JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners, being aggrieved by the denial of appointments to them, by the 1 st respondent as Office Attendants, despite the fact that, they were included in the ranked list published in this regard. It is also their grievance that, without giving them appointment, now a fresh selection process is notified for the said post. (WP(C)No. 23548/2024 is treated as the leading case and the Exhibits and the parties will be hereinafter referred to in this judgment as per the description and sequence thereof in the said writ petition) 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The 2 nd respondent published Ext.P1 notification dated 19.12.2019, inviting applications to the post of Office Attendant in the High Court of Kerala. The vacancies notified in Ext.P1 were 24 in numbers, but it was also mentioned therein that, the vacancies that may arise during the period of validity of the ranked list shall also be filled up from the list. It was also provided that, the said ranked list shall remain in force for a minimum period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force and shall continue to remain in force until the publication of a fresh list or till the expiry of two years, whichever is earlier. 3. The petitioners have submitted applications in response to Ext.P1 and participated in the selection process. Thereafter, Ext.P2 ranked list was published by the 2 nd respondent, wherein, all the petitioners were included. During the validity of Ext.P2 ranked list, the 2 nd respondent issued appointment orders on 11.8.2022, 18.10.2022, 3.1.2023, 21.2.2023, 5.4.2023, 29.5.2023, 3.8.2023, 5.1.2024, 27.2.2024, 20.4.2024, 24.5.2024 and 15.6.2024 by appointing 332 candidates from Ext.P2 rank list. The total sanctioned post were 345 in the cadre. During the subsistence of the Ext.P2 ranked list, 34 vacancies of Office Attendants which had arisen between 4.3.2023 and 4.1.2024, were not filled up. It is averred that, on seeking information from respondents 1 and 2, it was conveyed that, 34 posts of O.As. as referred to above were proposed to be abolished as per the decision taken by the 1 st respondent and a further decision was taken to create 18 new posts in various other categories in the High Court establishment. It is averred that, on seeking information from respondents 1 and 2, it was conveyed that, 34 posts of O.As. as referred to above were proposed to be abolished as per the decision taken by the 1 st respondent and a further decision was taken to create 18 new posts in various other categories in the High Court establishment. The said proposal was submitted before the Government and the approval of the Government was awaiting. The said posts were not filled up by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents. Subsequently, as per Ext.P7 Government Order dated 21.6.2024,the proposal made by the 1 st respondent was accepted by the Government, thereby, 34 posts of O.As., were abolished and instead, 18 new posts, including that of additional Protocol Officer, Section Officer/Court Officer, Personal Assistant Grade- II, Confidential Assistant Grade-II and Cook, were created. In the meantime, the Ext.P2 ranked list expired on 16.6.2024. Even before the expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list, the 2 nd respondent issued a further notification, which is produced as Ext.P6 dated 30.5.2024, inviting applications to the posts of Office Attendant. In Ext.P6, it was sought to fill up 34 numbers of anticipated vacancies. According to the petitioners, the non filling up of 34 vacancies, which were in existence during the subsistence of Ext.P2 ranked list and inviting application for filling up of 34 vacancies on the verge of expiry of the term of Ext.P2 ranked list, are arbitrary and hence liable to be interfered with. The reliefs sought in WP(C) No.23548/2024 are as follows: “i. call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 to P9 ii. And issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext P7 to the extent of denial the appointment of 34 candidates from the Ext P2 rank list. iii. And issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext P6 notification on the reason that it was issued without bonafide. iv. declare that all the existing vacancies of Office Attendants including 34 vacancies that are kept aside on account of proposal for abolishing the same are entitled to be filled up from Exhibit-P2 ranked list. v. Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 Order to the extent of effecting appointment of 18 posts sanctioned by the Government by abolishing the 34 vacancies from the Ext. v. Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 Order to the extent of effecting appointment of 18 posts sanctioned by the Government by abolishing the 34 vacancies from the Ext. P2 rank list and also stay all further proceedings pursuant Ext. P6 notification. vi. Direct the respondents to fill up all the existing and arising vacancies of Office Attendants in the High Court of Kerala from Ext. P2 rank list by extending the validity of the same from 16.06.2024 to 16.12.2024 or any other period as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court which is fit and proper to the redressal of the grievance of the petitioners. vii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to effect appointment of 34 posts of Office Attendants from Exhibit-P2 ranked list. viii. grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Civil).” In the other writ petitions also, similar reliefs are sought. 4. The 1 st and 2 nd respondents have filed counter affidavits in all the writ petitions, controverting the averments contained in the writ petitions and also opposing the reliefs sought. It is averred in the counter affidavit that, apart from 24 vacancies notified as per Ext.P1 notification, appointments were made against 105 more vacancies arose in the post. Apart from the above, appointments were also made against the vacancies that arose after the issuance of notification and upto the date of coming into the force of rank list ie., during the period from 19.12.2019 to 17.6.2022. Accordingly, so far, 332 candidates were given appointments from Ext.P2 ranked list. The details of the various categories under which the candidates were appointed, were also furnished. With regard to the decision not to fill up 34 posts, the explanation offered by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents is that, consequent to various reasons such as, the implementation of Information and Communication Technology initiatives in the High Court, the decision taken to revamp the protocol wing of the High Court and also the decision taken to have a full fledged Guest House for the High Court having facilities at par with the other High Court Guest House, it was found necessary to create some new posts. However, due to the acute financial crisis, the Government turned down the request of the 1 st respondent to create additional posts. It was also noticed that, on account of the implementation of the Information and Communication Technology Project in the High Court, there arose a redundancy in respect of few posts including Office Attendants. 5. In such circumstances, the Administrative Committee of the 1 st respondent, in its meetings held on 10.10.2023 and 27.10.2023 has taken a decision to convert 34 posts of Office Attendants to create additional posts in some other categories. Accordingly, a proposal was submitted before the Government for abolishing 34 posts of O.As., and to create 18 new posts in various categories. 6. The Government considered the said proposal and accorded sanction for the same, as per Ext.P7. With regard to the Ext.P6 notification, it is the specific case of the respondents 1 and 2 that, 34 vacancies referred to therein, are the vacancies that are expected to arise during the period from 17.6.2024 to 16.6.2026 and the same has nothing to do with the 34 vacancies that were kept unfilled in the light of the proposal which was pending before the Government. In the counter affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 also denied the right of the petitioners to claim appointments as O.As., merely because of their inclusion in the Ext.P2 ranked list. It was further contended that, all the decisions were taken as part of implementation of a policy which cannot be questioned by the petitioners. 7. I have heard Sri. Sivan Madathil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these writ petitions, Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Arun Ajay Sankar, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 3 and 4. 8. From the pleadings and contentions raised from both sides, it is discernible that the dispute in these cases pertains to the non filling up of 34 posts of O.As, despite the fact that, those posts were lying vacant during the period when Ext.P2 ranked list was in force. According to the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent published Ext.P6 notification, just before the date of expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list, inviting applications to 34 posts of O.As., which is violating the right of the petitioners to get appointments based on their inclusion in the list. 9. According to the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent published Ext.P6 notification, just before the date of expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list, inviting applications to 34 posts of O.As., which is violating the right of the petitioners to get appointments based on their inclusion in the list. 9. One of the main objections raised by the respondents 1 and 2 is that, the petitioners do not have a vested right to seek appointment, merely because of the reason that, they were included in the ranked list. Several decisions were cited to substantiate the said contention. It is also the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that, as far as the change in the staff pattern is concerned, it is the prerogative of the 1 st respondent and a decision on the same has to be taken by the said respondent, taking into account, various factors relating to the administration of the institution. Therefore, it is a policy decision taken by the competent authority and hence no interference could be made at the instance of the petitioners, Thus, the mere fact that, the petitioners were included in the ranked list would not make them competent to challenge such policy decisions taken by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, it was contended. 10. When examining the position of law with regard to the right of the persons included in the ranked list to get appointment, it can be seen that, it is clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and Others v. Raj Kumar Sharma and Others [ (2006) 3 SCC 330 ], Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh [ (1993) 1 SCC 154 ], S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala [ (2009) 2 SCC 479 ], that, mere inclusion in the select list does not confer any right to be selected even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled. In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India [ (1991) 3 SCC 47 ] , a Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme has also held that: “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. 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 not 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.” 11. Moreover, in Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others [Civil Appeal No.2634/2013] [(2025) 2 SCC 1] , the following observations were made: “25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non- arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure. [Sivanandan C.T. case, (2024) 3 SCC 799 , para 18] 26. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or withdraw it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise the full range of choices available within its executive power. The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the larger public interest. The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 27. Courts have to determine whether the public interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of the claimant. While performing a balancing exercise, courts have to often grapple with the issues of burden and standard of proof required to dislodge the claim of legitimate expectation. [Sivanandan C.T. case, (2024) 3 SCC 799 , para 37]” 12. In the said decision, after elaborately discussing various decisions in this regard, it was clearly held in paragraph 42 that, placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right of appointment. The State or its instrumentality, for bonafide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, it was further observed that, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within its zone of consideration in the select list. 13. A Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. Sheejamol M.C. and Others [2020(5) KHC 555(FB)] , considered the said question in a case in which the appointing authority, the District Co-operative Bank, had taken a decision not to fill up the vacancies already notified and select list prepared, due to the change in the staff pattern. After referring to various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, it was held that, 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. In the said decision, it was also held that, there cannot be any direction to the authorities to advise candidates from the ranked list which has expired. In the said decision, it was also held that, there cannot be any direction to the authorities to advise candidates from the ranked list which has expired. Further, it was also observed that, even though it was possible for this Court to issue directions to the appointing authority to fill up the posts even after the expiry of the ranked list, in cases where there were non compliance of the interim directions issued by this Court to report the vacancies, during the period when the ranked list was in force, it was clarified that, such directions could be issued only in exceptional circumstances and in rarest of situations where, this Court comes to the conclusion, on final adjudication of the lis, that the appointing authority had purposefully and with malafide intention, failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court. 14. Moreover, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Rajendran and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [AIR 1982 SC 1107]. Avas Vikas Sansthan and another v. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 132 ], State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others [ (1992) 4 SCC 118 ], the Government has every right to change the staff pattern in accordance with the requirements. 15. In State of Haryana v. Navneet Verma [ (2008) 2 SCC 65 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the authority of the Government in abolishing a post and the extent of judicial interference as follows ; “17. 15. In State of Haryana v. Navneet Verma [ (2008) 2 SCC 65 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarised the authority of the Government in abolishing a post and the extent of judicial interference as follows ; “17. We summarise the power of the Government in abolishing a post and role of the court for interference: (a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the Government; (b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity; (c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and every sovereign government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration; (d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the Government in the interest of administration and general public; (e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from mala fides, legal or factual; (f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted.” 16. In State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar and another, [(1976) 2 SCC 844] the Hon’ble Supreme Court said: "Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. As long as such decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by the court. It is not open to the court to go behind the wisdom of the decision and substitute its own opinion for that of the Government on the point as to whether a post should or should not be abolished." Thus in the light of the principles laid down above, nothing would preclude the respondents from changing staff pattern and the same cannot be interfered by this court, unless it is shown that the same is perverse. 17. Thus, the principles discussed as above, have to be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case and a decision has to be taken based on the same. 17. Thus, the principles discussed as above, have to be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case and a decision has to be taken based on the same. When doing such exercise, the important aspect to be noticed is that, a justifiable reason is forthcoming from the part of the respondents 1 and 2, for not filling up the 34 posts that were lying vacant during the period Ext.P2 ranked list was in force. The reason offered is that, as part of altering the staff pattern due to the developments on account of implementation of Information Technology measures, certain posts including 34 posts of O.As., became redundant. Moreover, at the same time, a necessity arose to create some additional posts in various other categories as well. In such circumstances a conscious decision was taken by the 1 st respondent, to abolish 34 posts of O.As., and to create 18 new posts in the other categories. It is also to be noted in this regard that, before taking such a decision, an attempt was made to create additional posts which was not approved by the Government due to acute financial stringencies. This would amount to a justifiable ground for the respondent No1 to take a decision to abolish 34 posts of O.As., and to create 18 additional posts. Since such change in the staff pattern is having financial implication, the proposal in this regard was forwarded to the Government. As that proposal was pending consideration, it was decided not to fill up those vacancies. Ext.P7 would indicate that, the proposal so made was eventually accepted by the Government, even though the owner in this regard was passed after the expiry of Ext.P2 ranked list. 18. Thus, from the above sequence of events, it is evident that, the decision was taken by the respondent no.1 due to administrative exigencies and no malafide intention or any arbitrariness could be attributed in respect of the same. As observed above, it is a well settled position that, mere inclusion of the petitioners in the ranked list will not give the petitioners any indefeasible right to claim the appointment. As observed above, it is a well settled position that, mere inclusion of the petitioners in the ranked list will not give the petitioners any indefeasible right to claim the appointment. In case, the decision was taken by the appointing authority as a policy decision, and there is no malafide intention therein, no interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India could be made by this Court issuing direction to the 1 st and 2 nd respondents to fill up the said post. 19. Apart from the above, it is to be noted that, the actual vacancies notified in Ext.P2 was 24 only, and it was also mentioned in the notification that, all the vacancies that arise during the subsistence of the ranked list will also be filled up from the list. Going by the details furnished by the respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that, 332 appointments were already made from the Ext.P2 ranked list. This itself indicate the fairness in the actions of the respondents 1 and 2, and it also shows that all possible opportunities were extended to the persons included in the ranked list. 20. As far the issuance of Ext.P6 notification is concerned, it is the specific case of the respondents 1 and 2 that, the vacancies notified therein are expected to arise from 17.6.2024 to 16.6.2026. The Ext.P2 ranked list expired on 16.6.2024. Therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any claim in respect of the said posts. Even though, the petitioners have raised a contention that, the 34 posts now notified as per Ext.P6, are the posts that remained unfilled during the subsistence of Ext.P2 ranked list, there are no materials to arrive at such a conclusion. Further, I also do not find any reason to discard the explanation offered by the respondent No. 1 in this regard 21. Yet another aspect to be noticed while considering the relief sought by the petitioners is that, the ranked list is already expired on 16.6.2024 and there is nothing before this Court to show that, any other vacancies than the 34 vacancies referred to above, arose during the relevant period and remained unfilled. Yet another aspect to be noticed while considering the relief sought by the petitioners is that, the ranked list is already expired on 16.6.2024 and there is nothing before this Court to show that, any other vacancies than the 34 vacancies referred to above, arose during the relevant period and remained unfilled. Even though the petitioners have sought a direction to extent the period of the Ext.P2 ranked list, the same cannot be entertained, in view of the fact that, such period is fixed as per Rule 7(2) of Kerala High Court Service Rules , 2007 and the said period is specifically mentioned in Ext.P1 notification as well. Similarly, the relief sought by the petitioner to appoint them against the 34 vacancies also cannot be considered now, as the list is already expired. It is to be noted that, in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheejamol's case (supra), it is clearly observed that, no direction can be issued by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, to the appointing authority to give appointments to the persons included in the ranked list, after the expiry of such list. In such circumstances, after considering all the relevant aspects, I could not find any justifiable reasons, to grant the reliefs sought in these writ petitions and accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.