JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. These original petitions raise a question as to the legality of the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) to expand the short list of the candidates prepared by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), and questions the authority of the Government to recommend KPSC to expand the list. These matters came from different proceedings; however, in view of the common issue, the same are disposed of by a common judgment. We shall advert to the facts of each case: 2(i). O.P.(KAT).No.298/23: This original petition was filed by applicants 2 to 4 in O.A.No.893/2023 on the file of KAT. They were applicants to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Municipal Common Service in Malappuram District vide notification dated 29/5/2015. The notification was issued in the year 2015. They approached KAT aggrieved by the decision of KPSC not to accept Government recommendation for expansion of the rank list. KAT negatived the challenge. 2(ii). O.P.(KAT).No.311/2023: This original petition was filed by the applicants in O.A.No.878/23 on the file of KAT. They sought expansion of the rank list for the Junior Health Inspector Grade-II in Municipal Common Service in Thrissur District vide notification dated 29/5/2015. Their challenge was negatived. 2(iii). O.P.(KAT).No.348/2023: This original petition was filed by KPSC. KPSC challenges an order of KAT in O.A.No.2389/2021 directing the Government to take a decision on expanding list with a further direction to KPSC to take action on the recommendation of the Government. This was in respect of post of Full Time Junior Language teacher in Hindi pursuant to the notification dated 18/8/2017 issued by KPSC. 2(iv). O.P.(KAT).No.399/2023: The petitioner is KPSC. It challenges an order of KAT in O.A.No.31/2021. KAT directed the Government to consider expansion of the short list and further directed KPSC to act on such recommendation in respect of the post of Junior Instructor (Mechanic Refrigeration and Air Conditioning) vide notification dated 28/2/2017. 3. We need not labour much on the facts of each case as the same is evident from the impugned orders itself. KAT directed the Government to consider expansion of the list as it felt that a large number of vacancies exist and there were no sufficient candidates in the rank list and, therefore, the Government will have to address such grievance of the candidates for expansion of the select list. KAT directed the Government to consider expansion of the list as it felt that a large number of vacancies exist and there were no sufficient candidates in the rank list and, therefore, the Government will have to address such grievance of the candidates for expansion of the select list. The Government, in fact, acted on the direction of KAT in respect of Selection to the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II. But the Government recommendation was not accepted by KPSC. That challenge against the decision of KPSC was also negatived by the Tribunal. Therefore, the legal question to be answered by this Court is whether KPSC has to act as per the recommendation by the Government or does KAT have the power to direct the Government to consider the expansion of the list. To understand this issue, we need to understand the constitutional provisions and arguments raised at Bar. 4. Our Constitution makers understood the importance of public employment and aimed to provide institutional mechanisms ensuring credible and transparent procedures for recruiting eligible candidates in accordance with law. 5. It is the duty of the constitutional bound State to ensure fair distribution of assets and office. The idea of justice as referred in the Preamble; the solemn resolution to make India sovereign, socialist, democratic, republic as envisaged in the Constitution. The Constitution affirms justice - social, economic and political. This idea of governance is to ensure justice to all citizens giving them equal opportunity to aspire for wealth and office. The first step is to achieve this goal in the matter of public environment. Our Constitution makers ensured through institutionalisation of selection process by mandating constitution of Union and State Public Service Commissions under Article 320 of the Constitution. The duty of the Public Service Commissions is not mere conducting of examination for selecting candidates for public employment. The object of entrusting the Public Service Commissions to recruit candidates is to ensure that equal opportunity is given to all such aspirants. The constitution envisages an independent institutional mechanism to achieve Constitutional goals of fair and transparent selection of the candidates in public employment. The institutional norms followed by the Public Service Commissions reflect the value and credibility to be followed by the institution to remain independent from any influence or interference by safeguarding its own autonomy. The constitution envisages an independent institutional mechanism to achieve Constitutional goals of fair and transparent selection of the candidates in public employment. The institutional norms followed by the Public Service Commissions reflect the value and credibility to be followed by the institution to remain independent from any influence or interference by safeguarding its own autonomy. That means, the Government in normal course is not expected to interfere with its function compromising its autonomous character. The independence and autonomous character of the Public Service Commissions is the facet to ensure fundamental rights of the citizens as referable under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. The Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others [ 2009 5 SCC 65 ] in para.42 opined as follows: 42. However, the hope and expectation of the framers of the Constitution that after independence every citizen will get equal opportunity in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State and members of civil services would remain committed to the Constitution and honestly serve the people of this country have been belied by what has actually happened in last four decades. The Public Service Commissions which have been given the status of constitutional authorities and which are supposed to be totally independent and impartial while discharging their function in terms of Article 320 have become victims of spoils system. 7. In Jatinder Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1984 SC 1850 ], the Apex Court opined as follows: .. The fact that there is no provision in the Constitution which makes the acceptance of the advice tendered by the Commission, when consulted, obligatory renders the provisions of Article 320(3) only directory and not mandatory. The establishment of an independent body like Public Service Commission is to ensure selection of best available persons for appointment in a post to avoid arbitrariness and nepotism in the matter of appointment. It is constituted by persons of high ability, varied experience and of undisputed integrity and further assisted by experts on the subject. It is true that they are appointed by Government but once they are appointed their independence is secured by various provisions of the Constitution. Whenever the Government is required to make an appointment to a higher public office it is required to consult the Public Service Commission. It is true that they are appointed by Government but once they are appointed their independence is secured by various provisions of the Constitution. Whenever the Government is required to make an appointment to a higher public office it is required to consult the Public Service Commission. The selection has to be made by the Commission and the Government has to fill up the posts by appointing those selected and recommended by the Commission adhering to the order of merit in the list of candidates sent by the Public Service Commission. The selection by the Commission, however, is only a recommendation of the Commission and the final authority for appointment is the Government.. 8. The learned counsel for the party respondents made the submission as follows: According to them, the Government is the pay master and the appointing authority if the Government consider that there is requirement to have more candidates, that decision of the Government cannot be rejected by KPSC, as KPSC is only a selection body and not superior body above the Government. It is their submission that under Article 320(3) of the Constitution, the Public Service Commissions are bound to be consulted in matters relating to appointment. This consultation according to the learned counsel is not for devising any method of selection but to ensure that sufficient number of candidates are supplied to the Government who is the employer. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel, the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional functions as Respects the Services under local Authority) Act 1973. By referring to Section 3(2), the learned counsel submits that in case of any difference of opinion, the opinion of the Government will prevail, being the appointing authority. Therefore, it is argued that by an arbitrary decision of KPSC refusing to expand the list, the right of the candidates who aspire for public employment cannot be taken away. 9. A selection process consists of various steps - inviting applications through a notification, preparation of rank list and select list, and finally the appointment. KPSC will have to scientifically determine the number of vacancies for preparation of the select list by devising criteria of short list. A mere existence of vacancy cannot result in demanding expansion of select list as there may be candidates who might have become eligible after last date of notification. KPSC will have to scientifically determine the number of vacancies for preparation of the select list by devising criteria of short list. A mere existence of vacancy cannot result in demanding expansion of select list as there may be candidates who might have become eligible after last date of notification. Those aspirations of candidates also cannot be ignored in that process. Rule 13 of KPSC Rules of Procedure states that rank list published by KPSC shall remain in force for one year from the date on which it was brought in force and the validity will continue to be in force till publication of new rank list after expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier. 10. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [ (1985) 4 SCC 417 ], the Apex Court held that number of candidates to be included in the short list for interview should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies sought to be filled up. 11. In Ravidas v. Public Service Commission [ 2009 (2) KLT 295 (FB)], a Full Bench of this Court held as follows: 41. We shall now consider the question whether the shortlisting done by the Commission in the cases on hand suffers from any other infirmity. In the Writ Petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department, the number of vacancies notified was 81. The petitioners contend that though only 81 vacancies had been notified in Ext.P1, the vacancies had increased due to retirement/creation of additional posts and that the Commission has not ensured that adequate number of candidates corresponding to 3 to 5 times the total number of notified/anticipated vacancies, is included in Ext.P6 shortlist. Ext.P6 shortlist, the method of preparation of which is objected to, consists of 195 candidates in the main list and 99 in the supplementary lists. The pleadings disclose that 258 candidates were advised from the ranked list published on 2.7.2005 and the main list of the ranked list exhausted after advising 258 candidates. The Writ Petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II were presented on 6.4.2005 and 28.8.2006. The pleadings disclose that 258 candidates were advised from the ranked list published on 2.7.2005 and the main list of the ranked list exhausted after advising 258 candidates. The Writ Petitions relating to appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II were presented on 6.4.2005 and 28.8.2006. It is also not in dispute that a fresh notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department was issued on 15.1.2007 and a written test was also held for those who applied pursuant to it on 19.12.2007. Though Ext.P7 circular (Circular No.17 of 1987) stipulated that shortlists should contain three times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list, that stipulation was modified by Circular No.30 of 2003 dated 1.12.2003 wherein it is stipulated that the Commission will decide the number of candidates to be included in each case considering the number of vacancies reported, the number of candidates advised from the previous list, the nature of the post and the chances of occurrence of vacancies. On the terms of Circular No.30 of 2003, by which Ext.P7 circular in W.P.(C) No.11916 of 2005 was modified, it was not mandatory for the Commission to prepare a main list containing 3 times the number of vacancies reported and advised during the currency of the previous ranked list. The number of vacancies of Veterinary Surgeon Grade II in the Animal Husbandry Department notified in Ext.P1 was only 81 and it cannot therefore be said that the shortlist and the ranked list did not contain adequate number of candidates. 12. A Division Bench of this Court by the judgment in O.P.(KAT).No.441/2020 and connected cases, dated 17/5/2022, after adverting to various judgments and several precedents, directed KPSC the manner in which preparation of short list have to be made by it. The learned Division Bench went into the matter in detail and directed in what manner vacancy will have to be reckoned. That means, this process will have to be considered by KPSC much before initiating preparation of rank list and select list. It is appropriate to refer para.70 and 71 of the above judgment which reads thus: 70. The learned Division Bench went into the matter in detail and directed in what manner vacancy will have to be reckoned. That means, this process will have to be considered by KPSC much before initiating preparation of rank list and select list. It is appropriate to refer para.70 and 71 of the above judgment which reads thus: 70. Since the matters relating to verification of available vacancies, sanction of fresh vacancies, sanction of fresh posts and reporting of vacancies are all within the exclusive domain of the State Government/departmental authorities concerned, the State authorities have a duty and responsibility to ensure that a robust and effective system is put in place for such process, including for reporting of vacancies by the appointing authority to the PSC, in an effective and time bound manner and well before the expiry of the ranked list, in cases where the ranked lists are current and also to have an effective arrangement to enable the appointing authorities/departmental authorities to apprise the PSC about, not only the availability of existing vacancies, but also the vacancies that are reasonably expected to arise, at least within the minimum assured life span of one year of the ranked list and the PSC is well equipped to take a decision regarding the size of the shortlist of candidates to be called for interview, inclusive of the main list and supplementary list, etc. Since, ordinarily, time gap between the date on which the PSC has taken the decision regarding the size of the shortlist and the date of the finalization of the ranked list would be at least 6 to 10 months and since the minimum assured life span of the ranked list, as per the operative portion of Rule 13 of the PSC Rules of Procedure, is one year, it will be only in the fitness of things that the appointing authorities/ departmental authorities apprise the PSC about not only the actually existing vacancies to be reported but also the vacancies that are reasonably likely to arise within a period of one and a half years or so from the date/month on which the PSC proposes to take decision regarding the size of the shortlist. 71. 71. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are issued: (i) In order to ensure the above aspects, the competent authority of the State Government should seriously consider these aspects and take steps to constitute a committee of two-three officers of the State Government, two members of the PSC and a few officials of the PSC to ascertain from the various departments like the Dept. of Personnel & Training of the Union Govt. and other Union Govt. Departments responsible for reporting of vacancies to SSC/ UPSC as well as other selection authorities, like the Union Public Service Commission, Staff Selection Commission of the Government of India and various other State Public Service Commissions, who already have an inbuilt and strong system for timely reporting of vacancies, especially in cases where the norm is that recruitment shall be confined to the notified vacancies in the selection notification, etc. so that a clear picture could be obtained by the State authorities and the PSC, as to how appropriate steps could be introduced in the State of Kerala for providing such a robust and effective system for ascertaining and for the timely reporting of vacancies and also to give relevant information to the PSC to take effective decisions regarding the size of the shortlist. Such effective and proactive steps taken by the State authorities would certainly have immediate and serious improvement in the present system so that frequently arising objections and complaints of candidates aspiring for selection through the PSC, as above, could be abated or avoided to a substantial or significant level. The State Government will constitute such a committee within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) The afore-committee, after careful examination of the relevant aspects of the matter, may make appropriate recommendations in the matter and place it before the State Government and the competent authority of the State Government in their discretion may consider whether any appropriate decisions are to be taken thereon on the basis of the recommendations of the above committee and if such decision is so taken, then the State Government may also consider whether any Government orders or circulars in that regard are to be issued for implementing such decisions. So also, the PSC may also consequentially consider whether any revised circulars/norms are to be issued in the matter of deciding on the size of the short list/ probable list, etc. (iii) In this process, the Government may also consider as to how the PSC authorities could be given necessary facilities for interacting with the appointing authorities/departmental authorities, to have a precise and clear picture as to whether future probable vacancies are likely to arise at the time of finalisation of the shortlist. We hope and trust that the higher authorities of the State Government will certainly be alive to the concerns and problems ventilated by the unemployed youth, aspiring for public employment, and will take necessary remedial measures, which would only advance public interest and would also go a long way in subserving the enforcement of the constitutional norms as above. These directions in fact would resolve many of the issues regarding reckoning the vacancies. That means once these directions are followed and concluded in the preparation of short list, no other authority can interfere with the process of KPSC to have a short list in accordance with the convenience of the parties. It is true that the Government is the pay master and the employer. In what manner vacancies will have to be reported to KPSC is concluded by the above directions. That is a stage prior to preparation of rank list and select list. Thereafter, neither the Government nor the Tribunal or this Court can direct KPSC to expand the list. No doubt, the Government being the appointing authority is competent to make recommendations to KPSC. But KPSC is not bound by the recommendation of the Government. KPSC can either accept the recommendation or reject the same. The autonomous character of KPSC will have to be maintained throughout the selection process and any tinkering with the authority in preparation of the list would amount to interference with the independence of KPSC; which the constitution never contemplated. KPSC has every authority to reject the recommendation of the Government and they are not bound by the recommendation of the Government. It is not for the Tribunal or for the Court to give direction to KPSC based on exigencies that demands. Any such exercise will amount to compromising the independence of KPSC. KPSC has every authority to reject the recommendation of the Government and they are not bound by the recommendation of the Government. It is not for the Tribunal or for the Court to give direction to KPSC based on exigencies that demands. Any such exercise will amount to compromising the independence of KPSC. This Court already in O.P.(KAT).No.441/2020 and connected matters gave direction in what manner the vacancies will have to be reckoned for the purpose of selection. Beyond that, no authority or this Court has any power. Therefore, O.P.(KAT).Nos.298/2023 and 311/2023 are dismissed. O.P.(KAT).Nos.348/2023 & 399/2023 are allowed.