JUDGMENT : It is perhaps relatively unknown -since the issues relating to it appear to be uncommon in courts-that Stamp Vendors in Kerala are categorised into three classes : 'Permanent', 'Temporary' and 'Special'. Interestingly, though all the three are entitled to deal with and vend stamp papers, they are vitally differentiated from each other -as per the specific statutory prescriptions - in their intricate character. 2. To state lucidly, a Permanent Stamp Vendor is one appointed without any attendant restrictions - either of time or period -under the provisions of the Kerala Manufacture and Sale of Stamp Rules, 1960 ('the Rules' for short); while a Temporary Stamp Vendor is one appointed under Rule 35(21) thereof for a specific period, when a Permanent Stamp Vendor avails leave for any purpose. As far as a Special Stamp Vendor is concerned, such appointment is made when a Permanent Stamp Vendor dies or is removed and such appointee is authorised only to sell and liquidate the stamp papers already procured by the deceased or removed Permanent Stamp Vendor, but not to purchase any new ones. 3. The adjudication of the aspects put forth by the petitioners in this case would require the afore distinctions to be carefully analysed. 4. The third petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the first petitioner. He claims that he is statutorily entitled to be appointed as a Permanent Stamp Vendor in the place of first petitioner, who is his Uncle, under the provisions of Rule 35(16) of the Rules. 5. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was appointed as a Permanent Stamp Vendor and that subsequently, when he got employment, he sought voluntary retirement, as per the provisions of Rule 35(16) of the Rules, consequent to which, his wife, the second petitioner, was appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor in his place. They say that, thereafter, when an attempt was made to remove the second petitioner, she obtained Exhibit P4 judgment from this Court, in which, noticing Rule 35(16) of the Rules, a learned single Judge ordered that she be allowed to continue as a Temporary Stamp Vendor until such time as a permanent appointment is made and that she be also given preference for such appointment, as mandated under the said Rule. 6. 6. The petitioner says that, thereafter, the second petitioner also obtained employment and that, thereupon, the third petitioner made a claim for being appointed as a Permanent Stamp Vendor in the vacancy of his Uncle -the first petitioner -through Exhibit P12 representation. He says that, subsequently, the third respondent issued Exhibit P18 order appointing the third petitioner as a 'Special Vendee' under the provisions of Rule 51 of the Rules. 7. The third petitioner, on the afore narrative, prays that a direction may be given to the third respondent to appoint him permanently under the provisions of Rule 35(16) of the Rules. 8. When this matter was taken up by this Court on 03.09.2019 for admission, an interim order was issued in the following manner: “The learned Senior Govt. Pleader will obtain instructions from the respondents. In the meanwhile, taking note of Exhibit P4 judgment dated 17.8.2011 in WP(C)Nos.2947 & 11713/2011, I order that until the next posting date the third petitioner will not be stopped from provisionally continuing as stamp vendor in the voluntary retirement vacancy of the first petitioner.” 9. Later, on the allegation that this order was not being complied with, the third petitioner moved Con.Case (C)No.1970/2019, which prompted the respondents to file I.A.No.1/2020 seeking clarification of the afore interim order. This application was heard by another learned Judge of this Court, but noticing that the interim order was issued by me, the matter has been placed for its disposal before this Bench. 10. It is in such circumstances that this matter was heard today, with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides. 11. The contention of the third petitioner, as voiced by the learned counsel Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, is that since he is the legal heir of the first petitioner, he is entitled to be appointed as a Permanent Stamp Vendor, as per the statutory preference available to him under Rule 35(16) of the Rules. He alleges that, however, instead of doing so, the third respondent has issued Exhibit P18 order appointing him only as a 'Special Vendee', which means that he is entitled to sell only the stamp papers procured by the second petitioner but not to obtain fresh ones. He alleges that, however, instead of doing so, the third respondent has issued Exhibit P18 order appointing him only as a 'Special Vendee', which means that he is entitled to sell only the stamp papers procured by the second petitioner but not to obtain fresh ones. The learned counsel relies substantially, if not fully, on the directions in Exhibit P4 judgment obtained by the second petitioner to assert that the third petitioner also be given the same benefit, so as to enable him to continue as a 'Temporary Vendor' entitled to sell fresh stamp papers as per the provisions of Rule 35(21), until such time as he is appointed permanently under Rule 35(16) of the Rules. He further alleges that in spite of the afore extracted interim order, the respondents have refused to issue fresh stamp papers to the third petitioner and consequently that, he is now incapacitated from functioning as a Stamp Vendor. 12. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri.Ranjith Thampan, instructed by Sri.C.M.Suresh Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader, commenced his arguments by saying that there are three categories of Stamp Vendors as per the Rules. He submits that first among them is a Permanent Stamp Vendor; while the other two are Temporary Stamp Vendor and Special Stamp Vendor respectively. He points out that as per Rule 35(16) of the Rules, when a Permanent Stamp Vendor seeks voluntary retirement, his/her legal heir will be given preference, subject to his/her qualification for being appointed as a Permanent Stamp Vendor. He then showed me that, as per Rule 35(21) of the Rules, when a Permanent Stamp Vendor takes leave, any other person whom he nominates, can be appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor for a specified period, entitled also to sell fresh stamp papers. He adds that, however, in the third circumstance, where the Permanent Stamp Vendor either dies or is removed, then his/her legal heir can be appointed as a Special Stamp Vendor, entitled to sell only the balance stamp papers already procured by the former. 13. He adds that, however, in the third circumstance, where the Permanent Stamp Vendor either dies or is removed, then his/her legal heir can be appointed as a Special Stamp Vendor, entitled to sell only the balance stamp papers already procured by the former. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that in the case at hand, though the third petitioner is not legally entitled to be appointed either as a Special Vendor or as a Temporary Vendor, the third respondent issued Exhibit P18 order, as a special case, appointing him as a Special Vendee when the second petitioner voluntarily gave up her preferential claim to be appointed under Rule 35(16) of the Rules, which she had staked on account of the voluntary retirement sought by her husband -the first petitioner and therefore, that he can only sell the balance stamp papers and cannot deal with fresh ones. 14. Sri.Ranjith Thampan further explains, taking me through the nuances of the afore three circumstances, that the third petitioner cannot, in any event, seek to be appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor, since, under Rule 35(21) of the Rules, it is only when a Permanent Stamp Vendor goes on leave can such appointment be made and that, as is evident from Exhibit P18, the third petitioner had been appointed so for a brief period when the second petitioner took leave. He completed his submissions by asserting that nevertheless the above, the third petitioner cannot claim to be a legal heir of the first petitioner, since, admittedly, he is only a nephew and that he has his own children, which fact has been suppressed in the writ petition. He thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed, adding that the Government does not propose to make any permanent appointment in the vacancy of the first petitioner and resultantly that, the third petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. 15. When I assess the afore submissions, it is ineluctable that primarily two issues are involved in this writ petition. The first is whether the third petitioner can be construed to be a legal heir of the first petitioner and the second being whether he is entitled to be appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor until such time as a permanent appointment under Rule 35(16) of the Rules is made. I must say that on both the afore issues, the third petitioner encounters certain problems. I must say that on both the afore issues, the third petitioner encounters certain problems. This is because, unless he is able to prove that he is the legal heir of the first petitioner, he cannot claim any right to be appointed under any of the applicable Rules, namely, Rules 35(16) or 35(21) or 51. Even if he is able to do so, it will be difficult for him to stake a claim to be a Temporary Stamp Vendor, since such appointment can be made only when the Permanent Stamp Vendor takes leave as per the stipulations in Rule 35(21) of the Rules and not otherwise. 16. This is apodictic from the manner in which the afore mentioned three Rules are endrafted and therefore, require to be closely seen, for which reason, they are reproduced as under: “35(16): In the case of vacancies arose consequent to voluntary retirement of a licensee before attaining the age of 55 years, his legal heir shall be eligible for getting preference in appointment, provided they possess all the qualifications prescribed by these rules. 35(21): Where a licensed stamp vendor enters on leave, the District Treasury Officer may issue a temporary license to the licensee's nominee, if the nominee is otherwise qualified to be appointed as a licensee for such period not exceeding six months obtaining a temporary registration fee of Rupees 500 (Rupees Five Hundred Only). 51: Licensed vendors to have a supply always ready.-Licensed vendors must maintain on hand a sufficient stock of such stamps as they are licensed to sell. If a licensed vendor who has purchased stamps on discount should die, or if his licence expires or be revoked, the Tahsildar may grant a special licence for a limited period to enable the vendor or his heirs and assignees to sell the balance of stock.” 17. The Rules afore are unmistakable that a person -who is the nominee of the Permanent Stamp Vendor-can seek appointment as a Temporary Vendor only if the latter takes leave and not in any other scenario. In contradistinction, when a Permanent Stamp Vendor voluntarily retires, his/her legal heir only obtains a right of being preferentially considered when the vacancy is filled up, but not of being immediately appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor. 18. In contradistinction, when a Permanent Stamp Vendor voluntarily retires, his/her legal heir only obtains a right of being preferentially considered when the vacancy is filled up, but not of being immediately appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor. 18. In the case at hand, it is admitted that the first petitioner had availed voluntary retirement and therefore, the only benefit that would be available to the third petitioner-even if he can establish himself to be the legal heir -is under Rule 35(16) of the Rules, which offers him only a preference for permanent appointment when the Government initiate process for such purpose. 19. Of course, the third petitioner may have to face a further impediment, since the Government now states that they have decided not to appoint anyone in the place of the first petitioner. 20. In such circumstances, it is clear that the third petitioner cannot pray that the third respondent be forthwith directed to appoint him as a Permanent Stamp Vendor under the provisions of Rule 35(16) of the Rules, since, as seen above, at the best he can only claim a preference in the process for such appointment, when it is initiated. Unfortunately, neither can he stake a claim to be appointed as a Temporary Stamp Vendor under Rule 35(16) of the Rules, either on the strength of Exhibit P4 judgment obtained by the second petitioner or otherwise, since this judgment operates only in-personam and since, concededly, the first petitioner had not taken leave but had voluntarily retired. 21. The above being said, as noticed above, the third petitioner has preferred Exhibit P12 representation, wherein he has asserted himself to be the legal heir of the first petitioner, entitled to preference in appointment as a Stamp Vendor. Admittedly, this representation is still pending consideration. 22. In such situation, I direct the third respondent to take up Exhibit P12 representation of the third petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; until which time, he will be entitled to continue as a Special Vendee under the sanction of Exhibit P18 order. 23. 23. It is further ordered that if the competent authority finds the third petitioner to be the legal heir of the first petitioner, then he will certainly be given the statutory preference, available under Rule 35(16) of the Rules, as and when the process for permanently filling up the said post is initiated and taken forward. This writ petition is thus ordered.