JUDGMENT : T.R. RAVI, J. The 3rd and 8th petitioners in OA(Ekm)No.679 of 2017 have filed this original petition being aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.2019 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Ernakulam Bench in R.A.(EKM)No.15 of 2018 in O.A.(EKM) 679 of 2017. The petitioners along with respondents 9 to 16 in the Review Application, had filed the original application praying for directions to make appointments to the post of Lower Primary School Assistant in Ernakulam district. The petitioners had in response to the notification published on 30.12.2008 by the Public Service Commission (PSC for short), applied for the post and had participated in the written examination conducted on 12.09.2009. After completing the selection process, the PSC published the rank list on 20.04.2012. The said rank list expired on 19.10.2016. Annexure A1 in the original application is the rank list. The case of the applicants was that staff fixation was not being done for quite some time in the schools, resulting in several vacancies remaining unfilled. In the circumstances, the original application was filed seeking the following reliefs; “(i) Call for the records leading to issue Ans.A9 and set aside the same. (ii) Issue a direction to the second respondent to determine staff strength in the light of the decision reported in ILR 2016 (1) Ker 590 in the ratio of 1:30, being LP Schools. (iii) Issue a direction to the third respondent to appoint 27 vacancies of Head Teacher now holding by the Protected Teachers. (iv) Issue a direction to the third respondent to advice all the Assistant Educational Officers under his control to remove temporary hands on daily wage/protected Teachers and to appoint in that place from the rank list, to the extent of vacancy reported by Ans.A3. (v) Issue a direction to the third respondent to issue appointment orders as and when advice memos are received from the fourth respondent. (vi) Pass such other orders or direction which this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case” 2. Earlier, on 13.10.2016, the Tribunal had issued Annexure A3 interim order in another application O.A.(Ekm)No.1338 of 2016, whereby it was directed that 112 vacancies in the post of LPSA (Malayalam) should be reported, so as to reach the office of the PSC on or before 5 pm on 18.10.2016. Earlier, on 13.10.2016, the Tribunal had issued Annexure A3 interim order in another application O.A.(Ekm)No.1338 of 2016, whereby it was directed that 112 vacancies in the post of LPSA (Malayalam) should be reported, so as to reach the office of the PSC on or before 5 pm on 18.10.2016. There was a further direction to the PSC that, steps to advise eligible candidates should be taken only after getting further orders from the Tribunal. On 09.08.2018, the Tribunal disposed of the original application directing the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Education to report 25 vacancies to the PSC, in the proforma for reporting the substantive vacancies, with the date of occurrence of vacancies as the year 2016, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. There is also a further direction to the 4th respondent to take steps to advice 33 candidates in total, including the 8 NJD vacancies and the abovesaid 25 vacancies, by advising eligible candidates from Annexure A1 ranked list dated 20.04.2012. 3. Even though the cause title of the original petition would indicate that this petition is filed challenging the above said final order of the Tribunal, the petitioners are really not aggrieved by the said order. Their grievance is that the above said order was modified by Ext.P7 order dated 14.02.2019, whereby the direction to advise candidates to the 8 NJD vacancies was recalled. The order dated 14.02.2019 was issued pursuant to a review application filed by three persons who were not in the ranked list and a miscellaneous application filed as M.A.No.2547 of 2018, by the PSC seeking a clarification regarding the direction to advise candidates to the 8 NJD vacancies. The reason for the Public Service Commission to seek the above said modification was that the NJD vacancies arose consequent to failure of candidates advised as per advice memos dated 7.12.2016 and 13.2.2017 to join duty. Both the advice memos were after the expiry of the ranked list on 19.10.2016. The PSC contended that even though the vacancies against which the advice memos were already issued were vacancies which arose when the ranked list was alive, the NJD vacancies can be said to arise only after the expiry of the ranked list and hence, the expired ranked list cannot be utilised for filling up such vacancies. The PSC contended that even though the vacancies against which the advice memos were already issued were vacancies which arose when the ranked list was alive, the NJD vacancies can be said to arise only after the expiry of the ranked list and hence, the expired ranked list cannot be utilised for filling up such vacancies. The Tribunal accepted the above said contention and passed the above order dated 14.02.2019, recalling the direction issued in the final order regarding the NJD vacancies. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal and for a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to advise candidates for the 8 NJD vacancies. 4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since 112 vacancies have already been reported to the PSC, subject to further orders regarding advice, there were sufficient reported vacancies available to accommodate persons against the 8 NJD vacancies. The prayer is resisted by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC on the ground that the vacancies, even though they are NJD vacancies, they arose only after the expiry of the ranked list and hence the expired ranked list cannot be operated upon to fill up the said vacancies. We find considerable force in the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC. A Division Bench of this Court in Babu v. Public Service Commission reported in [ 1996 (1) KLT 349 ] had held that once an advice is issued, the vacancies stand extinguished and the non-joining duty vacancy can only be treated as a vacancy which arose on a subsequent date. The Court further held that if such date happens to be a date after the expiry of the ranked list, the expired list cannot be operated upon for filing up of that vacancy. A different view was taken in the decision by another Division Bench of this Court in Benoy v. Public Service Commission reported in [ 1997 (2) KLT 492 ]. In the said case the Division Bench sought to make a distinction between 'vacancy' and 'post' and held that supplementary list can be acted upon for filling up the NJD vacancies, even after the expiry of the main rank list. In the said case the Division Bench sought to make a distinction between 'vacancy' and 'post' and held that supplementary list can be acted upon for filling up the NJD vacancies, even after the expiry of the main rank list. The judgment in Benoy supra [1997 (2) KLT 494] was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Nair Service Society v. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission reported in [ 2003 (3) KLT 1126 ], wherein it was held that once the main list is exhausted or has expired, the supplementary list cannot survive of its own. A Full Bench of this Court has thereafter considered the very same issue in Unnikrishnan Nair G.S and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in [ 2019 (1) KLT 896 ]. In Para.76 and 77 of the said judgment, the Full Bench held thus; “76. Admittedly, these vacancies were reported only on 12.07.2016, even though the last advice made from the First Rank List was on 11.11.2015. No doubt, reporting of the NJD vacancies appears to have taken place after more than eight months. However, the question is whether these vacancies, which arose after the First Rank List expired as per the prescriptions under the first proviso to Rule 13, would still go to the petitioners and other candidates included in the said list. The reply to this question has to be emphatically to the negative, going by the large number of precedents in this area, including Babu (supra), Kerala Public Service Commission v. Shanil Kumar ( 2002 (1) KLT 604 ), Lalsudheer (supra), Sheeja P.R. (supra) and Nair Service Society (supra). The leit motiff of the ratio in all these judgments is that the PSC cannot advise any candidate after the expiry of a rank list, even to an NJD vacancy, if such vacancies are reported after its expiry. In fact, in Babu (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has declared without leaving room for any doubt that the NJD vacancies actually reported after the expiry of the list cannot be fictionally treated as vacancies that had been reported to the PSC before such expiry. 77. In fact, in Babu (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has declared without leaving room for any doubt that the NJD vacancies actually reported after the expiry of the list cannot be fictionally treated as vacancies that had been reported to the PSC before such expiry. 77. Therefore, once we are certain that the First Rank List had expired, under the mandate of the first proviso to Rule 13 of the PSC Procedure Rules, on 01.06.2016, which is, in fact, the conceded position of most of the petitioners in these cases, the NJD vacancies reported on 12.07.2016 cannot go to the benefit of the candidates in the First Rank List.” 5. The petitioners have no case that the NJD vacancies were reported while the ranked list was in force. The Tribunal has, on the basis of the documents produced, found that it is against the advice memos dated 7.12.2016 and 13.2.2017, that the NJD vacancies arose, when the candidates advised did not join duty. In the light of the undisputed fact that the NJD vacancy has arisen only after the expiry of the ranked list, the legal position aforesaid will apply on all fours. 6. In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 14.02.2019 in RA (Ekm)No.15 of 2018 in O.A.(Ekm)No.679 of 2019 which is challenged in the original petition, in exercise of our extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition fails and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.