JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The dispute in this case revolves around the procedure followed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) in preparing two lists of suitable candidates for recruitment. The first list consists of candidates with higher qualifications, while the second list includes those with lower qualifications. As per Rule 12.A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, candidates with lower qualifications will only be considered if there are no candidates available with higher qualifications. The rule also specifies that List II will be used only when there are no candidates in List I. 2. The key issue for consideration in this case is how this rule should be applied to candidates from reserved categories. The PSC took the position that if no Scheduled Tribe candidates were available in List I, they could recommend candidates from List II. However, the Tribunal held that candidates from List II could only be advised after exhausting List I. The primary question, therefore, is whether List I must be fully exhausted before advising candidates from List II. 3. The PSC Rules of Procedure do not have any statutory backing; they are meant to ensure transparency in decision-making and to guide the selection process. There is no dispute regarding the suitability of candidates from both lists. As per the note to Rule 14(e) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, “suitable candidates” shall mean candidates with notified minimum qualifications and marks in selection procedure lowered to the extent necessary. 4. On 11/09/2017, the PSC issued a circular stating that there is no requirement to exhaust List I before operating List II. If no reserved category candidates are available in List I, List II can be used without fully utilizing List I. This circular was not challenged in this case. 5. The prescribed qualifications for the post in question are as follows: “(A) (i) Diploma in Agricultural Science awarded by the Kerala Agriculture University or its equivalent. In the absence of qualified hands under item (i) above: (ii) Vocational Higher Secondary Certificate in Agriculture. 5. The prescribed qualifications for the post in question are as follows: “(A) (i) Diploma in Agricultural Science awarded by the Kerala Agriculture University or its equivalent. In the absence of qualified hands under item (i) above: (ii) Vocational Higher Secondary Certificate in Agriculture. In the absence of qualified hands under item (i) & (ii): (iii) (1) Pass in SSLC or its equivalent with Agriculture as an optional subject OR (2) Pass in SSLC or its equivalent and a recognised training in Agriculture OR (3) Post Basic School Leaving Certificate with Agriculture as an optional (B) Good subject physique.” Based on these qualifications, the PSC prepared two lists: List I and List II. There is no restriction preventing the PSC from recommending candidates from List II while List I is in force, provided no suitable candidates are available in List I for the specific category as per the roster turn. If this procedure is not followed, the PSC will have to issue a fresh notification for No Candidate Available vacancies. 6. Rule 12.A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure does not explicitly mandate that List I must be fully exhausted before advising candidates from List II. Instead, it states that List II becomes operational if no candidates are available in List I. 7. The PSC follows roster turn advice as against the turn-in roster point. This means that the process in Rule 12.A applies category-wise, not list-wise. The reservation of appointments and communal rotation will have to apply for all suitable candidates included in List I and List II, giving precedence to candidates included in List I, this is the purport of Rule 12.A. If Rule 12.A is not interpreted harmoniously to work out reservation of appointments, the very purpose of preparation of List II will become otiose as on exhaustion of List I, after advising candidates from general merit, PSC will have to resort for fresh notification. This was never intended under Rule 12.A. Thus, the PSC correctly interpreted its procedure and issued the 2017 circular accordingly. 8. The PSC’s decision to advise candidates from List II in the absence of suitable candidates in List I is legally valid and justified. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside, and the original petitions are allowed.