JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The empanelled conductors (who were overstaying beyond 180 days in violation of Rule 9(2) of Part II of KS and SSR) were directed to be relieved by this Court which was refused to be interfered with by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.410/2019. The illegality in allowing such empanelled conductors to cling on to the post by the KSRTC keeping the candidates in the ranked list of the PSC waiting has been highlighted in Antony Stejo and others v. State of Kerala 2019 (1) KHC 613 (DB) : 2019 (1) KLJ 956. The above dictum applies on all fours to the fact situation in the present case and the only difference is that the empanelled drivers are allowed to continue even after the expiry of 180 days illegally whereas Antony Stejo's case dealt with empanelled conductors. 2. We extract below paragraph 3 of the judgment in Antony Stejo's case (supra): “3. True it is that the KSRTC may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the above Rules temporarily to fill up a vacancy in a post immediately owing to an emergency Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of KS and SSR. However one of the provisos therein stipulates that a person so appointed to a post (other than teaching post and another) shall not be allowed to continue in such post for a period exceeding 180 days. Rule 9(2) of Part II of KS and SSR mandates that such a person shall not be allowed to continue in service in preference to a candidate advised by the PSC. One of the provisos to Rule 9(3) of Part II of KS and SSR is categoric that a person discharged from service after the admissible period shall not be re-appointed to the same post. The appointing authority can do so only when fresh candidates are not available for appointment through Employment Exchange which shall be made with the concurrence of the PSC. Rule 9(3)(iii) of Part II of KS and SSR is specific that a person appointed under this clause shall be replaced as soon as possible by an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules.” 3. Rule 9(3)(iii) of Part II of KS and SSR is specific that a person appointed under this clause shall be replaced as soon as possible by an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules.” 3. The expiry of the ranked list of the PSC dated 23.8.2012 is immaterial since it is conceded that 2455 vacancies in the post of drivers were reported by the KSRTC to the PSC much before the expiry of the ranked list on 31.12.2016 pursuant to the interim order dated 30.6.2015. The law in this regard is settled by the decision in Annie v. Commissioner, Chalakudy Municipality, 1983 KLJ 745 as approved by the Full Bench of this Court in Vimala Kumari v. State, 1994 (1) KLJ 773 . It is for the KSRTC to take a call as to whether the PSC should be requested to advise the candidates for the vacancies reported or to keep the vacancies unfilled in view of its financial position or a skewed bus to passenger ratio. It is entirely the discretion of the KSRTC whether to fill up the existing vacancies or not which has of course to be for valid and germane reasons as observed in KSRTC v. Akhilesh and others [Civil Appeal No.3346/2019]. But the empanelled drivers who are about 1565 in number cannot be permitted to overstay in the post illegally denying an opportunity to the KSRTC to request the PSC to advise the candidates for the vacancies already reported. 4. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are hence disposed of directing the KSRTC to relieve the empanelled drivers on or before 30.4.2019 taking note of the fact that a week's time is required to complete the exercise and the date of polling in Kerala is on 23.4.2019. We make it clear that the KSRTC is free to request the PSC to advise candidates from the ranked list for the vacancies already reported if it so desires and the appointment if any shall be in accordance with the seniority in advice. It is not as if the KSRTC is unaware of the law laid down by this Court repeatedly though a conscious attempt is made by them often to appease the trade unions by permitting empanelled employees to cling on. It is not as if the KSRTC is unaware of the law laid down by this Court repeatedly though a conscious attempt is made by them often to appease the trade unions by permitting empanelled employees to cling on. We however make it clear that the relieving of the empanelled drivers shall not affect their claim for regularisation if any pending before various forums in view of the submission of Mr. K.P.Rajeevan, Advocate representing them. We caution that the KSRTC shall not operate with empanelled drivers when those in the ranked list of the PSC are eager and willing to join duty if advised for appointment who have been kept on tenterhooks for long. The writ appeal and the writ petitions are disposed of.