JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- i Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue advise to the petitioner in furtherance to Ext-P5 & P6; ii Issue a writ declaring that the 3rd respondent cannot deny appointment to the petitioner after Ext-P5 & P6 advise being issued; iii Issue a writ declaring that the 3rd respondent is duty bound to appoint the petitioner consequent to Ext-P5 & P6; Or in alternative iv Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the appointment of the 4th respondent and set aside the same; v Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to advise the petitioner against the vacancy reported from the 2nd respondent; vi Issue a writ declaring that the 4th respondent should not be appointed ignoring the right and entitlement of the petitioner; vii .Dispense with filing of the English translation of vernacular documents; viii. Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a person who possesses all the requisite qualifications to be appointed as a Stenographer in public service. Based on Ext.P1 notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 29.05.2015, inviting applications for Stenographers in various public services and Public Undertakings, the petitioner submitted an application. On the basis of the selection process conducted by the 1st respondent, Ext.P2 rank list was prepared, wherein, the petitioner secured rank no.3. The 4th respondent herein was rank no.9. Based on the rank the petitioner to secure, the 1st respondent advised the petitioner to the 3 rd respondent, which is a public sector undertaking. Ext.P5 is the advice so made and Ext.P6 is the appointment chart of the Public Service Commission. However, despite Ext.P5 advice, the 3rd respondent did not issue an appointment order to the petitioner. On enquiry with the 3rd respondent regarding non-issuance of the appointment order, it was informed that the vacancy to which the petitioner was advised, does not exist and the 3rd respondent does not have any intention to issue any appointment order to fill up the said vacancy. In the meantime, the 4 th respondent was given appointment in the 2 nd respondent Corporation, under Other Backward Community category. In the meantime, the 4 th respondent was given appointment in the 2 nd respondent Corporation, under Other Backward Community category. The writ petition was submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, seeking appointment on the basis of Ext.P5 advice and also challenging appointment given to the 4 th respondent in the 2 nd respondent institution. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought in this writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, the advice has been made as evidenced by Ext.P5, to appoint the petitioner in the 3rd respondent establishment, on the basis of a communication issued by the 3rd respondent reporting vacancies. It was also averred that, after reporting the vacancy, the 3rd respondent could not have taken a stand that the vacancy does not exists. An additional counter affidavit was also submitted by reiterating aforesaid aspect and also producing the documents to substantiate their contentions. 4. The 3 rd respondent, on the other hand, pointed out that, even though they have reported the vacancies, later, based on the request made by the 3 rd respondent, the said posts were abolished by the Government and this fact was intimated to the 1st respondent as per Ext.R3(b) as early as on 01.11.2022. They also asserted that as per Ext.R3 (d) order, the post of stenographer stood abolished. Therefore, as of now, there are no vacancies to accommodate the petitioner. 5. The 4 th respondent also filed a detailed counter affidavit wherein, it was asserted that, on the basis of the advice received from the PSC, she joined the 2nd respondent Corporation as stenographer on 09.02.2023 and now the probation is also declared. The 4th respondent stoutly opposed the reliefs sought in this writ petition which are against the said respondent. 6. I have heard Sri A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.C.Sasidharan, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. Naveen T, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Smt. Latha Anand , the standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri. Biju S, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 7. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any direction to give appointment to the petitioner as sought in this writ petition is warranted and also as to whether the appointment given to the 4th respondent is to be interfered with. 8. Biju S, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 7. The only question that arises for consideration is whether any direction to give appointment to the petitioner as sought in this writ petition is warranted and also as to whether the appointment given to the 4th respondent is to be interfered with. 8. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, on 28.05.2025, this Court passed an interim order directing the 1 st respondent to furnish the copy of the Circular No.34/2022 which was referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the said respondent. The relevance of such circular is that, as according to the Public Service Commission, the said circular deals with the situation when a candidate was not given appointment or terminated immediately after the appointment, based on the advice of Public Service Commission. In the said order, this Court also directed the Public Service Commission to furnish the details of the vacancies of stenographers occurred after the advice of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5. 9. Based on the same, an additional affidavit was filed by the Public Service Commission on 06.06.2025, and the copy of the Circular was also produced along with such affidavit. As far as Ext.P2 list wherein the petitioner was included of concerned, the validity of the same is already over on 19.05.2025. Thus, the questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition are to be considered in the above factual background. 10. While considering the said issue, the crucial document to be considered is Ext.R1(c), which is Circular No. 34/2022 issued by the Public Service Commission. The said Circular deals with the specific situation where the advised candidates are denied the appointment or such candidates are terminated from the service immediately after the joining, for want of vacancy. Clause 12 of Ext.R1(c) Circular, specifically deals with this situation, as per which, when the advised candidate is terminated from service immediately after such entry, for the reasons including the lack of vacancy, such candidate has to be treated as a thrown-out candidate. The Circular also contemplates that, such thrown-out candidate has to be re- registered and he must be re-entered in the rank list. The Circular also contemplates that, such thrown-out candidate has to be re- registered and he must be re-entered in the rank list. Clause 12 of the aforesaid Circular further stipulates that, in case a candidate who was reported as thrown out and the re-registration of the candidate was at a time when the rank list was not in force, he should be accommodated in the next arising vacancy, irrespective of the expiry of the rank list. Clause 14 deals with the situation which is involved in this writ petition i.e., when a candidate was not given appointment for want of vacancies despite a valid advice, he should be treated as a deemed thrown out candidate and re-registration has to be given to such candidate. 11. Thus, going by the scheme of appointment contemplated as per Ext.R1(c) Circular, in a situation like this, the petitioner is entitled to be categorized as a deemed thrown-out candidate. This fact is admitted by the Public Service Commission in their counter affidavit as well. It is discernible from Ext.P9 notification dated 30.11.2024 issued by Public Service Commission that, the applications for filing up for the post of Stenographer/Confidential Assistant were invited by the Public Service Commission and the selection process based on the same is now in progress. Since Ext.P2 rank list in which the petitioner was included, expired only on 19.05.2021, it is evident that, Ext P9 notification was issued during the currency of the petitioner’s rank list. Of course, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent pointed out that, said notification was issued in respect of anticipated vacancies and as of now, there are no vacancies available. The learned Standing counsel also brought the attention of this court to the averments made by them in the additional counter affidavit that the no vacancies were reported on 01.12.2022. 12. Anyhow, it is a fact that, Ext.R1(c) Circular contemplates for re-registration and appointment of the advised candidates who were declared as thrown-out candidate/deemed thrown-out candidates, in the next arising vacancy. The said Circular also stipulates that, such appointments should be given against the next arising vacancy, irrespective of the currency/expiry of the rank list in which the candidates concerned were included. The said Circular also stipulates that, such appointments should be given against the next arising vacancy, irrespective of the currency/expiry of the rank list in which the candidates concerned were included. In this case, from the documents available on record and from the pleadings of the parties, it is an undisputed factual position that, the petitioner herein is a deemed thrown-out candidate and therefore, she is entitled to the benefits of appointment against the next arising vacancy, subject to the inter se seniority among the other thrown-out candidates, if any. 13. Even though, 1 st and 3 rd respondents had raised various contentions blaming each other, for the situation which resulted in denial of a valid opportunity to the petitioner, in view of the scheme contemplated Ext.R1(c), I do not intend to decide the questions raised in connection with the same, since the greivences of the petitioner can redressed even otherwise. Similarly, as there is no irregularity in the appointment of the 4 th respondent, it is also not to be interfered with. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to accommodate the petitioner in the next arising vacancy of Stenographer/ Confidential Assistant, subject to the seniority of the petitioner among the thrown-out/deemed thrown-out candidates, if any. The selection process based on Ext.P9 can be continued, but the petitioner shall be accommodated before any advice is made based on Ext.P9.