JUDGMENT : The petitioners herein have been included in the ranked list for the Assistant Engineer (Civil) post in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd (‘KSEBL’ for brevity). Their grievance is that despite the availability of substantial vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in KSEBL, those vacancies are not reported to the PSC by the 1st respondent on the ground that restructuring measures are being initiated in the company. 2. Brief facts that need to be stated to resolve the issues raised in this writ petition are as follows: a) The petitioners have been included in Ext. P1 rank list in the main list. The aforesaid rank list is stated to expire on 02.12.2023, as is evident from Ext.P2. It is stated that from Ext.P4 information obtained under the Right to Information Act, there are a total number of 330 sanctioned posts as on 01.02.2023 for the post of AE (Civil) in KSEBL, out of which 115 posts are occupied and 215 posts are vacant. The cadre strength of 330 is distributed in the ratio 4:1:3:2; 40% Degree quota (Open market), 10% in service quota (Degree), 30% Diploma quota, and 20% ITI quota. Accordingly, there would be 132 sanctioned posts in the category of AE (Civil), which are to be filled by recruitment from the open market by the 4th respondent. b) According to the petitioners, Ext.P6 has been issued by the KSEBL for reporting vacancies of AE (Civil) under 40% direct recruitment quota and 10% in service quota. Relying on Ext.P6, it is contended that 131 is the cadre strength for the 40% direct recruitment quota. The petitioners assert that there are 36 vacancies out of 131 sanctioned posts, which are not reported by the 1st respondent. The reasons stated in Ext.P8 issued by the Chief Engineer, HR Management is that extensive restructuring measures are being carried out in all departments, including the civil department. c) The petitioners assert that orders have been issued for promotion to the cadre of AE (Civil) in the 30% Diploma quota, 20% in the ITI quota, and 75% in the Graduate quota. d) It is further contended that the Government has issued Ext.P14 Circular ordering the 1st respondent to report the anticipated vacancies. Their grievance is that Ext. P14 Circular is not being complied with by the KSEBL. e) Pursuant to Ext. d) It is further contended that the Government has issued Ext.P14 Circular ordering the 1st respondent to report the anticipated vacancies. Their grievance is that Ext. P14 Circular is not being complied with by the KSEBL. e) Pursuant to Ext. P14, the Power (A) Department had directed the KSEBL to report all anticipated vacancies in 2023 to the 4th respondent and also to make information on vacancies available to the Government. However, the KSEBL did not comply with the directions. f) The petitioners assert that highlighting their grievances, Ext.P18 representation was submitted before the 3rd respondent. However, no action has been taken. It is in the afore circumstances that this Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P8 as unjust, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable; (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1s respondent to report all the substantive vacancies including the 36 vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd to the 4" respondent, before the expiry of Exhibit P1 ranked list; (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to issue advise memos to all the 36 vacancies from Exhibit P1 ranked list for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd; (iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1s respondent to issue appointment orders to the petitioners to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd; 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the cadre strength of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was established in the year 2006 as part of the restructuring initiative at that time. Significant changes have occurred in the power generation landscape within the State, primarily due to growing concerns surrounding environmental impacts. Consequently, new projects in this sector have become scarce, as they often face substantial opposition from environmental activists. The workforce in the Civil Engineering sector primarily supports the construction of these new projects. Given the current circumstances, it has become increasingly challenging to initiate and execute new projects in the face of determined opposition from environmentalists. Recognizing this reality, the KSEBL has acknowledged that adhering to the cadre strength established more than 17 years ago is no longer a productive approach. Given the current circumstances, it has become increasingly challenging to initiate and execute new projects in the face of determined opposition from environmentalists. Recognizing this reality, the KSEBL has acknowledged that adhering to the cadre strength established more than 17 years ago is no longer a productive approach. As a result, the Corporation has made the decision to embark on a comprehensive restructuring process, with a particular focus on the Civil Engineering stream and a broader consideration across all streams. This restructuring process is still ongoing and has not yet reached its completion. In light of the ongoing restructuring efforts, KSEBL finds itself unable to determine the remaining 36 vacancies within the Assistant Engineer (Civil) category. Moreover, the Corporation is unable to establish the optimal strength indicator for Assistant Engineers (Civil) until the restructuring process is finalized. 4. When the matter was taken up on 7/8/2023, this Court passed the following order: Read order dated 7/8/2023. Standing counsel seeks further time, however, admitting that the rank list has expired. In the afore circumstances, I direct the KSEB to report 36 vacancies provisionally to the Public Service Commission, making it clear that the latter shall not cause any advice against the same, without obtaining further orders from this Court. 5. After passing the interim order, respondents 1 to 3 filed an additional counter affidavit, wherein they asserted that the interim order dated 22/08/2023 was issued based on the assumption that the rank list had expired. They point out that, according to Note 1 of Exhibit P1 notification, the rank list remains valid until the publication of a new rank list, either after a minimum period of one year or within three years from 3/12/2022, whichever comes first. Therefore, the rank list's validity extends for three years from 3/12/2022 unless a new rank list is officially published. Furthermore, even if a new rank list were to be published, its consideration for determining the rank list's validity would only commence after one year from 3/12/2022. It is emphasized that the rank list is still in force and is far from its expiration date. This crucial aspect was not duly considered when the interim order was issued. Additionally, the ongoing restructuring process within the Civil Wing of the 1st respondent, a Government company, is highlighted. It is emphasized that the rank list is still in force and is far from its expiration date. This crucial aspect was not duly considered when the interim order was issued. Additionally, the ongoing restructuring process within the Civil Wing of the 1st respondent, a Government company, is highlighted. This restructuring process takes into account various factors, including the financial viability of new projects and the necessity to modernize the sanctioned strength, which was established many years ago. It is stated that the 1st respondent faces difficulties in determining the number of Engineers needed and whether the current vacancies can be sustained. Exhibit P2 is merely a draft rule and does not impact the recruitment process within the 1st respondent. The decision of reporting or non-reporting of these vacancies is considered as the prerogative of the employer. It is emphasized that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the 1st respondent to report these vacancies, and individuals included in the rank list do not possess a vested right to advice and appointment to any specific vacancy. 6. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that despite the admitted existence of 36 vacancies in the post earmarked for 40% quota, those posts are not filled up. The learned counsel would refer to Ext.P9 to P13 and P19, and it is submitted that the respondents are filling up other quotas. It is pointed out that the petitioners are sidelined by merely mentioning that the restructuring process is going on. The learned counsel submits that in view of the law laid down in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ], the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide and for appropriate reasons. The learned counsel would urge that in view of the law laid down in Prakash v. Kurien, [1999 KHC 408] and Prasad Kurian and Ors. v. K.J. Augustine and Ors., [ 2008 (2) KHC 216 ], the Board must strictly follow the quota rule. 36 vacancies in the 40% stream earmarked for the open quota will have to be filled up, and the same cannot be tinkered with. v. K.J. Augustine and Ors., [ 2008 (2) KHC 216 ], the Board must strictly follow the quota rule. 36 vacancies in the 40% stream earmarked for the open quota will have to be filled up, and the same cannot be tinkered with. According to the learned counsel, the course that is to have been followed by the respondents is to appoint the persons in the select list, and if they are not required, they could be retrenched enabling them to seek re-engagement as provided under Rule 7 Part II of the KS & SSR. 7. In response, Smt. Thushara James, the learned Standing Counsel, submitted that Ext.P8 is a letter issued to Shaffine Anaz, who is not a party to the proceedings. It is further submitted that the manpower in the Civil stream caters to the construction of new projects. However, due to various factors, implementing new projects has become next to impossible. The KSEBL, in the said circumstances, has taken a decision to undertake restructuring in the Civil stream, and it is for the above bona fide reason that the vacancies were not reported. It is further submitted that the contention of the respondents that the rank list is due to expire within a period of one year from 3.12.2022 is erroneous. According to the learned counsel, the ranked list will remain in effect until the publication of a new ranked list following the expiration of a minimum period of one year or until the expiration of three years from 3.12.2022, whichever is earlier. It is further submitted that Ext.P2 relied on by the petitioners is merely a draft rule that has not come into effect. Therefore, the reference to the expiry of the ranked list within one year mentioned therein cannot be used for any purpose whatsoever. Relying on the law laid down in Director of Indian System of Medicine and Another etc. v. Dr. Susmi C. T. and Another etc., [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1188], it is submitted that the candidates cannot claim any right to report vacancies, and it would also not be proper for this Court to exercise powers of judicial review to the appointing authority to report vacancies. Insofar as Exts.P9 to P13 are concerned, it is submitted that such proceedings were issued in view of the seniority protection clause, and that has nothing to do with the question of reporting the vacancies. Insofar as Exts.P9 to P13 are concerned, it is submitted that such proceedings were issued in view of the seniority protection clause, and that has nothing to do with the question of reporting the vacancies. The learned counsel would also refer to the law laid down in Shankarsan Dash (supra), and it is submitted that a candidate included in a select list or ranked list has no indefeasible right to be appointed even if the vacancy actually exists. All that is required to be looked into is whether the respondents have acted bona fide and not arbitrarily. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced. I have also gone through the written submissions submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 9. The grievance presented by the petitioners focuses on the non-reporting of 36 Assistant Engineer (Civil) vacancies out of a total of 131 sanctioned posts. In their defense, the respondents argue that due to recent developments in the State of Kerala, initiating new projects, predominantly hydropower-related, has become highly challenging. They emphasize that the civil engineering workforce is primarily engaged in the construction of new projects, which are currently scarce. The company, in consideration of the State's best interests, is implementing comprehensive restructuring across various departments, particularly in the Civil stream. This rationale forms the basis of the respondent's decision not to disclose the vacancies. 10. The question is whether the candidates whose names have not been reported can approach this Court and seek issuance of directions to report the vacancies. The incidental question is whether the decision of not reporting the vacancies has been taken bona fide and for justifiable reasons. 11. For deciding the issue, it would be profitable to refer to the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances. 12. In Director of Indian System of Medicine and Another (supra), the Apex Court had occasion to observe as under "26. It is, therefore, as against vacancies that are reported to the KPSC, that the candidates have some semblance of a right. However, as far as those not reported are concerned, the candidates cannot claim a right per se. It is possible that in given situations, the state may be lethargic, or even may not wish to report vacancies. In such situations, undoubtedly the individuals awaiting appointment may have recourse to judicial remedies. However, as far as those not reported are concerned, the candidates cannot claim a right per se. It is possible that in given situations, the state may be lethargic, or even may not wish to report vacancies. In such situations, undoubtedly the individuals awaiting appointment may have recourse to judicial remedies. In such proceedings, the government or the concerned agency can furnish a suitable explanation. If that is found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions may follow. However, the procedure in all such cases, would be to consider the state's response. In the present case, the KAT in this Court's opinion, entirely misdirected itself in making an inquiry whether vacancies had arisen in June 2017, with promotion of some Medical Officers. As the department explained, those promotions could not automatically result in vacancies, having regard to the fact that excess number of Medical Officers were on the rolls. Furthermore, the KAT in our opinion, should not have inquired into the matter, once it was reported that all vacancies that could be reported, had been reported - as is evident from the reply filed by the department, as well as the tabular chart in it." 13. The Apex Court, after meticulously analysing the facts of that case as well as the provision contained in Rules 13 and 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, has held that as far as vacancies that are not reported are concerned, the candidates cannot have a claim per se, but it is certainly possible that in given situations, the State authorities may be lethargic or even may not wish to report vacancies and in such scenarios, undoubtedly the individuals awaiting appointment and advice may have recourse to judicial remedies. That, in such proceedings, the Government or the agency concerned can furnish a suitable explanation, and if that is found to be arbitrary, then certainly appropriate directions can be issued by the judicial fora concerned and that the procedure in all such cases would be to consider the State's response and if there are strong and cogent materials to come to the considered conclusion that the above said stand of the State authorities is rather arbitrary and without any materials, then certainly the High Court of the Tribunal exercising powers under judicial review can certainly exercise their discretionary powers to issue appropriate directions in the matter of provisional reporting of vacancies, etc., subject to the condition that the final determination regarding the actual existence or otherwise of those vacancies is to be rendered later. 14. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (supra), it was observed as follows: "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do no acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana [ (1986) 4 SCC 268 ] or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1958) 1 SCC 122].” 15. It was held that the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment, and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. It was held that the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment, and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. The employer is also not under any legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. The only condition is that the decision not to fill up the vacancies shall be taken on bona fide and for appropriate reasons. 16. In Kerala Public Service Commission v. Sheejamol, [ 2020 (5) KLT 718 ], a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to deal with an identical issue. The question was whether the Court could be approached to compel an appointing authority to fill up vacancies from a rank list prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The Full Bench has answered the said issue holding as follows: "13. We therefore answer the issue in the following manner. (I) xxxx xxxx xxxx (II) An appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, take a decision not to fill up existing vacancies and merely on account of the fact that there is a ranked list in force, this Court will not, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, compel the appointing authority to fill up those vacancies. Circumstances such as financial difficulties or as in the facts of these cases, orders of statutory authorities resulting in reduction of the number of vacancies or abolition of posts etc., would be good and sufficient reason for the appointing authority to take a decision not to fill up the vacancies." 17. In Arshitha P and Others v State of Kerala, [ 2022 (2) KHC 299 ], a Division bench of this Court, after considering the entire law on the point, had occasion to observe as under: As the Apex Court has categorically held in the recent decision in Dr. In Arshitha P and Others v State of Kerala, [ 2022 (2) KHC 299 ], a Division bench of this Court, after considering the entire law on the point, had occasion to observe as under: As the Apex Court has categorically held in the recent decision in Dr. Susmi's case (supra), the correct approach is that as far as vacancies are not reported, the candidates cannot claim a legal right per se but that it is certainly possible that in given situations the departmental and State authorities may be lethargic and may be arbitrary in not reporting the vacancies or may not wish to report vacancies for irrelevant grounds and in such scenarios, undoubtedly, the candidates included in the rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission can take recourse to judicial remedies and in such proceedings, it is for the government or the department concerned to furnish a suitable explanation as to the pleadings and materials urged by the applicants / petitioners and about its correctness or otherwise. If the explanation offered by the departmental authority is found to be arbitrary, then certainly the Courts can issue appropriate interim directions to ensure that the appointing authority reports specified number of vacancies on a provisional basis, well before the expiry of the rank list to judicially determine the issue later. However, where the departmental authorities come with cogent materials to justify their stand that they have already reported all available vacancies, etc. and have even taken a diligent step thereafter, etc., then it is for the petitioners to rebut those aspects on the basis of cogent and relevant pleadings and materials. If proper materials are not there, it may not be right and proper for the Court exercising powers of judicial review to direct the appointing authority to report vacancies. 18. As held by the Apex Court as well as this Court, a notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment, and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and an adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. Even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and an adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. An appointing authority may, for good and sufficient reasons, take a decision not to fill up existing vacancies and merely on account of the fact that there is a ranked list in force, this Court will not, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, compel the appointing authority to fill up those vacancies. Circumstances such as financial difficulties, orders of statutory authorities resulting in reduction of the number of vacancies or abolition of posts etc., would be good and sufficient reasons for the appointing authority to take a decision not to fill up the vacancies. The individuals awaiting appointment and advice may have recourse to judicial remedies. In such proceedings, the Government or the agency concerned can furnish a suitable explanation, and if that is found to be bona fide and reasonable, this Court shall not interfere by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if there are strong and cogent materials to come to the considered conclusion that the stand of the State authorities is arbitrary and without any materials, then certainly the High Court or the Tribunal exercising powers under judicial review can certainly exercise their discretionary powers to issue appropriate directions. 19. In the case on hand, I am of the considered opinion that the justifications offered by the respondents are bona fide and reasonable. The KSEBL is a Government Company, and after taking note of the inability to take a new project due to various issues, they have taken an informed decision not to recruit new personnel until an extensive restructuring is done. The respondents have also highlighted the environmental issues plaguing the State and the serious objection to setting up new hydropower projects. The decision so taken cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. I am not impressed with the contention of the petitioners that the Board must be directed to follow the quota rule strictly and they should be directed to fill up the 36 vacancies in the 40% stream earmarked for the open quota. The decision so taken cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. I am not impressed with the contention of the petitioners that the Board must be directed to follow the quota rule strictly and they should be directed to fill up the 36 vacancies in the 40% stream earmarked for the open quota. The course suggested by the petitioners that persons in the select list should be first appointed and they are to be retrenched later to enable them to seek re-engagement as provided under Rule 7 Part II of the KS & SSR will only lead to spawning unwanted litigations by disgruntled employees and nothing more. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have flouted the interim order dated 7.8.2023. It is true that based on the inputs received from the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court had ordered on 22.8.2023 to report 36 vacancies provisionally to the PSC; however, by making it clear that the Commission shall not cause any advise against the same. It appears that the submissions so made were on the basis of Ext.P2 rules wherein it has been mentioned that the rank list shall expire within one year. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that Ext.P2 is a draft rule and the same has not come into force. Furthermore, I find that in Ext.P1 notification, as per Note 1, it has been specifically stated that the ranked list will be in force till the publication of a new rank list after the expiry of a minimum period of one year or till the expiry of 3 years whichever is earlier. There appears to be merit in the submission of the learned standing counsel that this Court had issued the interim order under the impression that the ranked list was due to expire within one year. Now that this Court has already held that the action on the part of the respondents does not lack any bona fides and that the ranked list is not due to expire as contended by the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer sought for cannot be granted. 21. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. This petition is dismissed.