JUDGMENT : R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.Nos.32640 & 32644 of 2023 dated 08.08.2024. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.32640 of 2023 came to be filed by the petitioners therein, who are wait listed candidates seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the communication dated 13.09.2023, in and by which, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC)/ the 1st respondent herein informed the petitioners that it is not possible to conduct a third counselling by operating the reserve list in as much as the Commission does not maintain reserve list for recruitment, in which, a single selection process is undertaken for different posts in different Departments. 3. The second writ petition in W.P.No.32644 of 2023 was filed challenging Clause 4 of the Office Order No.134 dated 12.11.2020 issued by the 1st respondent / Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, waiving the requirement to draw up a reserve list where, the selection is to multiple posts or one post in multiple Unit Offices made through a single competitive examination. The Commission issued a notification on 29.07.2022 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts of i) Field Surveyor, numbering 798, of which, four were carried forward vacancies, ii) Draftsmen numbering 236 in the Tamil Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service and iii) for 55 posts of Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman included in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Subordinate Service. The total number of posts, for which, applications were invited was 1089. A written examination was conducted on 06.11.2022. An addendum notification was issued on 14.02.2023 where the number of vacancies in the Field Surveyor was increased to 814 with 4 carried forward vacancies, the number of vacancies in the posts of Draftsman was increased to 243, while the number of vacancies in the Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman remained the same at 55. 4. On 15.02.2023, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission published the marks and the rank list. On the same day, another addendum was issued by the TNPSC, increasing the number of posts in the vacancies of the Field Surveyor by 151 and the number of posts in Draftsman by another 75. Thus, the total number of vacancies went upto 1338. Thereafter, on 27.02.2023, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission released a provisional list of selected candidates, calling them for physical certificate verification. Thus, the total number of vacancies went upto 1338. Thereafter, on 27.02.2023, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission released a provisional list of selected candidates, calling them for physical certificate verification. Though certificate verification was sought for from 1287 candidates, only 1114 candidates were appointed. Out of the remaining posts for 173 posts, no appointment orders were issued and 492 posts were vacated by the candidates who joined the posts of Assistant Engineers. Therefore, there is a vacancy of 665 posts, which were advertised when the petitioners who were in the rank list, immediately, after the actually selected candidates found that the TNPSC conducted the 2nd Phase of physical certificate verification for only 121 vacancies by including 242 candidates in the certificate verification, leaving 244 vacancies. 5. According to the petitioners, if the second counselling has conducted for all the 365 vacancies, the petitioners would have been selected in the second counselling, since they had secured the required marks. When the petitioners sought for information under the RTI Act, the TNPSC replied on 06.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 stating that since the selection is for multiple posts under different Departments, the TNPSC does not maintain and operate a reserve list. This necessitated the filing of the instant writ petitions, challenging the communication of the TNPSC dated 13.09.2023 and Clause 4 of the Office Order dated 12.11.2020 which provides that a reserve list need not be drawn up where, the recruitment is to multiple posts or one posts in multiple unit of Offices made through a single competitive examination and the single rank list is drawn. 6. The main contention of the petitioners was that the provisions of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is only an enabling provision and is not mandatory. The learned single Judge further held that the drawal of reserve list when the selection is for multiple posts coming under multiple departments becomes more complicated and therefore, the provisions of the Office Order No.134 dated 12.11.2020 which dispensed with the obligation on the part of the TNPSC to draw a multiple list need not be interfered with. 7. The learned single Judge further held that the drawal of reserve list when the selection is for multiple posts coming under multiple departments becomes more complicated and therefore, the provisions of the Office Order No.134 dated 12.11.2020 which dispensed with the obligation on the part of the TNPSC to draw a multiple list need not be interfered with. 7. The learned Judge also concluded that in as much as Section 27(f) of the Tamilnadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act of 2016 is not mandatory, the stand of the TNPSC that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the TNPSC to maintain a reserve list which could be operated in the case where, persons do not join after being selected. The second reason assigned by the learned single Judge is that though Section 3(u) of the Act of 2016 defines a reserve list and Proviso 5 to Section 27(f) of the Act of 2016 imposes an obligation on the part of the appointing authority to maintain and operate a reserve list, the same cannot be held to be mandatory. On the above conclusion, the learned single Judge upheld Clause 4 of the Office Order No.134 dated 12.11.2020. It is this order of the learned single Judge, which is put in issue before us. 8. We have heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.C.Uma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Neelakandan assisted by Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 2 & 3. 9. While Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the language of Proviso 5 is, in fact, mandatory and the learned single Judge was not right in concluding that the proviso is not mandatory. It will be useful to extract the provisos to Section 27(f) of the Act of 2016 before analysing the submissions. 9. While Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel would contend that the language of Proviso 5 is, in fact, mandatory and the learned single Judge was not right in concluding that the proviso is not mandatory. It will be useful to extract the provisos to Section 27(f) of the Act of 2016 before analysing the submissions. There are 7 provisos to Section 27(f) and Provisos 5, 6 & 7 reads as follows:- “Provided also that when a candidate selected for appointment against a vacancy for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes / Denotified Communities, Backward Classes, Backward Class Muslims or General Turn, does not join duty in the post for which he is appointed or his provisional selection for that post is cancelled for any reason, a candidate in his place shall be appointed from the respective category and in accordance with the ranking from the reserve list: Provided also that the candidates appointed from the reserve list shall be placed below all the candidates appointed from the regular list in the same order in which the vacancies have arisen: Provided also that the reserve list shall be operated even against the vacancies caused due to the fact that the candidates have joined duty, but left thereafter while the reserve list is in force.” 10. Drawing us to the language of the provisos Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram would vehemently contend that the learned single Judge was not right in concluding that the drawing up of a reserve list is not mandatory. She would lay particular emphasis on the language of the 5th proviso which uses the word "shall" to submit that the proviso by its nature is mandatory. She would also draw our attention to 6th & 7th provisos to submit that the scheme of things under the Act of 2016 is that a reserve list shall be drawn and any vacancy arising till the next selection shall be filled up from the candidates in the reserve list. 11. She would also draw our attention to 6th & 7th provisos to submit that the scheme of things under the Act of 2016 is that a reserve list shall be drawn and any vacancy arising till the next selection shall be filled up from the candidates in the reserve list. 11. In order to buttress her submission, the learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon the definition of the term “reserve list” and Sub- Section (u) of Section 3 of the Act of 2016 reads as follows:- “3(u) "reserve list" means a list which is prepared so as to contain not less than twenty five per cent of the candidates of each reservation group including General Turn in the regular list and shall be in force until the regular list is drawn up subsequently.” The effect of language of Proviso to Section 3 which also uses the word "shall" and the provisos 5, 6 & 7 to Section 27(f), according to the learned Senior Counsel is that drawing up of a reserve list is mandatory and it cannot be dispensed with by TNPSC at its whims and fancies. 12. Reliance is also placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. Paramanantham and Others made in W.A.(MD).No.916 of 2019 dated 20.11.2024 wherein, the Division Bench had adverted to the decision of the learned single Judge made in W.P.Nos. 32640 & 32644 of 2023( the judgment under challenge in these appeals). We find that the Division Bench has, after referring to the judgment under appeal had held that it is not inclined to approve the said decision. Reasons for such disapproval have also been set out in Para 7 of the said judgment of the Division Bench and the relevant portion of Para 7 reads as follows:- “7......Of course, the order dated 08.08.2024 in WP Nos.32640 and 32644 of 2023 favours the stand taken by the appellant. We are however not inclined to approve the said decision for more than one reason. The learned Judge holds that there will be no issue to draw a Reserve List for a single post in a single examination. We are however not inclined to approve the said decision for more than one reason. The learned Judge holds that there will be no issue to draw a Reserve List for a single post in a single examination. But things will get complicated to draw a Reserve List for multiple posts orone post in multiple unit offices where the recruitment is made through a single competitive examination and single ranking list drawn. When the statute does not make a distinction between recruitment for single post in a single examination and multiple posts or one post in multiple unit offices on the other, it is not open to the Court to make such a distinction. The recruiting agency may have to do some extra work but that is its job and it cannot complain about the resulting complications....” 13. Contending contra, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 1 st respondent / TNPSC would submit that no doubt, the Division Bench had disapproved the judgment of the learned single Judge under appeal before us. However, according to him, the learned single Judge who had decided the writ petition, against which, the appeal before the Madurai Bench arose in W.A.(MD).No.916 of 2019 had relied upon the judgment in Anbarasan Vs. Secretary to Tamil Nadu Government . The Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued notices in the SLP filed against the judgment in Anbarasan and a stay has also been obtained. Therefore, reliance placed in Anbarasan by a Division Bench which decided the case in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. Paramanantham and Others is misplaced. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent would also contend that it will be open to the employer or the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to dispense with the reserve list. We have considered the rival submissions. 14. We must straight away say that we are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the TNPSC. A Division Bench in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. Paramanantham and Others has pointed out that Anbarasan does not stand alone, there are earlier judgments of this Court, which conclude that the reserve list is mandatory, including the one in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. R.Nagarajan reported in (2008) 3 LW 222 and Dr.D.Karal Vs. Paramanantham and Others has pointed out that Anbarasan does not stand alone, there are earlier judgments of this Court, which conclude that the reserve list is mandatory, including the one in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. R.Nagarajan reported in (2008) 3 LW 222 and Dr.D.Karal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2009) l MLJ 1259 15. Even assuming that the judgment is Anbarasan has been stayed, being a judgment of a co-equal Bench, we are bound by the same and if we are to take a different view, we will have to refer the matter to a larger Bench and we cannot take a different view which would amount to judicial indiscipline. We find from the judgment of the learned single Judge, neither Anbarasan nor the other judgments referred to by the Division Bench in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. Paramanantham and Others were brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Hence, we are unable to sustain the orders of the learned single Judge. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. Paramanantham and Others and therefore, these appeals deserve to be allowed. 16. In fine, both these appeals are allowed , the orders of the writ Court are set aside and the communication dated 13.09.2023 subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.32640 of 2023 is quashed and, Clause 4 of the Office Order No.134 dated 12.11.2020 is quashed in view of the fact that it militates against the provisions of the Act of 2016. There will be a direction to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to operate the reserve list and appoint the candidates in the reserve list to the vacancies by following the communal roaster strictly in accordance with the provisions of Provisos 5, 6 & 7 of Section 27(f) of the Act of 2016. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.