JUDGMENT : Chitambaresh, J. 1. Can the Kerala Public Service Commission ('the PSC' for short) be compelled by the issue of a writ of mandamus to extend the period of validity of a ranked list? 2. The enabling provision can be found in the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure ('the Rules' for short) which is extracted below for easy reference: “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 of 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. If 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 List.” (emphasis supplied) The statutory provision is only a source of power to the PSC to keep alive a ranked list which is due to expire on certain contingencies and is not coupled with any mandatory duty to so exercise it on every occasion. 3. The PSC by its decision dated 8.4.2019 rejected the request of the petitioners for extending the validity of the ranked list for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Economics which was to expire on 30.5.2019. The said decision is challenged by the petitioners (who find a place in the ranked list) pointing out that the power under the fifth proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules has not been exercised. The grounds highlighted by the petitioners are: i. The validity of the previous ranked list was extended thereby the vacancies which would have otherwise been filled up from this ranked list were exhausted; ii. The Government did not sanction sufficient number of posts despite the recommendation of the Director of Collegiate Education due to financial stringency; iii. The grounds highlighted by the petitioners are: i. The validity of the previous ranked list was extended thereby the vacancies which would have otherwise been filled up from this ranked list were exhausted; ii. The Government did not sanction sufficient number of posts despite the recommendation of the Director of Collegiate Education due to financial stringency; iii. The post-flood scenario in the State of Kerala followed by the Model Code of Conduct preceding the general election impeded steps for fresh appointment to the post. The above conditions even if it been in existence cannot compel the PSC which is an autonomous constitutional body to extend the period of validity of the ranked list merely for the reason that there exists a power. 4. The preparation of ranked lists by the PSC is an ongoing process from which ensuing vacancies can be filled up and mere empanelment of the petitioners in a ranked list does not give an indefeasible right. The PSC cannot be faulted with if it decides that the ensuing vacancies could be filled up from the ranked lists being drawn up in succession to give opportunity for freshers. The PSC is well within its rights in deciding not to extend the validity of a ranked list notwithstanding the recommendation of the Government if there are justifiable reasons. A case for interference with the decision of the PSC may perhaps arise if different yardsticks are adopted in extending the validity of several ranked lists covering the same period. The judgment in O.P.(KAT) No.323/2017(FB) and Gopakumar N. and others v. State of Kerala and another [2017 KHC 544] deal with such a situation and are distinguishable. It is true that the petitioners had moved the Tribunal earlier even before the expiry of the ranked list consequent to which the PSC took the impugned decision. But the validity of the ranked list had already expired on 30.5.2019 even before the present original application was filed on 10.7.2019 to which life cannot be infused later. The discretionary power available to the PSC to keep alive a ranked list under the Rules cannot at any rate be exercised after its expiry {see Thulaseedharan v. KPSC [ 2007(3) KLT 19 (SC)]}. The order of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to direct the PSC to extend the validity of the ranked list calls for no interference in this original petition. The order of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to direct the PSC to extend the validity of the ranked list calls for no interference in this original petition. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.