JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. A notification was issued for the post of Last Grade Servants in various departments in 14 districts, including Thrissur district, by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) on 12/05/2017. The ranked list came into force on 30/06/2018. The ranked list was due to expire on 29/06/2021. The PSC extended the validity period of the ranked list due to the outbreak of COVID-19 up to 04/08/2021. However, taking note of the COVID pandemic and based on different challenges before this Court and the Tribunal, the ranked list period was extended and finally expired on 29/09/2021. On 02/08/2021, the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, reported 11 vacancies for the post of Office Assistants in Thrissur district. It was mentioned in the proforma that these 11 vacancies were anticipated vacancies. On 04/08/2021, a request was made from the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur, to revoke 8 vacancies out of the 11 vacancies reported. It was stated that out of those who were promoted as Lab Assistants from the post of Office Assistants, 8 had relinquished their promotion, and therefore, only 3 vacancies exist. Accordingly, it was requested that Proforma ID 21505, dated 02/08/2021, be revoked in respect of 11 vacancies. On 03/08/2021, another proforma was forwarded from the office of the Education Department, reporting 11 vacancies. This proforma stated that 11 vacancies existed as on 01/08/2021. The PSC, acting on a letter dated 04/08/2021, advised on 3 vacancies. Thereafter, it is seen that on 22/11/2021, a request was made from the Deputy Director of Education to issue advice for 8 vacancies; PSC did not act on that request. 2. The respondents are the applicants before the Tribunal. They were included in the ranked list for appointment as Office Assistants in Thrissur District. They approached the Tribunal, seeking a direction to the PSC to issue advice for vacancies based on the Proforma for reporting vacancies issued by the Deputy Director of Education. 3. The PSC took the stand that they issued advice for 3 substantive vacancies, and 8 out of the 11 vacancies arose after 03/08/2021; and since the ranked list expired on 04/08/2021, they cannot issue advice for the subsequently arisen vacancies. The case was filed in the year 2022. If the ranked list expired on 04/08/2021, PSC was justified in its stand. 4. The case was filed in the year 2022. If the ranked list expired on 04/08/2021, PSC was justified in its stand. 4. Two questions arise: first, about vacancies that arose after the expiry of the ranked list on 04/08/2021; and second, about the effect of the cancellation of the proforma. Point No. i 5. This Court vide judgment in OP(KAT) No. 359/2021, dated 17/06/2022, ordered that the ranked list would stand extended by three months. The PSC had challenged the above judgment before the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the above challenge in SLP No.104-113/2023 on 29/07/2024. Therefore, based on the direction of this Court, the validity of the ranked list was extended upto 29/09/2021. According to the Department of Education, 8 vacancies arose as detailed below. 1 31/08/2021 By transfer appointment 2 08/09/2021 By transfer appointment 3 10/09/2021 By transfer appointment 4 23/09/2021 By transfer appointment 5 15/09/2021 By transfer appointment 6 13/10/2021 By transfer appointment 7 02/11/2021 By transfer appointment 8 22/11/2021 By transfer appointment Out of the 8 vacancies, 5 vacancies arose prior to 29/09/2021. 6. The argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC is that all these vacancies have arisen after the expiry of the ranked list and, therefore, in the light of the judgments of the Full Bench of this Court in Vimala Kumari v. State [ 1994 KHC 295 ] and Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. Sheejamol M. C. and Others [ 2020 (5) KHC 555], as well as the judgments of the Division Bench in Balakrishnan v. PSC [ 1994 KHC 119] and Public Service Commission v. Govindan [ 2000 KHC 9] , this Court cannot direct the PSC to make appointments based on such vacancies. 7. The Court cannot direct issuance of advice from the expired ranked list. We find that the above judgments have no application in this matter. Admittedly, 5 vacancies arose before the expiry of the extended period of the ranked list on 29/09/2021. Point No.ii 8. The PSC takes the stand that once the proforma has been cancelled and revoked, PSC cannot issue advice to the candidates included in the ranked list, based on the cancelled proforma. This argument is raised on a wrong impression that there was a cancellation or revocation of the vacancies reported in the proforma. There was no clarity on this before the Tribunal. This argument is raised on a wrong impression that there was a cancellation or revocation of the vacancies reported in the proforma. There was no clarity on this before the Tribunal. The PSC produced the proformas issued to them by the Deputy Director of Education, which are marked as Exts.P7 and P8 before this Court along with I.A.No.1/2025. As seen from Ext.P8, what was cancelled was Ext.P7 proforma dated 02/08/2021. In this proforma, the nature of vacancies reported was anticipated vacancies as on 1/09/2021. Thereafter, another proforma was issued on 03/08/2021, wherein 11 vacancies were reported and the nature of the vacancies was stated as fresh vacancies as on 01/08/2021. There is no cancellation of the proforma issued on 03/08/2021. Therefore, the PSC cannot contend that there was revocation or cancellation of the proforma. The question then is whether the vacancies that arose subsequently during the extended period of the ranked list can be treated as a part of the proforma dated 03/08/2021, wherein it was reported that vacancies existed on 01/08/2021, although such vacancies did not exist at that time. 9. As seen from various records produced before this Court, there were no substantive vacancies of 11 as on 01/08/2021. The vacancies, as referred now, have arisen after 04/08/2021, i.e, the original date on which the ranked list was to expire, but have arisen during the extended validity period of the ranked list up to 29/09/2021, by the order of this Court in OP(KAT) No. 359/2021. There is no embargo under law for the PSC in advising candidates from a ranked list, though such vacancies were not in existence when it was reported to PSC, but have arisen during the extended validity of the ranked list. If substantive vacancies have arisen during the validity of the ranked list, it does not make any difference for the PSC, as such vacancies were only probable at the time of submission of the proforma for reporting vacancies. The PSC resisted this case as there were no substantive vacancies as on 04/08/2021, and also on the impression that the Deputy Director of Education had cancelled or revoked 8 out of 11 reported vacancies. This stand of the PSC is factually incorrect in the light of the extension of the validity of the list and also on the fact that there was no cancellation of the proforma dated 03/08/2021. This stand of the PSC is factually incorrect in the light of the extension of the validity of the list and also on the fact that there was no cancellation of the proforma dated 03/08/2021. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in directing the PSC to issue advice memos for the 5 vacancies that arose during the extended period of the ranked list. The original petition stands dismissed.