into question by them before the learned Single Judge and the learned Tribunal, while denying such benefits to the rank lists in which they are included. The rank lists in which the various petitioners/applicants are included, all came into effect some time in the year 2013 and were all normally to expire in the year 2016. We notice that except in three cases, namely O.P. (CAT)Nos.335/2017, 367/2017 and 403/2017, the rank lists expired after June 2016. As regards the rank lists in aforementioned three original petitions are concerned, it expired prior to June 2016, but admittedly were extended by the PSC for a further period of six months thereafter. In effect, therefore, all the rank lists involved in these cases, save an exception in the case of W.A.No.1865/2017, to which we will advert later, expired some time during the period from 01.06.2016 to 30.12.2016. 4. In effect, therefore, all the rank lists involved in these cases, save an exception in the case of W.A.No.1865/2017, to which we will advert later, expired some time during the period from 01.06.2016 to 30.12.2016. 4. While the rank lists were thus poised, the Government made a recommendation to the PSC on 23.06.2016, requesting them to consider extension of all rank lists which were in force as on 30.06.2016 and which were stated to expire on 30.12.2016, for a further period of six months. This recommendation has not been placed on record in any of these matters, but we see that the request of the Government, based on such recommendation, was accepted by the PSC and that an order bearing No. AV(2)4182/02/GW dated 29.06.2016, a copy of which has been appended to the writ petition as Exhibit P16, was issued extending all such rank lists for a further period up to 31.12.2016. The said order made it very clear that such extension would apply to all the rank lists, provided they did not exceed a total period of 4½ years from the date on which they were brought into effect. We are told by the learned counsel for the parties that this order took effect and that all the rank lists, in fact, enjoyed the benefit under the said order. 5. Subsequently, as the pleadings and materials on record would show, the Government made another recommendation dated 2912.2016, a copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit P17, requesting the PSC to consider extending the validity of all rank lists which were then current and the period of which had not been extended until then and were to expire on or before 31.03.2017, for a period up to 30.06.2017. We notice, from the pleadings that this recommendation was also accepted by the PSC and by an order bearing No. AV(2) 4182/02/GW dated 30.12.2016, a copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit P18, the PSC decided and thus resolved ' to keep alive the rank lists which are due to expire on the completion of the period of three years as on 31.12.2016 for a period of six months, i.e. up to 30.06.2017'. It was also decided by them that ' this extension will apply to all the ranked lists which are due to expire during the period from 31.12.106 to 29.06.2017, subject to the following conditions: 1. This extension will not be applicable to those ranked lists whose validity period have already been extended by virtue of the notification No. AV(2)4182/02/GW dated 29th June 2016 and expire on 31.12.2016. 2. The ranked list shall cease to be in force on the date on which a fresh ranked list for the same post is brought into force. 3. This shall not be applicable in respect of ranked lists for posts which involve training in the uniformed forces and ranked lists of candidates for admission to Training-Course that lead to automatic appointment to services or posts.' 6. A reading of Exhibit P18 and the afore-extracted portions of the decision of the PSC makes it obvious that the intention of the PSC was to grant extension to those rank lists which did not obtain the benefit of an extension earlier and which would have normally expired between the period from 31.12.2016 to 29.06.2017 only. This is explicit from the conditions attached to Exhibit P18, wherein it is specifically provided that the extension will not be applicable to those rank lists whose 'validity period' had already been extended by virtue of Exhibit P16 order aforementioned. 7. The various writ petitioners/applicants, who are the respondents in the appeals and the original petitions filed by the PSC and the appellants in W.A.No.1865/2017, assailed this condition of Exhibit P18 as being illegal, unlawful and in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the challenge against the conditions imposed in Exhibit P18 and found that the PSC had not acted in adherence to the powers vested with it under the proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure and quashed the impugned condition therein, thereby facilitating extension of the period of life of even those rank lists which had the benefit of an extension earlier until 30.06.2017. This judgment of the learned Single Judge was, thereafter, followed in other writ petitions as well as in several original applications filed before the learned Tribunal and the PSC has come up in appeal against all such judgments and orders in the above appeals and original petitions, while the petitioners in some of the writ petitions have filed W.A.No.1865/2017, being unsatisfied, since extension of the rank list, in which they were included, was granted by the learned Single Judge only for three more months. 9. We have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission, Sri. Saju John, Sri. P. Nandakumar, Sri. M.K. Thankappan, Sri. P. Benjamin Paul, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay and Sri. S. Mohammed Al Rafi, learned counsel appearing for various party respondents in the appeals and the original petitions and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents in all the above cases. 10. The fundamental issue involved in these cases is as to the powers of the PSC in extending a rank list. This power is couched in Rule 13 of the Rules and in particular, proviso 5 thereto. Since the consideration of this Court on this focal issue will involve an interpretation to the provisions contained in this proviso, we deem it appropriate to extract the same as under : “Provided further that if the Commission is satisfied of the existence of a period of general ban declared by the Government on the reporting of vacancies to the Public Service Commission or any other circumstances or of any extra-ordinary situation in which the reporting of vacancies by the appointing authorities is prevented or restricted or delayed, the Commission shall have the power to keep alive the ranked lists which are normally due to expire during the said period for such periods as may be decided by the Commission subject to a minimum period of three months or for such further periods but [not exceeding one and a half year in the aggregate]. It the Commission so decides it shall issue a notification, keeping alive the ranked lists in the above manner and shall advise candidates from such ranked lists to the vacancies reported during such extended period of validity of the ranked lists.” As is indubitable from the proviso afore-extracted, the power of the PSC to keep alive a rank list, which would have normally expired, is controlled by three conditions. (1) that there must have been a ban in reporting of vacancies by the Government at a particular period of time or (2) that there were any other circumstances or (3) an extraordinary situation during which the reporting of vacancies by the appointing authorities was prevented, restricted or delayed. Once such ban/circumstance/situation is presented before the PSC and the PSC is satisfied of the existence of such conditions, then it can assume to itself under the rigor of the proviso, the power to keep alive a rank list, which would have otherwise normally expired during the period of such ban/circumstance/ situation. As per this proviso, the rank list can be kept alive by the PSC for a minimum period of three months or for such further periods not exceeding 1½ years in the aggregate. This is the fountain head of all the powers of the PSC in keeping alive a rank list and they cannot do anything beyond this. 11. In the facts of this case, one thing becomes absolutely clear and that is that the Government had made a recommendation as early as on 23.06.2016 to keep alive the rank lists, presumably because it was aware that there was a ban/circumstance/situation during that period on account of which the appointing authorities were prevented or restricted or delayed from reporting vacancies. Since that recommendation was accepted by the PSC and it issued Exhibit P16 order, extending all rank lists until 31.12.2016, we can only infer that the PSC was also satisfied about the existence of such conditions, which statutorily warranted the exercise of powers by it under Proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules. 12. There is no contest on these issues and we are not required to labour much on these areas. 13. The controversy in these cases arose during the time when the extended periods of the rank lists in question were expire on 31.12.2016. 14. 12. There is no contest on these issues and we are not required to labour much on these areas. 13. The controversy in these cases arose during the time when the extended periods of the rank lists in question were expire on 31.12.2016. 14. As we have already indicated above, on 29.12.2016 the Government, by Exhibit P17 recommendation, requested the PSC to extend all those rank lists that were to normally expire on 31.12.2016 for a further period of six months with a rider that those rank lists which had already obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 order of one extension would not be included for the benefit of further extension. The PSC appears to have accepted the said recommendation and it issued Exhibit P18 order dated 30.12.2016, extending the period of all rank lists by a further period up to 30.06.2017 but excluding those which had already obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 order. 15. We are called upon to consider the validity of Exhibit P18 order excluding the rank lists in question herein, which had already obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 extension once. 16. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PSC opened his submissions by saying that the learned Single Judge had erred egregiously in striking down the conditions attached to Exhibit P18 even though the decision of the PSC, per se, which is recorded therein has not been found wrong or incorrect. According to him, the decision of the PSC, as is evident from Exhibit P18, is to keep alive the rank lists, which would have otherwise normally expired on completion of its three year period as on 31.12.2016, for a further period of six months, i.e. up to 30.06.2017. He says that, as per the said order, this extension would apply to all rank lists which are expiring during the period from 31.12.2016 to 29.06.2017 but is subject to certain very specific conditions. The conditions, as are extracted above, are sought to be justified by the learned Standing Counsel by saying that it is not desirable to keep the rank lists extended term after term even if earlier there was a requirement felt to extend it once and that it is up to the PSC to exercise its discretion under proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules one way or the other. 17. Sri. 17. Sri. Sasidharan predicates that once the rank lists have already obtained the benefit of an extension, because the PSC had invoked its jurisdiction to do so earlier under the proviso, it is not proper or justifiable for this Court or for the learned Tribunal to have directed that the lists be given a further lease of life by further extension. This, according to him, is completely impermissible going by the way in which the proviso itself is worded. The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that the discretion to extend the rank lists or otherwise is vested with the PSC and that this Court or the learned Tribunal would not obtain the power or the jurisdiction to interfere with such discretionary action, especially because such action has been taken by them bona-fide without any allegation of malafides even being pleaded or submitted by the petitioners/applicants in the original petitions or original applications. He adds that in any event of the matter, no imputation can be made against the PSC because they were only acting under the recommendations of the Government and he points out that Exhibit P16 order itself shows that the intention of the Government was to give an extension only to those rank lists which did not obtain the benefit of an extension earlier. 18. Sri. Sasisdharan, thereafter, impels an independent contention that the directions given by the leaned Single and by the learned Tribunal to keep alive the rank lists involved in these cases is completely impermissible since the rank lists had expired prior to the date on which the PSC had taken a decision as per Exhibit P18 to extend the rank lists. He contends that the law has been emphatically settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the PSC cannot extend the live of any rank list which has already expired. 19. Sri. P. Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in the appeals and the original petitions submits that the action of the PSC in having excluded the rank lists, which have obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 order of extension earlier, is discriminatory and falls foul of the statutory mandate. 19. Sri. P. Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for some of the respondents in the appeals and the original petitions submits that the action of the PSC in having excluded the rank lists, which have obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 order of extension earlier, is discriminatory and falls foul of the statutory mandate. According to him, proviso 5 to Rule 13 would not restrict the power of the PSC in any manner from extending the period of the rank lists for more than one time, subject only to the sole statutorily imposed caveat that such extensions cannot in the aggregate go beyond 1½ years. He says that since Exhibit P18 was issued by the PSC without taking this into account and presumably being under the impression that it cannot extend the period of the rank lists which it had already extended once, the said order is vitiated with technical malafides of non or improper application of mind and hence liable to be set aside. He thus justifies the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned herein as well as the orders of the learned Tribunal. As regards the contention of the PSC that it cannot extend the rank lists which have already expired, Sri. Nandakumar concedes that this is certainly the law but says that this contention of the PSC is irrelevant in the facts of their case because the rank lists in question was alive on 30.12.2016, when the PSC took the decision to extend the period, they having been extended until 31.12.206 through Exhibit P16 order. 20. Sri. Julian Xavier, learned counsel for the party respondents in W.A. No. 2369/2017, supported Sri. Nandakumar, but added that two of the documents that he has produced on record, namely Exhibits P5 and P6, would clearly indicate that there was a ban and restriction against reporting of vacancies for at least a period of one year during 2013 to 2016, thus enjoining the PSC from granting the benefit of extension again to the rank lists in question. 21. Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in O.P.(KAT)no.389/2017 vociferously defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the orders of the learned tribunal by saying that the PSC has completely misdirected itself while issuing Exhibit P18 order. He submitted in tune with the submissions of Sri. 21. Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in O.P.(KAT)no.389/2017 vociferously defended the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the orders of the learned tribunal by saying that the PSC has completely misdirected itself while issuing Exhibit P18 order. He submitted in tune with the submissions of Sri. Nandakumar and complementing it by asserting that the PSC should not place unnecessary fetters and restrictions in its own powers, when the Statute gave them larger powers, which according to him, this is extremely ironic and baffling. 22. Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in O.P.(KAT)No. 352/2017, has an interesting contention to add, over and above the common contentions of the petitioners/applicants noticed by us afore. He submits that as regards the post of Staff Nurses in various hospitals, the PSC had published one notification calling for applications in the year 2013. He says that, thereafter, pursuant to the process of selection, the PSC published different rank lists for each district in Kerala. He states that such rank lists were not brought into effect on the same day, but that some of them were brought into effect before 31.12.2013 and the others after 31.12.2013. Thus, axiomatically, while some of them expired before 31.12.2016, the others expired only after that date. The learned counsel asserts that because of the impugned conditions in Exhibit P18 order, those rank lists which expired in the last week of December 2016 would get the benefit of only Exhibit P16 extension, that too only for periods ranging from a month and less, whereas, those rank lists which expired in the first week of January 2014 would obtain the benefit of Exhibit P18 order solely because, they were brought into effect later and thus being in force till 30.12.2016. This, according to Sri. Sudheer, is illegal and grossly discriminatory even among the candidates who applied for the same post under the same notification. 23. We have considered the submissions of the various learned counsel, as has been indicted above. 24. This, according to Sri. Sudheer, is illegal and grossly discriminatory even among the candidates who applied for the same post under the same notification. 23. We have considered the submissions of the various learned counsel, as has been indicted above. 24. The manner in which proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the rules is framed would leave no doubt that the sin qua non for the PSC to exercise its discretionary power, to keep alive a rank list that would normally expire, is that at the time when the rank lists are to so expire, there exists a condition of a ban/other circumstances/extraordinary situation on account of which, the reporting of vacancies by the appointing authority is prevented or restricted or delayed. It is obviously being satisfied of such circumstances, as also been submitted by Sri. Julian Xavier as above, that the PSC took the decision to issue Exhibit P16 order extending the period of the rank list up to 31.12.2016. Obviously, the Government further felt that such circumstances/situation had not been altered even as on 29.12.2016, when it made its second recommendation to the PSC, because otherwise that recommendation was completely unnecessary. It would, therefore, inferentially mean that even as on 29.12.2016, the factum of there being a ban/circumstance/situation which prevented or delayed or restricted the reporting of vacancies by the various appointing authorities continued to prevail and it is obviously, therefore, that the PSC took the decision, as per Exhibit P18, to extend the rank lists until 30.06.2017. 25. The concomitant question, therefore, in this backdrop is whether, when such compelling circumstances were found to be prevalent, even to the satisfaction of the PSC, as on 30.12.2016, when it took Exhibit P18 decision to extend the rank lists, was it justified on their part to exclude those rank lists which had been given the benefit of an earlier extension, through Exhibit P16, merely because they had already obtained such benefit once. We are unable to see any restriction in proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules which would impede the PSC from granting extension to rank lists more than once because the word used in the said proviso is that it has the power to extend it for such period or for such further periods with a caveat that such extension shall not be more than 1½ years in aggregate. The word 'aggregate' has been consciously used by the framers and it can only mean that the periods of extensions will have to be taken as a whole to determine whether it would cross the period of 1½ years. 26. That said, we are cognizant that the learned Standing Counsel has a specific contention that the power of the PSC can be exercised only in the case of a rank list which is normally expire during the period of a ban/circumstance/situation against reporting of vacancies. According to him, the rank lists which had obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 order are not 'normally expiring' on 31.12.2016 and therefore, that the decision to exclude them from the purview of Exhibit P18 order was completely justified. This submission may seem slightly attractive at first glance but on a more expansive look at the way proviso 5 to Rule 13 is written, it would make it obvious that the word normally used therein is only to denote the invocation of the power by the PSC at the first instance. This is to say that the PSC would get the power to extend the rank lists for the first time only if such rank lists normally expire during the period in which an extraordinary situation/circumstance/ban is in prevalence. The word 'normally' has not been used with respect to the power of the PSC to cause further extensions and the word 'aggregate', as we have already said above, would then qualify and bridle the power of the PSC to cause such extensions beyond a period of 1½ years. Viewed from that perspective, the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the rank lists in question, which had obtained the benefit of Exhibit P16 order of extension earlier, cannot be thereafter seen to be 'normally expiring' during the period of a ban would lose its sheen totally. We, therefore, cannot accede to such submissions and we are of the view that the PSC is not required to manacle its powers or discretion under proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules in such fashion. 27. We, therefore, cannot accede to such submissions and we are of the view that the PSC is not required to manacle its powers or discretion under proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules in such fashion. 27. The learned Standing Counsel thereafter relied upon the judgment in Thulaseedharan v. K.P.S.C. (2007 (3) KLT 19 (SC)) to drive home the point that a list which has already expired cannot be revived and resuscitated by the PSC and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the said judgment castigated them for having done that in the past. We are bound by this judgment and, in any case, we are in complete affirmation and concurrence with the views expressed by their Lordships therein. The view of their Lordships, as is explicit from paragraph 11 of the said judgment, is that the PSC does not have the power, while acting under proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules, to extend a rank list which has already expired. Their Lordships made it very clear that if the rank list had expired as on the date on which the PSC took a decision to extend it, the PSC would be completely stripped of their powers under the said proviso. 28. In the facts of the cases at hand, the rank lists were initially extended until 31.12.2016. The recommendation of the Government to extend it further was made on 29.12.2016. The PSC thereafter issued Exhibit P18 order on 30.12.2016, thus indicating ineluctably that the decision was taken by them prior to 31.12.2016, being the date on which the rank lists would have expired. In such view of the matter, the ratio of Thulaseedharan (supra) would, in fact, apply in its full force to the benefit of the various aspirants to the posts since the decision taken by the PSC to extend the rank lists was taken even when the rank lists, involved in these cases, were alive or current. We, therefore, fail to understand how this citation, in the background of the particular facts of this case, would aid or assist the PSC in their challenge to the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge and the orders of the learned Tribunal. 29. We, therefore, fail to understand how this citation, in the background of the particular facts of this case, would aid or assist the PSC in their challenge to the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge and the orders of the learned Tribunal. 29. The learned Standing Counsel thereafter relied upon the judgments in Sreekantan Nair v. Muraleesharan Nair (1991 (2) KLT SN 4) and Sarija J.S. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others ( 2017 (1) KHC 576 (DB)) to thrust forth his contention that the rank lists cannot be allowed to be kept alive indefinitely and ad infinitum and that this would violate the rights granted to the persons who are waiting outside for employment in future. According to him, it is not desirable that a rank list should be extended time after time and that the benefits of such extension be given to the same set of candidates who had fortuitously found themselves included in the earlier rank lists. We are afraid that the ratio in Sreekantan Nair (supra) would not come to the aid of the PSC because in that judgment their Lordships were concerned about the issue as to the time frame during which the advices made by the PSC should remain in force even after the expiry of the period of the rank lists. Their Lordships concluded, as is indubitable from the said judgment, that the advices can be allowed to remain only for a period of about two years after the expiry of the rank lists. The learned Standing Counsel says that he did not cite this judgment as if the facts of these cases are analogous to the facts noticed in that judgment. According to him, he was only putting forth the same principles to support his contention that the rank lists cannot be allowed to remain ad infinitum in future. We are certainly in affirmation of this submission of the learned Standing Counsel and one cannot have any quarrel with that. However, the question herein is not whether a rank list should not be allowed to continue ad infinitum, being without any manacled period of time, but whether the PSC was right in extending certain rank lists while denying such benefit to the others merely because the latter group of rank lists had got the benefit of extension once before. However, the question herein is not whether a rank list should not be allowed to continue ad infinitum, being without any manacled period of time, but whether the PSC was right in extending certain rank lists while denying such benefit to the others merely because the latter group of rank lists had got the benefit of extension once before. The ratio in Sreekantan Nair (supra), therefore, would not apply to the facts of these cases at all. 30. As regards the judgment of a Bench of this Court in Sarija J.S. (supra), in which one among us (Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon) was a member, is concerned, the issue was whether the PSC is entitled to prepare a new rank list even before the expiry of the period of one year of the existing rank list by inviting applications from prospective aspirants. The legal issue in question therein was regarding the powers of the PSC under proviso 3 to Rule 13 of the Rules and the conclusions of this Court, of course, were that the challenge of the petitioners therein would have to fail and that the PSC is so entitled and authorised under the provisions of that proviso. The provisions of proviso 3 cannot be immediately applied ipso facto to the provisions of proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules. Proviso 5 relates to the extension or keeping alive the rank list by the PSC on certain specific conditions. It is completely different from the power that it can exercise under proviso 3 to Rule 13 and is not in any manner circumscribed or burled by the provisions of proviso 3 to Rule 13. It has to act independently under proviso 5 and only after it is satisfied that the conditions stipulated therein are available, can it pass an order extending the period of the rank list. 31. The learned Standing Counsel at this time submits that the only reason why he relied on Sarija J.S. (supra) is because this Court has declared in paragraph 19 of the judgment that by the time a new rank list is prepared several other candidates would have got qualified and several others would have been over aged and that if the PSC had taken steps to conduct an annual selection inviting applications based on the given qualifications/norms, then it would have been prudent and not a colourable exercise of power. He also says that the said judgment has legitimised the submission of the PSC that there can be no legitimate expectation for any person who is included in a rank list. These contentions, per se, certainly are justified and legally irreproachable and we do not think that there would be any cause for us to hold otherwise, because the PSC is entitled to conduct an annual selection, which may also be prudent for them to do, all such matters being for them to consider and act upon and it would not be within the province of this Court to intervene in such processes in any manner whatsoever. However, the concern here is not with respect to the annual process but whether the original rank list can be allowed to be kept alive, especially because no new rank list has been brought into effect. The learned Standing Counsel's submission, we certainly understand, is that by keeping alive a rank list the requirement of having fresh lists with new persons in it would be jeopardised. However, we must notice that this is not a case where the PSC has brought out a new rank list and then declined discretion to extend the existing rank lists but that it has selectively extended certain rank lists by denying such benefit to certain others. Therefore, the observation in Sarija J.S (supra) and the conclusions therein would not, in any manner, apply to the facts of these cases. 32. Having thus dealt with the contentions of the PSC, we are alert that the contra-asseveration of the various learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants, is that Exhibit P18 has been issued by the PSC without any application of mind and in a colourful exercise of power. The foundational footing of this submission is that even though proviso 5 to Rule 13 of the Rules mandates that the PSC can keep alive a rank list for a minimum period of three months up to a maximum of 1½ years in aggregate, what it has de facto done through Exhibit P16 order is to grant an extension up to a specified period, namely 31.12.2016 without taking into account whether the rank lists involved would get the benefit of the mandatory minimum of three months extension. For instance, some of the learned counsel points out that the rank list involved in O.P.(KAT)No.326/2017 was to expire only on 29.12.2016 and that thus, through Exhibit P16, it got only one day's extension. However, thereafter, for the sole reason that the said rank list had obtained an extension once, it was denied the benefit of Exhibit P18 extension. Similarly, as again shown to us, the rank lists involved in O.P.(KAT)Nos.332/2017, 352/2017 and 385/2017 got extension through Exhibit P16 only for one month eighteen days, one month twenty days and one day respectively and the learned counsel for the party respondents fervently contend that the action of the PSC in thereafter denying even such rank lists a further extension through Exhibit P18 merely because it had obtained the benefit of an earlier extension is farcical and completely devoid of any reasonable basis. 33. After considering the rather peculiar and singular facts and situations involved in these cases, we fail to understand how the Government or the PSC have classified the rank lists into two separate categories. One category of rank lists, in which the petitioners/applicants are involved, would have normally expired during the period from 30.06.2016 to 31.12.2016. The second category of rank lists are those which would have expired between 31.12.2016 and 30.06.2017. We cannot find any intelligible differentia in support of this classification and cannot comprehend any rational nexus to any reasonable objective that is sought to be achieved from the manner in which the PSC has proceeded. The total absence of any differential in such classification also become illustrated from the instances printed out by Sri. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in O.P.(KAT)No.352/2017, recorded by us in paragraph 32 above. As we have seen therein, the rank lists which were created under one notification, however, are treated differentially, through Exhibit P18 order, merely because some among such lists were given effect to prior to 31.12.2013, while the others after that date. This fortuitous event gave some lists added advantage over the others though the posts which they seek to fill up are the same and the notifications under which all of them were given parturition is one and the same. 34. This fortuitous event gave some lists added advantage over the others though the posts which they seek to fill up are the same and the notifications under which all of them were given parturition is one and the same. 34. Even though the first category of rank lists were extended once, the fact remains that the Government felt, as is evident from Exhibit P17 recommendation, that the extenuating circumstances, which would statutorily require a further extension of all rank lists, namely, the prevalence of a ban/circumstance/situation that impeaded reporting of the vacancies by the appointing authorities was available even as on 29.12.2016. We, therefore, fail to fathom why the first set of rank lists was picked out by the PSC and denied the benefit granted to the others in Exhibit P18 order. Viewed from that perspective, it is obvious that the conditions imposed in Exhibit P18 and the decision taken therein by the PSC to exclude such rank lists cannot find favour in law and cannot brook sustenance in forensic evaluation. 35. Though we have considered the cases in common as above, as regards W.A.No.1865/2017 is concerned, we would require to record a few words specifically with respect to it because the facts contained therein are slightly different from the others. In this case, the rank list was brought into effect on 15.06.2014 and it was to expire only on 14.06.2017. Therefore, even if the benefit of Exhibit P18 extension is granted to this rank list, it would get the benefit only for a period of 14 or 15 days. Sri.Saju John, learned counsel appearing for the appellants says that this is wholly arbitrary because, going by provisions to proviso 3 to Rule 15 of the Rules, the extension to be given to a rank list must be a minimum of three months. The learned Single Judge appears to have been accepted this contention and to have allowed W.P.(C)No.18763/2017, granting a further extension of three months to the said rank list. We notice that the PSC has also filed W.A.No.1928/2017 against the very same judgment, wherein their contention is that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting such an extension. 36. We have considered the dialectical submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and Sri. Saju John appearing for the appellants in this case. We notice that the PSC has also filed W.A.No.1928/2017 against the very same judgment, wherein their contention is that the learned Single Judge has erred in granting such an extension. 36. We have considered the dialectical submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and Sri. Saju John appearing for the appellants in this case. We think that since all the rank lists in Kerala have been extended only until 30.06.2017 though Exhibit P18 and further, since on account of our observations herein and the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and the learned Tribunal in the judgments and orders impugned before us, the rank lists which had obtained the first benefit of extension would also stand extended only until 30.06.2017, it would not be proper on our part, even assuming that the proviso 5 to Rule 13 speaks otherwise, to grant one rank list alone a singular benefit which will not be available to any others. For such reason, we deem it appropriate to vacate that direction of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No. 18673/2017, to the extent to which benefit is granted to the rank list involved therein for an extension of three months beyond 30.06.2017. Consequently, W.A.No.1928/2017 filed by the PSC would also stand allowed to that extent. In the summary of all that we have seen and recorded above, we dismiss all other writ appeals and the original petitions confirming the conclusions of the learned Single Judge and that of the learned Tribunal which had followed the direction of the learned Single Judge and consequently concurring with the declaration granted in these cases that the rank lists involved therein would stand extended until 30.06.2017.