JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. 'Relinquishment' means to give up a claim by a person lawfully entitled to it. But relinquishment in public employment is hedged in by conditions. One has to exercise that right even before his turn comes. Then only it will benefit the candidate in waiting. 2. The case of the respondent is rested on Annexure A6 appointment chart of Lower Division Typists which indicated the date of receipt of the reporting of the vacancies from 21.4.2016 to 30.8.2016. No further vacancies were reported before the expiry of the ranked list and the chart indicated that the candidates -14 in number -were advised for appointment on 9.9.2016. The respondent contends that she should have been advised for appointment by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) in view of the relinquishment by Sl.No.7 - Mahesh A. 3. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) on motion made by the respondent interalia-observed that a composite advice memo has been issued by the PSC for the vacancies reported over a period of time. And it is possible to accommodate the respondent against any other vacancy which was reported to the PSC after the receipt of the relinquishment by Mahesh A. The Tribunal has by Ext.P3 order directed the PSC to accommodate the 13 candidates as first amongst the vacancies and to accommodate the respondent as the last therein. 4. The PSC challenges the order on the ground that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjust the candidates to the vacancies without reference to the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (Rules). The manner of relinquishment of a claim by a candidate advised by the PSC has been spelt out in Rule 18(ii) of the Rules which has been overlooked by the Tribunal. The PSC adds that the respondent cannot be accommodated by virtue of the relinquishment of the claim by Mahesh A. which was after the date of receipt of requisition for advice. 5. We heard Mr. P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs Shameena Salahudeen, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 6. The PSC adds that the respondent cannot be accommodated by virtue of the relinquishment of the claim by Mahesh A. which was after the date of receipt of requisition for advice. 5. We heard Mr. P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs Shameena Salahudeen, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. 6. Rule 18(ii) of the Rules is as under: “(ii) Any candidate whose name has been included in a ranked list prepared by the Commission may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing, giving his/her full address and signature, duly attested by a Gazetted Officer of State/Central Government with signature, name, designation and office seal, on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice based on which he/she is to be advised. The Commission shall thereupon remove his/her name from the ranked list and advise another candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the ranked list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission.” (emphasis supplied) The respondent who is Rank No.212 belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community stakes claim on the premise that Mahesh A. who is Rank No.192 of the same community has relinquished his claim for appointment. But the letter of relinquishment dated 10.8.2016 was received by the PSC on 16.8.2016 much after 6.6.2016 which was the date of receipt of requisition for advice. The requisition was to advise a candidate to the vacancy reported from the Labour Department on 31.5.2016 based on which Mahesh A. was advised for appointment on 9.9.2016. The relinquishment in the instant case cannot be of any avail to the respondent inasmuch as the same was received by the PSC well after the date of receipt of requisition for advice. 7. Rule 18(ii) of the Rules was amended as above by notification dated 29.3.2005 by publication in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.665 with an avowed object to prevent bartering of candidature. Some of those in the ranked list advised by the PSC may not be eager to accept the appointment and hence would be willing to relinquish their claim on receiving consideration. This is precisely to avert that mischief has Rule 18(ii) of the Rules been introduced insisting on relinquishment on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice. Some of those in the ranked list advised by the PSC may not be eager to accept the appointment and hence would be willing to relinquish their claim on receiving consideration. This is precisely to avert that mischief has Rule 18(ii) of the Rules been introduced insisting on relinquishment on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice. That will ensure that the relinquishment by the candidate is on his own volition and bonafide in order to give way for another candidate to be advised by the PSC according to rules. The amendment made earlier to Rule 18(ii) of the Rules has been taken judicial notice of in Balakrishnan v. Public Service Commission [ 1994(1) KLT 490 (DB)]. The contention that the respondent should have been advised for appointment by the PSC in the wake of the relinquishment of the claim by Mahesh A. cannot be countenanced in law. 8. The Tribunal has in Ext.P3 order impugned observed as follows: “It is also to be noted that even if on the date of receipt of the relinquishment of Sri.Mahesh, i.e, 16.8.2016, there was already a requisition from the Labour Department to the vacancy to which Sri.Mahesh was advised, other vacancies had also been reported thereafter and advices were made as against those vacancies as well by composite advice memo issued on 9.9.2016. Therefore, in respect of a candidate who was otherwise eligible and was the next in the line, it was open to the Public Service Commission to accommodate the above candidate against any other vacancy which had been reported after the receipt of the relinquishment. This, it is noted, would not affect any other candidates who have been advised since altogether 13 candidates were advised on 9.9.2016 and it is with regard to one of them that relinquishment had been submitted.” No such power vests in the Tribunal to adjust the 13 candidates as first in the vacancies and to accommodate the respondent as the last even if it does not affect the seniority of those in the appointment chart. The vacancy of Mahesh A. who was not willing to accept appointment would be treated as a Non Joining Duty vacancy which will be carried over to the next recruitment exercise. The vacancy of Mahesh A. who was not willing to accept appointment would be treated as a Non Joining Duty vacancy which will be carried over to the next recruitment exercise. The vacancies were last reported on 30.8.2016 before the expiry of the ranked list on 31.8.2016 and the turn of the respondent to be advised for appointment did not arise. We set aside Ext.P3 order and dismiss the original application filed by the respondent in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is allowed. No costs.