JUDGMENT : Ashok Menon, J. Three vacancies were notified vide Annexure A1 for recruitment to the post of Supporting Artist in Vocal for Kathakali in the Kerala Collegiate Education (Music Colleges) Department. The applicant in O.A.No.2387/2017 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was a candidate included in Annexure A2 ranked list coming under the open competition turn, published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short “the K.P.S.C.”), which came into effect from 08.05.2017. The first two posts in open competition, were allotted to the candidates ranked as Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The third post, being one reserved for Ezhava/Thiyya community, could not accommodate anyone, for want of suitable candidate. 2. The applicant would contend that the candidate ranked as No.2, being an Ezhava, should have been accommodated in the third vacancy and he being an open competition candidate should have been accommodated in the second place. 3. The K.P.S.C. did not agree with this and refused to intervene with the rotation as stipulated in Rules 14 to 17 and Annexure II to Part II of K.S. & S.S.R. on the ground that Sl.Nos.1 and 2, which were open competition turns were to be accommodated by candidates who had secured rank Nos.1 and 2. Though the second ranked person belonged to Thiyya community, he had secured more marks than the applicant and was therefore, accommodated at rank No.2 for the open competition. The fact that he belongs to Thiyya community is not a disqualification to be accommodated him in the vacancy for open competition. The third vacancy as per the roster available to candidates in Thiyya/Ezhava community could not be filled because of non-availability of other Thiyya/Ezhava candidates in the ranked list. The revising and recasting of advices with the intention to accommodate the applicant in rank No.2 is not possible as per the Rules. 4. It is further contended by the K.P.S.C. that the third vacancy notified as ‘No Candidate Available’ was subsequently filled up by an Ezhava candidate as per notification produced at Ext.P7. 5. The revising and recasting of advices with the intention to accommodate the applicant in rank No.2 is not possible as per the Rules. 4. It is further contended by the K.P.S.C. that the third vacancy notified as ‘No Candidate Available’ was subsequently filled up by an Ezhava candidate as per notification produced at Ext.P7. 5. The Tribunal however, took a view that considering the peculiar facts of the present case, and that such vacancies and posts rarely arise, the advice of the 3rd respondent was directed to be revised from MR I 3OC to MR I 2E and advice be issued to the applicant towards MR I 3OC turn and further directed that it shall not adversely affect the seniority of the 3rd respondent. 6. Aggrieved, the K.P.S.C. has filed this Original Petition challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. We heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the Standing Counsel appearing for the K.P.S.C., Sri.Antony Mukkath, Government Pleader and the Counsel appearing for the applicant and 4th respondent. 8. The main argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant is that the 3rd respondent was overaged as per the requirement of the notification and for that reason, he could not have been accommodated in the open competition vacancy. The 3rd respondent, being born on 15.05.1976 was overaged. As per Annexure A1 notification, the candidate should be born between 02.01.1977 to 01.01.1991. The 3rd respondent therefore could not have contested as an open competition candidate being overaged. Availing the benefit of age relaxation available to Ezhava candidates, he could only have been placed in the third slot reserved for Ezhava/Thiyya, and the applicant should have been placed in the slot available for open competition candidate. 9. Rule 14B of the General Rules prescribes that the claims of members of ST/SC and OBCs, shall also be considered for appointment to vacancies filled up on merit and where a candidate belonging to these candidates is selected on merit, the number of posts reserved for the said candidates shall not be in any way be effected. The purport of this rule is to ensure that if a candidate belonging to the reserved community is included in the general quota by virtue of his merit, he is entitled to be appointed along with the general candidates and his appointment shall not be adjusted against the reserved quota. 10. The purport of this rule is to ensure that if a candidate belonging to the reserved community is included in the general quota by virtue of his merit, he is entitled to be appointed along with the general candidates and his appointment shall not be adjusted against the reserved quota. 10. The Rule mandates that every cycle of 20 vacancies the candidates eligible to be selected on open competition basis, i.e., 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19, shall be selected first and candidates for the reservation turns, out of those available in the ranked list in the particular groups having regard to their ranks. The Rule further provides that in finalising the select list, any candidate of the same community selected in the open competition turns, if found to be below in the order of candidates selected from the same community on the basis of reservation, for the fixation of rank as per Rule 27 of the Rules, the candidate of the same community obtaining higher marks shall be interchanged with the candidates of the same community in the reservation turn for the purpose of ranking. The interchanging is permissible only among the same community candidates and not otherwise. 11. The Tribunal found that the procedure now adopted by the Commission, the second rank holder advised against MR I 3E and the third rank holder, who was MR I 3OC, otherwise eligible for, is left in the lurch and that the procedure adopted by the Commission would result in denial of appointment and therefore faulty and incorrect. 12. The second rank holder is advised to second turn to be filled up in accordance with law in the third open competition turn and the second turn is that of MR I 3OC and the turn which the applicant can claim is only open competition turn, since he is a merit candidate without any benefit of reservation. The calculation of the Tribunal is therefore faulty and erroneous. The finding of the Tribunal that the procedure adopted by the K.P.S.C. is cumbersome and that strict adherence to Rules 14 to 17 and the turn of appointment as provided in Annexure II of K.S. & S.S.R. is erroneous, cannot therefore be upheld. Rules are meant to be strictly followed by the Commission and in the instant case there are only three vacancies. Rules are meant to be strictly followed by the Commission and in the instant case there are only three vacancies. The second turn to be filled by open competition at the first instance and then by the reservation community and once the open competition merit candidates are filled up only the remaining vacancies are to be filled up by reservation candidates and the applicant would definitely not fit into that category. We do not find any error in the preparation of the advice list by the K.P.S.C. and the petition is therefore to be allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.(EKM)2387/2017 dated 05.04.2018 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.