JUDGMENT : P.Krishna Kumar, J. The candidates included in the rank list for appointment in the Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Junior Time Scale (Trainees) approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal inter alia challenging Annexure A3 Government Order dated 06.02.2021 by which the cadre strength of KAS Officers (Junior Time Scale) was fixed at 105 by the Government. According to the candidates, the fixation of the cadre strength at 105 is in violation of the Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAS Rules’) and the actual figure is much higher. 2. By the impugned common order dated 13.10.2013, the Tribunal directed the Government to redetermine the cadre strength as on 01.10.2022 in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 4 read with Rule 18 of the KAS Rules. The Tribunal further directed that the Government shall take steps to make appointments for the remaining vacancies as against the vacancies already reported to the Public Service Commission (PSC) pursuant to the interim direction of the Tribunal. Later, the Tribunal disposed of certain other similar applications based on the said impugned order. The above original petitions are preferred by the Government and the PSC against the said orders. As the matters to be determined in all these cases are closely connected, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, O.P.(KAT)No.14/2024 is considered as the leading case, in the following discussion. 3. On 01.11.2019, PSC invited applications for filling up ‘anticipated vacancies’ in the above post, as per Annexure A20 notification. Later, the PSC published Annexure A21 rank list with effect from 08.10.2021. The rank list was valid for one year. 4. A total number of 1258 posts were included in Table I of Schedule II in the KAS Rules. However, as per the Kerala Administrative Service (KAS) Amendment Rules, 2019 (‘Amendment Rules, 2019’, for short), the Government reduced the number of posts in the said Schedule to 1206. As per the Explanatory Note to the Amendment Rules, 2019 the said amendment was made to exclude certain posts that were inadvertently included in the KAS Rules. Later, the Government fixed the cadre strength of the KAS entry level at 105, which is under challenge before us. 5. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 6. Later, the Government fixed the cadre strength of the KAS entry level at 105, which is under challenge before us. 5. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. 6. Since the prime question involved in these cases concerns the actual cadre strength of the entry-level KAS post, it is appropriate to first examine the relevant rules. Rule 4 of the KAS Rules outlines the method of calculation of cadre strength. It reads : “4. Cadre Strength: (a) Entry Level: The cadre strength at the entry level in KAS shall be limited to 10% of the sanctioned strength of 2nd gazetted post in the departments and equivalent post in the common categories of posts in all departments as specified in Schedule I. The 10% Gazetted posts so set apart shall include higher grade posts and posts on account of ratio promotions also. Common category posts shall include the post of Administrative Officer, Administrative Assistant, Accounts Officer, Financial Assistant and posts earmarked for by transfer appointment through KPSC in the cadre of Financial Assistant. (b) Senior Levels: Ten percent of all promotion posts in the promotion posts for the 2nd Gazetted Posts onwards in the Departments in Schedule I and promotion posts for the equivalent common categories of posts onwards in all departments that are specified in Schedule I, shall be set apart for promotions for officers in the KAS. (c) Total Cadre Strength: The cadre strength of the KAS shall be computed as the sum of the posts of entry level and senior levels specified in Sub-Rule (a) and (b) above. (d) Quinquennial Review of Cadre Strength: The review of cadre strength of the KAS shall be done once in five years or as and when decided by government. Provided that, accordingly the increase or decrease of posts in any of the 2nd Gazetted posts in the Departments in Schedule I and equivalent posts in Common Category posts listed in Schedule I of these Rules, reckoned for fixing the strength of the entry level of the KAS, OR in any of the promotion posts in the above feeder categories, between two reviews shall not affect the cadre strength or distribution of promotion posts for officers of the KAS during this period. (e) Government reserves the right to decide the total cadre strength of KAS from time to time by creating additional posts if necessary and also to include/delete any department in Schedule I from time to time.” 7. It is clear from Rule 4(a) that the cadre strength at the entry-level in KAS is 10% of the sanctioned strength of the 2 nd level Gazetted Posts and equivalent posts in the departments specified in Schedule I. Referring to Rule 9(b) of the KAS Rules, the Government contended that it is not an inviolable rule that 10% of such posts should necessarily be fixed as the cadre strength, as the rule only prescribes a maximum limit and thus the Government retains the authority to fix the cadre strength at a lower level if it is found necessary. The relevant part of Rule 9 reads as follows: “9. Appointments and Promotions (a) Promotions shall be subject to the cadre strength fixed by Government and on completion of the specified number of years of service prescribed under these rules. (b) One-third of the vacancies arising every year in the 2nd Gazetted Post in each Department and Common Category, specified in Table I in Schedule II, shall be set apart for appointment from the KAS. Provided that the maximum share of 10% of the total posts, specified in Column (4) in Table I of Schedule II shall not be exceeded. Provided that, in doing so, the first, fourth, seventh and vacancies in that order shall be the vacancies that shall be set apart for appointment from the KAS. (c) For promotion of an officer at any level in the KAS against a vacancy in a post specified in Table II to IV in Schedule II, one- third of the vacancies arising every year in such post shall be set apart for promotion for officers from the KAS. Provided that the maximum share of 10% of the total posts, specified in Column (4) in Table II to IV of Schedule II shall not be exceeded. xxxxxxxx On a close reading of Rule 9(b), we are unable to subscribe to the said contention. In fact, Rule 9(b) is totally irrelevant for fixation of the cadre strength. The actual purpose of Rule 9(b) is to ensure that one-third of the vacancies arising every year in the 2 nd Gazetted Posts have to be set apart for KAS appointment. In fact, Rule 9(b) is totally irrelevant for fixation of the cadre strength. The actual purpose of Rule 9(b) is to ensure that one-third of the vacancies arising every year in the 2 nd Gazetted Posts have to be set apart for KAS appointment. However, the 1 st proviso cautions that while appointing persons in the one- third vacancies so set apart, the maximum share of 10% of the total posts should not be exceeded, in any circumstance. The appointment to the vacancies in the 2 nd level Gazetted Posts is a continuing process and thus 10% of the total posts cannot be exceeded at any point of time. This is the mandate of Rule 9(b). A similar provision is made in Rule 9(c) as well. The said provision is in respect of promotion to be given to officers at any level in the KAS against a vacancy in a post specified in Tables II to IV in Schedule II. Rule 9(c) states that one-third of the vacancies arising every year in such a post shall be set apart for promotion for officers from the KAS. But, proviso to Rule 9(c) states that, in that process, the maximum share of 10% of the total posts shall not be exceeded. It is thus apparent that the above clauses are enacted with a different purpose. 8. In fact, the second paragraph of Rule 4(a) of the KAS Rules makes it further clear that the cadre strength of entry-level KAS officers is exactly 10% of the sanctioned strength of the 2 nd Gazetted Posts in the specified departments. It is stated therein that “the 10% Gazetted posts so set apart shall include higher grade posts and posts on account of ratio promotions also”. The posts to be set apart are thus a fixed figure. Therefore, it can be concluded that the cadre strength of entry-level KAS posts is 10% of the sanctioned strength of 2 nd Gazetted Posts or the equivalent posts in the departments specified in Schedule I. 9. Another contention raised by the Government is that as per Rule 4(e) of the KAS Rules, the Government has reserved its right to reduce the cadre strength of KAS from time to time and thus there is nothing wrong in Annexure A3 order even if the figure 105 is on the lower side. Another contention raised by the Government is that as per Rule 4(e) of the KAS Rules, the Government has reserved its right to reduce the cadre strength of KAS from time to time and thus there is nothing wrong in Annexure A3 order even if the figure 105 is on the lower side. It is also argued that Rule 2(18) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) permits the Government to determine the cadre of each service. However, it is evident from the bare reading of the first part of Rule 4(e) that it permits the Government to refix the cadre strength only when additional posts are created. The second part, on the other hand, enables it to modify the schedule of KAS Rules for including or deleting any department from it, but this power can be exercised only by an amendment of the said Rules, as in the nature of Amendment Rules, 2019. When the Special Rules explicitly prescribe the method for determination of the cadre strength, the provisions in the general rule have only a limited scope and thus Rule 2(18) of KS&SSR will not also help the Government in this regard. 10. When the Government asserts that the total number of posts in the Schedule is only 1206, the contesting respondents argues that, even if the number of the sanctioned strength of such posts is fixed as 1206, the fixation of cadre strength at 105 is erroneous, as 10% of 1206 amounts to 120.6. However, the Government points out that the KAS cadre strength cannot be fixed by using such a straightjacket formula, since the fixation can be done only as per the method provided in Rule 4 read with Rule 9 of the KAS Rules. 11. To resolve this dispute, it is necessary to look into the relevant rules once again. The reason why the Government says that there cannot be a straightjacket formula based on 10% of the sanctioned strength of the 2 nd Gazetted or equivalent Posts is in view of the provision for rounding off the figure so worked out to the next lower integer. Rule 7(e) and 7(f) read thus: “(e) Ten percent of posts in for each entry, rounded off to the next lower integer, shall be computed first and entered in Column (4) in Tables I to IV in Schedule III. Rule 7(e) and 7(f) read thus: “(e) Ten percent of posts in for each entry, rounded off to the next lower integer, shall be computed first and entered in Column (4) in Tables I to IV in Schedule III. Provided that for this purpose, all the posts set apart for Direct Recruitment for appointment as Deputy Collectors shall be taken into account for fixing the cadre strength of KAS as specified in Rule 17 herein and shall be entered against the corresponding entry for Deputy Collectors in Column (4) in Table I in Schedule III. (f) However, if the number of posts identified against any post in Schedule III, consequent to rounding off to the next lower integer is zero, then an additional post shall be created against each of such posts and shown in Column (5) in Schedule III.” The effect of Rule 7(e) is that even if the number of posts in a particular entry is 19, 10% of it would be only 1 and not 2, as the figure 1.9 is to be rounded off to the next lower integer, i.e., 1. The KAS Rules specifically provide a table for working out the above exercise. It is provided in Schedule III as Table III. Viewed in this backdrop, it appears that the Government is justified in reducing the number of posts from 120. However, the issue does not end there, as another roadblock remains for the Government. 12. The said provision has certain exceptions. That is provided in the proviso to sub-clause (e) as well as in sub-clause (f). The proviso says that all the posts set apart for direct recruitment of Deputy Collectors shall be taken into account for fixing the cadre strength of KAS, as specified in Rule 17. Sub-rule(f) of Rule 7 provides that when the number of posts identified against any entry becomes zero owing to the rounding off to the next lower integer, then an additional post has to be created against each of such posts. Besides, after the amendments in 2019, Rule 18(b) provides as follows: “(b) The posts set apart for Direct Recruitment of the category of Administrative Officer under item (iii) of paragraph 3 of G.O.(Ms) No.267/72/PD. Besides, after the amendments in 2019, Rule 18(b) provides as follows: “(b) The posts set apart for Direct Recruitment of the category of Administrative Officer under item (iii) of paragraph 3 of G.O.(Ms) No.267/72/PD. dated 7th July, 1972 and the posts set apart for Direct Recruitment of the category of District Educational Officer specified under item 3 of rule 2 of the Kerala General Education Service and the posts set apart for Direct Recruitment of the category of Financial Assistants under clause (b) of rule 4 of the Special Rules for Financial Assistants and Finance Officers in the Various Departments of the State of Kerala, 1991 as on the date of notification of the Kerala Administrative Service Rules 2018 shall be assigned to the cadre of KAS.” Thus, all the posts - not merely 10% of them - set apart for direct recruitment of (a) District Educational Officer, (b) Financial Assistants, and (c) Finance Officers, are statutorily assigned to the cadre of KAS, in addition to the post of Deputy Collectors. 13. The respondents furnished the details of vacancies and posts available in the above four categories. According to them, even if the Government reduces a few posts while working out the method provided above (rounding off to the next lower integer), they ought to have straightaway added several posts in the cadre of KAS entry level on account of the statutory inclusion of the above four categories of posts. The contention is, indeed, meritorious. 14. Based on the above argument, it is pointed out by the respondents that, at least 26 additional posts could have been filled up from the above-said rank list (5 Deputy Collectors, 11 Administrative Officers and 10 District Educational Officers), but the Government unjustifiably limited the number to 105. According to the respondents, as the validity of Annexure A21 rank list would have ended on 07/10/2022, the Tribunal on 07/10/2021, directed the Government as per Ext.P2 interim order to provisionally report 54 vacancies to the PSC. When the Government disobeyed the order of the Tribunal, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Government and consequently it issued Annexure R1(c) requisition on 01.04.2023 to the PSC to the effect that 54 provisional vacancies are to be considered as reported with effect from 07.10.2022. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is completely justifiable, it is contended. 15. When the Government disobeyed the order of the Tribunal, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Government and consequently it issued Annexure R1(c) requisition on 01.04.2023 to the PSC to the effect that 54 provisional vacancies are to be considered as reported with effect from 07.10.2022. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is completely justifiable, it is contended. 15. It is already found that the KAS Rule itself specifically provides the methods for determination of the cadre strength and the details of the posts to be included in it. In that case, what remains on the part of the Government is merely the formal act of consolidating the figures in accordance with the provisions of the KAS Rules and issuing a notification to that effect. Evidently, Ext.A3 was not issued in consonance with the above scheme of the KAS Rules. In Annexure A3 itself it is stated that, out of the 29 Departments listed in the Schedule, 105 posts were identified only from 24 Departments. It is also not in dispute that the Government excluded many other posts while fixing the cadre strength at 105. This situation brings us to the ultimate issue, namely, whether the Government’s failure to act in accordance with the statutory rules while fixing the cadre strength alone constitutes a justifiable ground for passing the impugned order. To answer this question, let us first consider the explanation offered by the State. 16. In the reply statement filed by the Government before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, it is stated that out of the 1258 posts initially included in Schedule II of the KAS Rules, 52 posts were removed from the said Table by the Amendment Rules, 2019 as those posts were inadvertently included and thus the remaining number of posts is only 1206. It is further stated that a large number of posts in Table I of Schedule II of the KAS Rules belonged to 3 rd and 4 th level Gazetted Posts and the Government intends to rectify the said mistake by amending the Table, but it is a time- consuming process. When the Government called for reports from various departments mentioned in Schedule I of the KAS Rules, certain other anomalies of the above nature were also found and accordingly, the Government decided to maintain the cadre strength of KAS entry level at 105. When the Government called for reports from various departments mentioned in Schedule I of the KAS Rules, certain other anomalies of the above nature were also found and accordingly, the Government decided to maintain the cadre strength of KAS entry level at 105. The Government further stated that a Secretary Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary was constituted to re- examine Schedule II of the KAS Rules and to make recommendations on whether the KAS Rules require amendment. The Committee later recommended that the KAS Rules should be amended by removing the 3 rd and 4 th level Gazetted Posts from Schedule I and II that were erroneously included. The Government states that, because of this, no more posts are available for reporting to the PSC from the rank list which expired on 08.10.2022. 17. The above statement, on the one hand, shows that the determination of cadre strength in Annexure A3 is not strictly in accordance with the KAS Rules, but on the other hand, it clarifies that certain mistakes and anomalies had crept into the KAS Rules while describing the various posts in the Schedule and that the measures to correct the mistakes are underway. The cadre strength is fixed in Annexure A3 taking into account those anomalies and mistakes. The amendment of the KAS Rules might require some time and in the meanwhile, if the candidates included in the rank list are appointed against the vacancies mistakenly included in the Schedule, it would result in unintended consequences, the Government clarifies. 18. In the above circumstances, the question to be considered is whether the impugned order issued by the Tribunal is justified. Having found all the above facts, the Tribunal observed that the candidates included in the rank list have every right to be considered for appointment in accordance with the Rules as long as the Rules are in force; otherwise, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal further noted that it had already directed the Government to report the vacancies to the Public Service Commission well before the expiry of the rank list and thus, the Tribunal directed the Government to determine the cadre strength in accordance with the KAS Rules and to appoint candidates from the rank list. 19. We are afraid we cannot concur with the above opinion. 19. We are afraid we cannot concur with the above opinion. It is well-settled law that an appointing authority may for good and sufficient reasons take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies even if a valid rank list is in force. The appointing authority has every right to decide that a particular number of vacancies should not be filled, on reasonable and genuine grounds. The action of the appointing authority in that regard can be challenged before a court of law only if the exercise of the appointing authority is arbitrary, unreasonable or manifestly illegal. Further, a direction to fill up vacancies from an expired rank list cannot be issued merely on the ground that the appointing authority earlier failed to comply with the direction of the court to report the vacancies. 20. This Court has considered similar aspects in Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. Sheejamol M.C. and Others [ 2020(5)KHC 555 ]. A Full Bench of this Court settled the law in this regard after framing the following issues: “(i) Is the failure of an appointing authority to comply with an interim direction issued by this Court to report specific vacancies before the expiry of the ranked list, a ground to pass a final order directing the appointing authority to fill up vacancies from the ranked list which has, by passage of time, expired? (ii) If the answer to the aforesaid is in the affirmative, what are the circumstances in which such an order would be passed as in State of Kerala v. Sreekandan ( 1993 KHC 23 ) directing the appointing authority to fill up specific vacancies from the ranked list which has expired? (iii) Can this Court be approached to compel an appointing authority to fill up vacancies from a ranked list prepared by the Public Service Commission even if the appointing authority / employer does not intend to fill up that particular vacancy / vacancies for genuine and bona fide reasons?” 21. The Full Bench answered the reference in the following lines: “(I) The judgment in Public Service Commission v. Govindan (supra) does not require reconsideration. The judgment conforms in every respect to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sreekandan (supra). The Full Bench answered the reference in the following lines: “(I) The judgment in Public Service Commission v. Govindan (supra) does not require reconsideration. The judgment conforms in every respect to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sreekandan (supra). If this Court were to conclude on final adjudication of the lis that a particular appointing authority has purposefully and with mala fide intentions refused to comply with interim directions issued to report certain vacancies before the expiry of the ranked list then, this Court on consideration of individual facts and in the rarest of rare situations may direct appointment of candidates included in the ranked list which has expired, as was done in Sreekandan; (II) 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. Circumstances such as financial difficulties, or as in the facts of these cases, orders of statutory authorities resulting in reduction of the number of vacancies or abolition of posts etc. would be good and sufficient reason for the appointing authority to take a decision not to fill up the vacancies.” In the case at hand, we are absolutely unable to hold that the Government acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Though we have found that the Government is not justified in contending that the fixation of the cadre strength of KAS posts is its prerogative, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government has shown genuine and sufficient reasons for not appointing more than 105 candidates from the rank list. True, to rectify the anomalies in the Schedule of KAS Rules, Rule amendment is required and the same is not so far in existence. At the same time, the Government being the appointing authority, can very well take a decision that appointment should not be made to the posts which are inadvertently or mistakenly included in the Schedule. That apart, Rule 4, a substantive provision of the KAS Rules, declares that the entry level KAS post is a 2 nd Gazetted Post. At the same time, the Government being the appointing authority, can very well take a decision that appointment should not be made to the posts which are inadvertently or mistakenly included in the Schedule. That apart, Rule 4, a substantive provision of the KAS Rules, declares that the entry level KAS post is a 2 nd Gazetted Post. Then, if the Schedule, a subordinate part of the Rule, contains certain categories of posts which do not fit in the meaning attributed by the substantive provision, the appointing authority can proceed further with recruitment as guided by the main clause. For this reason, we also find no purpose in interfering with Annexure A3 order. 22. We also note another serious infirmity in the impugned order. The rank list had expired much before the date of the impugned order. Indeed, in certain cases, the Tribunal has the authority to issue a direction to the appointing authority to fill up the vacancies from an expired rank list, when the appointing authority did not report the vacancy despite the interim order issued by the Tribunal while the list was in force. In this case, although the Government reported the vacancies pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, it did so only after the expiry of the rank list, albeit with a rider that the reporting would have retrospective effect. However, the Tribunal has not considered the law laid down by the Full Bench in Sheejamol ’s case (supra) as to the circumstances in which such an extraordinary course can be resorted to while issuing such a direction. The Full Bench held that an order of the above nature could be issued only in exceptional and rare cases where the court finds during the final adjudication that the appointing authority has purposely and with mala fide intention disobeyed the directions of the court. The Tribunal did not advert to any such circumstance while passing the order. On the contrary, the Government has meticulously explained why it was unable to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. Thus, we find no justification in issuing the impugned order. It is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, all the original petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.