Balakrishnan, J.:— These original petitions were referred to the Division Bench as they raise important questions of law. The main relief prayed for in these writ petition is for a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Government to extend the validity period of the P.S.C rank list of L.D Clerk for appointment in the various departments and to take necessary steps to report the vacancies to the Public Service Commission so that the petitioners may be given advice memo by the P.S.C Other incidental reliefs have also been prayed for in these petitions.

2. Except O.P Nos. 13670 and 2252 of 1993 and O.P 153 of 1994, all writ petitions relate to appointment of L.D Clerks, O.P No. 13670 of 1993 and O.P No. 2252 of 1993 relate to appointment of Last Grade employees and O.P No. 153 of 1994 relates to the appointment of Panchayat Executive Officer Gr. II. We shall briefly refer to the relevant facts in each case. O.P No. 6633 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in Ernakulam District. Notification was invited on 10-5-88 and written test was conducted on 22-7-89. Ranked list was published an 19-6-90 and the main list contained 914 candidates and the supplementary list contained 106 candidates. The names of petitioners 1 to 13 are included in the main list and the names of petitioners 14 to 17 are in the supplementary list. It is alleged that advice memo was issued to 369 candidates from the main list and to 42 candidate from the supplementary list. The original petition was filed on 17-5-93 alleging that the authorities are not reporting the vacancies to the Public Service Commission due to extraneous reasons. According to these petitioners, the vacancies are filled up by ad hoc appointment or by inter-district transfers. Petitioners alleged that at the date of filing the original petition there were 106 vacancies and they were not reported to the Public Service Commission and if the list is expired they would be denied employment. Petitioners wanted to extend the period of the ranked list for six months and they filed C.M.P No. 11484 of 1993. The learned single Judge extended the validity of the ranked list upto 15-11-1993. The 2nd respondent, the District Collector, Ernakulam filed a counter - affidavit giving the details regarding the reporting of vacancies to the P.S.C

3. O.P No. 7744 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments in Alappuzha District. The racked list was published on 19-6-90 and the petitioner is ranked as 231. It is alleged that person holding rank Nos. upto 210 were appointed and even now there are large number of vacancies and, therefore, there shall be a direction to report the vacancies to the P.S.C Petitioner filed C.M.P No. 13613 of 1993 and the learned single Judge initially extended the period of ranked list for one month and thereafter further orders were passed and the period of the ranked list was extended upto 15-11-93.

4. O.P No. 7800 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clark in the various departments in Trichur District in this case also the ranked list was published on 19-6-90 and it contained 794 candidates, 296 candidates were all appointed. Petitioners 1 to 8 are included in the ranked list but they were not given appointment. According to the petitioners, there are about 53 vacancies in the various departments. Petitioners filed C.M.P No. 13703 of 1993. The learned single Judge by various interim orders extended the validity of the ranked list upto 15-11-93.

5. O.P No. 13722 of 1993: Petitioner was racked No. 732 in the list for appointment as L.D Clerk in Tricbur District. Petitioner received Ext. P2 advice memo on 1-5-93. Petitioner preys that she was not given appointment and, therefore, seeks for appropriate direction from this Court.

6. The names of the petitioners in O.P 6941 of 1993 are included in the ranked list for appointment as L.D Clerks in Kollam District. The ranked list was to expire on 18-6-93 and it contained 639 persons. Petitioners allege that there are 85 vacancies which were not reported to the P.S.C Petitioners filed C.M.P No. 11956 of 1993 and by various interim orders passed by the learned single Judge the validity of the list was extended upto 15-11-1993. The 3rd respondent, the District Collector, Kollam in this original petition filed a statement denying the allegations in the O.P It is alleged that 4 vacancies in the District Supply Office and 2 vacancies in the Health Department were reported to the P.S.C

7. Petitioner in O.P 7944 of 1993 is holding rank No. 479 in the list prepared by the P.S.C for appointment as L.D Clerks in various departments in Kasaragod District. Petitioner alleges that there are several vacancies in the District but these vacancies are not reported. According to the petitioner if 15 more persons are appointed, be is likely to get appointment. Petitioner filed C.M.P No. 14033 of 1993. No order has been passed in the C.M.P

8. O.P No. 7522 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments in Malappuram District. Petitioners are holding rank Nos. 501 and 607 respectively in the list. It is alleged that the petitioners would have got appointment, but for the temporary ban imposed by me State on 3-5-93. Petitioners contend that there are several vacancies and the authorities should have reported these vacancies before the expiry of the list on 18-6-93. Petitioners filed C.M.P No. 13155 of 1993. This C.M.P was considered along with C.M.Ps filed in O.P Nos. 6941, 6981, 6986 and 7388 of 1993. Considering the ban imposed by the State Government for appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments, the period of the tank list was extended, for a, period of one month from 18.6.93 By subsequent orders, the validity of the list was further extented upto 15-11-93 Petitioners pray that they should be given appointment as L.D Clerks.

9. O.P No. 7388 of 1993: This original petition relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments in Wynad District. Petitioners are rank holders No. 337, 338 and 352 respectively in that list. The ranked list was published on 19-6-90 and, according to the petitioner, because of has ban imposed by the State Government, the petitioners could not get appointment and there were vacancies at the time when the list expired. Petitioners pray that they may be given appointment as L.D Clerks in this case also by interim orders the validity of the list was extended upto 15-11-93.

10. O.P No. 7891 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments in Kasaragod District. Petitioner is rank holder No. 420 and, according to the petitioner, rank holders upto 394 were appointed and there are large number of vacancies in the various departments is the district. Petitioner alleged that these vacancies are being filled by ad hoc appointment and infer-district transfers. It is also alleged that because of the ban imposed by the State Government for appointment of L.D Clerks, the petitioners could not get appointment.

11. O.P No. 13670 of 1993 relates to she appointment of last grade employees in Alappnzha district. The rank list was published on 20-7-90 and the petitioner is rank holder No. 147. According to the petitioner, rank holders upto 146 were appointed and there was one vacancy in the Chemical Industrial Estate, Aroor and another vacancy in the Buildings Sub Division, Cherthala. The 3rd respondent filed a counter statement stating that the vacancy in the Industrial Estate, Aroor was reported and the two vacancies in the Buildings Sub Division Cherthala could not be filled up as some of the vacancies are to be filled up by candidates who are ordered to be posted from the Irrigation Department.

12. O.P No. 2252 of 1993: This O.P relates to the appointment of last Grade Servants in the various departments in Thiruvananthapuram District. The ranked list was published on 2-7-90 in C.M.P No. 4264 of 1993 by various interim orders this Court extended the period of the ranted list upto 15-11-93. According to the petitioners there are large number of vacancies in the various departments in Trivandrum District. Petitioners pray that they may be given appointment to these vacancies.

13. Petitioners in O.P No. 6981 of 1993 are rank holders in the ranked list for appointment as L.D Clerks in the various departments in Pathanamthitta District. According to the positioners 192 persons were already appointed and, prior to the expiry of the list on 19-6-93, there were 27 vacancies in the Salesiax department, 170 vacancies of village assistants in the Revenue Department, 20 vacancies in Panchayat offices, 9 vacancies in the civil supplies department, 7 vacancies of L.D Clerks in the office of the R.T.O and 5 vacancies in the Irrigation Department in this case also, by order in C.M.P No. 12055 of 1993, vie period of task list was extended upto 15-11-93.

14. O.P No. 1956 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various, department in Erankulam District. The reeked, lust was published on 19-6-90 and the petitioner is rank holder No. 553 Petitioner alleges that these are about 349 vacancies in the various departments in Ernakulam District and they were not filled up for ??? reasons.

15. O.P No. 6646 of 1993 is in respect of appointment of L.D ??? in the various departments in Kozhikoda District. The ranked ??? was published on 19-6-90. The main list contained 950 persons and the petitioner is rank bolder No. 712. According to the petitioner, these were 154 vacancies to be filled up in this case also the period of the racked list was expended upto 15-11-93 by the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge.

16. O.P 6644 of 1993 relays to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments in the Kottayam District. Petitioners are rank holders No. 296 and 310 respectively in the main list and there are about 560 candidates in the list 294 candidates have already been appointed and according to the petitioners there are many more vacancies to be filled up. By various interim orders, the period of the list was extended upto 15-11-1993.

17. O.P No. 8259 of 1993 relates to the appointment of L.D Clerks in the various departments in the Kannur District. The main list contained 794 candidates and rank holders upto 227 were served with advice memo and, according to the petitioners, there are 32 vacancies to be filled up. By various interim upto orders, the period of the rank list was extended upto 15-11-930 Petitioners pray that they may be appointed as L.D Clerks.

18. O.P No. 153 of 1993; Here the petitioner was included in the ranked list for appointment as Panchayat Executive Officer Gr. II. Petitioner was holding rank No. 11. Rank No. 9 was one C. Sivadasan and rank No. 10 was one Abdul Koya. Abdalla Koya's name was deleted from the list as early as in May, 1992. The list was to ??? on 4-5-92. On the same day Sivadasan gave it in writing that he did not want appointment. Petitioner alleges that the District Officer of the Kerala Public Service Commission, ??? refused to accept the same. He then submitted this intimation to the District Panchayat Officer, Kozhikode. Petitioner further alleges that the District Panchayat Officer on the same day reported the vacancy to the District Offices, Public Service Commission and this was later ratified by the Director of Panchayats on 27-5-1992. So, according to the Petitioner the vacancy was reported before the expiry of the racked list. Therefore, the Public Service Commission should have issued advice memo to the petitioner for appointment. Petitioner submitted a representation seeking reliefs from the Public Service Commission, but the Public Service Commission, by Ext. P5 order rejected the request of the petitioner and, in the original petition, petitioner alleges that he is a double post-graduate and hails from a very poor family and the authorities should be directed to give appointment to the petitioner.

19. All these writ petitions ware heard together. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even after the expiry of the ranked list, the appointing authority can report the vacancies to the Public Service Commission sad the latter is bound to issue advice memos to the candidates. It is also alleged that when there are vacancies in various departments, failure to report the vacancies to the P.S.G is illegal and unjust and if is against the spirit and mandate of Article 320 of the Constitution. It is argued that in view of the failure of the authorities to report the vacancies to the P.S.C this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers, shall issue orders to the authorities directing them to report the vacancies to the P.S.C despite the expiry of the ranked list published by the P.S.C According to the petitioners' counsel, numerous vacancies in the various departments are being filled up by provisional Stands or by ad bee appointments and in some, cases, it is alleged that, vacancies are filled by inter-district transfers to defeat the rights of the persons who are included in the ranked list published by the P.S.C These allegations are denied by the learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the respondents. On behalf of the Public Service Commission if was submitted that advice memo could be issued only in respect of cases where the vacancies are reported prior to the expiry of the ranked list.

20. The first question that may arise for consideration is whether the appointing authority is competent to report vacancies even after the expiry of the ranked list. The Kerala Public Service Commission has formulated certain rules of procedure with regard to exercise of their powers under Article 320 of the Constitution. Though these rules are not statutory rule they are governing the matters in respect of preparation of rank list and the Issuance of advice memos and other relevant matters. Rule 14 is the relevant rule by which the Public Service Commission makes advice of candidates for appointment. Rule 14 of the P.S.C Rules of Procedure reads as follows:

“The Commission shall advise candidates for all the vacancies reported and pending before them and the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked ??? are kept alive in the order of priority, if any, and in the order of merit subject to the rules of reservation and rotation, wherever they are applicable”.

21. The above rule says that the Commission shall advice, candidates for all vacancies reported and pending before them and that they also consider the vacancies which may be reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive. Counsel for the pensioners contended that the vacancies could be reported at any time, that is, even after the expiry of the list provided the vacancies arose prior to she expiry of the ranked list. We are unable to subscribe to this view. The vacancies should have arisen prior to the expiry of the ranked list and the reporting of such vacancies should also take place before the expiry of the ranked list. If any other interpretation is given to Rule 14 of the P.S.C Rules of Procedure. It would lead to so many anomalous situation. The question as to when the vacancies arose cannot be ascertained especially if the appointment relates to large number of vacancies, such as L.D Clerks or Last Grade employees. Moreover, if the appointing authority is allowed indefinite period for reporting the vacancies, there is no meaning in prescribing the time limit for the ranked list.

22. It may be noticed that under Rule 13 of the P.S.C Rules of Procedure, the ranked list published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force fill the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or fill the expiry of three years whichever is earlier. So, we are of the view that the vacates shall be reported by the appointing authority before the expiry of the ranked list and if any vacancies are reported subsequent to that date the Public Service Commission is not competent to issue advice memo under Rule 14.

23. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on some of the decisions of this Court to canvass the proposition that the appointing authority can report vacancies even after the date of expiry of the ranked list. It was further contended that this Court had directed the authorities to report the vacancies and to effect appointment even after the expiry of the list. Reference was made to a decision of this Court reported in Rajamma v. State Of Kerala & Others (1983 (2) ILR 271). That is a case where the appellant, a widow, was selected by the P.S.C for appointment as last Grade Servant. One of the essential qualifications was ability to do cycling. Appellant lacked this qualification and on that ground she was excluded from appointment. This Court held that exclusion of the appellant was unfair and the denial of appointment to women to posts in the last Grade Service on the sole ground that they are women is opposed to Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India and this Court directed the authorities to appoint the appellant as Last Grade servant and the P.S.C was directed to advise the appellant for appointment. The above decision has no application to the facts in these cases. It is true that if the denial of appointment is on some illegal and unjust ground, this Court can pass effective orders and mould reliefs accordingly and the expiry of the ranked list shall never be a fitter to the power of this Court.

24. As regards the scope and amplitude of Rule 13 of the P.S.C Rules of Procedure there is an earlier decision of this Court reported in Annie v. Commr., Chalakudy Municipality (1984 K.L.T 170). That is a case where the petitioners were working in Trichur Municipality as provisional employee. They filed original petition and obtained orders from this Court to the effect that their services shall not be terminated except in accordance with Chapter V(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act but subject to being replaced by regular recruits on the advice of the P.S.C While so, on requisition from the concerned authority, the P.S.C conducted selection and prepared a ranted list, which cams info force on 1-6-81. The ranked list had a validity for 2 years and it lapsed on 31-5-83. After the expiry of the ranked list, the persons included in the racked list were advised to be appointed. This was challenged by the petitioners alleging that the Service commission could not advice any person from the list after 31-5-83 and no person was illegally advised by the Service Commission could be validly appointed. While considering the legality of such appointment, U.L Bhat, J. observed as follows:

“Rule 13 of course fixes the period doling which ranked list is to have life. Read by itself, it may mean that an appointment from a ratted list which has lapsed is not possible; but, R. 13 cannot be read in total isolation. If there are any other rules having a bearing on this question, those rules also have to be read; as far as possible, the court must endeavor a harmonious construction of the different rules. Rule 14 requires the Service Commission to advise candidates, for all vacancies reported and pending before them and vacancies which were reported to them for the period during which the ranked lists are kept alive. This would indicate that whenever a vacancy is reported to the Commission before the ranked list lapses, the Commission has a duty to advise candidate to each vacancy. It is open to the department concerned to report vacancies even on the very day on which the ranked list lapses. This is clearly wish in a contemplation of R. 14. If that be so, it is impossible to expect the Service Commission to advise candidates, on the very same day on which the vacancy is reported to them. This, is because the preparation of advise list consists not merely in copying names from the ranked list but re-arranging the names in accordance with the directions, priorities, etc. in the special rules regarding the reservations. Realistic understanding of R. 14 would clearly lead to the inference that the Service. Commission is entitled to and has also a duty to advise candidates even after the lapse of the ranked ??? provided the vacancies concerned are reported to Service Commission during the period when the ranked list, has life. R. 13 must be read subject to R. 14, in other words, excepting in contingencies as contemplated in R. 14, a ranked list published by the Service Commission shall have life only during the period contemplated in R. 13; or in other words notwithstanding the lapse of the period of the ranked list as per R. 13, the ranked list could be utilised for the limited purpose of advising candidates in relation to vacancies reported to the Service Commission before the lapse of the ranked list.”

25. There is an earlier decision of Khalid, J. as he then was, reported in Murugan v. State of Kerala (1982 (2) ILR 74): That is a case where the ranked list expired on 27th March, 1980. On the last date the Government requested the Service Commission to advice 6 candidates from the select list. This letter reached the Commission on the same date and the Commission later advised two candidates included in the list for appointment. Rejecting the contention of the petitioners that appointment was illegal, it was observed:

“By this rule the Commission is mandated to advise candidates for all the vacancies reported, both pending before them and reported during the subsistence of the racked list”.

26. A Full Bench of this Court considered these aspects while disposing R.P No. 8/93 in W.A No. 967 of 1987. There the petitioners contended that at the time when fee Tasked list for appointment of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax officers expired on 30-10-1987 there were 16 vacancies and they should have been reported by the Government to the P.S.C The Full Bench expressed the view that, as the list had expired, it was not proper to direct the Commission to advise petitioners or direct the Government to appoint the petitioners. It was observed in paragraph 13 of the Order that Rule 13 of the P.S.C Rules of Procedure is clear to the effect that the validity of the list is only for 3 years and the vacancy could not be reported thereafter. Therefore, it is clear that under Rule 14, vacancies should be notified before the expiry of the list. The argument of the petitioners' counsel to the contrary cannot be accepted.

27. The next aspect that is to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to get appointment even after the expiry of the list and that there shall be a direction from this Court to the appointing authorities to direct them to notify the vacancies despite the expiry of the list. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the appointing authorities have resorted to inter-district transfers and ad hoc appointments to defeat the interests of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled, to get appointment. No material is placed before us to substantiate this contention. Even if some vacancies were filled up by inter-district transfers, vacancies will arise in the district from where transfer was effected. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in the districts of Ernakulam, Alappuzha, Kannur and Kasaragod no posts were filled up by inter-district transfers. In other districts some vacancies were filled up and the resultant vacancies were notified to the Public Service Commission. There is also no evidence to indicate that the vacancies alleged to have been in existence are filled up by ad hoc appointments or by appointing provisional hands.

28. Petitioner' counsel alleged that there was a ban of appointment for some time and, therefore the vacancies were not reported during this period and this in a way affected the prospects of the petitioners in getting employment. It is true that there was a ban of appointment and it was lifted subsequently. The validity of the ratted list also was extended for a month immediately after the cessation of the ban. Vacancies, then existed, might have been reported during this period. So the petitioners chance to get appointment was not in any way affected by the ban of appointment.

29. The above facts will show that there was no illegality on the part of the appointing authority and the appointment were done on the basis of the seniority of the candidates in the ranked list. Counsel for she petitions contended that failure to appoint rest of the candidates, whose names are included in the ranked list, is illegal and the Government has no authority to pick and choose candidates.

30. Reference was made to the decision reported in Mrs. Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (JT 1993 (2) S.C 688). That is a case where the Public Service Commission prepared a list of 20 Candida es for appointment as Munsifs. The Government approved the list in part and disapproved the balance. The Supreme Court held that the Government has no absolute powers to disapprove or reject the recommendations of the Commission. Based on this observation, the counsel for the petitioners contended that the failure of the authority to report vacancies amounts to disapproval of part of the list and, therefore, this Court should direct the respondents to report all the vacancies. We do not think that from the decision cited above such a consequence will follow. Here, the appointing authority has not disapproved the list in all the districts majority of the persons included in the ranked list were given appointment. The candidates were not picked and chosen for appointment. The appointment was done strictly on the basis of the seniority in the ranked list. So, the observations reads fey the Supreme Court in Mrs. Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir has no application.

31. Reference was also made to the decision reported in Padmanabhan v. State Of Kerala (1982 (1) ILR Kerala 346). That is a case where the ranked list for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer had lapsed and the petitioner there in sought appointment alleging that he is entitled to get appointment on the basis of the ratio maintained in the Kerala Engineering Subordinate Service (Rodio Branch Rules, 1967. The learned single Judge observed that the court has not only the right but also the duty to ensure that the appointing authority does not circumvent its statutory obligation under rule 31(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and subordinate Service Rules by delaying and defeating the rights of the selected candidates to gut appointed to the posts which fell to their lot. The Court further directed so give appointment to the petitioner. The views expressed by the learned single Judge was disapproved by the Full Bench of this Court in R.P No. 8/93 in W.A 967 of 1987.

32. in A. Sreekantan Nair v. M.K Muraleedharan Nair (1991 LAB. I.C 2163) a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether the advice for appointment made by the Public Service Commission pending for an unduly long period of time could elapse. Speaking for the Bench, Viswanatha Iyer, J. held:

“Equal opportunity for public employment is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Public employment opportunity is rational wealth or property of the nation which all citizens are equally entitled to share subject of course to the possession of qualifications necessary for holding the post. No class of people can monopolise public employment for any reason. Right to employment is no private property, but one to be shared equally by all those who are eligible for it. In this country of perennial unemployment particularly, the guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment assumes great importance. Such opportunity must be available to succeeding generations of young men who become eligible for appointment from time to time by acquiring the necessary qualifications……………………………………………………………………. Otherwise the guarantees under Arts. 14 and 16 will become illusory. Creation of such reservoirs from which, appointments are to be made for years to corns leads to arbitrariness for the reason that any advice beyond the necessities of a particular period will result in stagnation of the list for a long number of years with resultant denial of opportunities for the subsequent eligible candidates”.

33. The petitioners have not made out a case to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appointing authorities to notify the vacancies even after the expiry of the list. Merely because, the petitioners names are included in the rank list, it does not give any right to them to claim appointment. Petitioners have no case that they ware denied employment by reason of any arbitrary exercise of power or illegality committed on the part of the appointing authority. Therefore, the request of the petitioners that the appointing authority may be directed to notify the existing vacancies to the Public Service Commission and direct the latter to issue advice memos to these petitioners cannot be accepted.

34. In O.P No. 153 of 1994 the facts are slightly different. Here, the petitioner was Included in the ranked list as No. 11 for appointment as Panchayat Executive Officer Gr. II. The ranked list expired on 4-3-92. On the last day one C. Sivadasan, who was rank No. 9 is the list, informed the Public Service Commission that his name may be removed from the ranked list. His application is purported to have been filed under Rule 18(ii) of the PSC Rules of Procedure. But the PSC declined to accept this and issued advice memo to C. Sivadasan. Petitioner contends flat the procedure adopted by the PSC was Illegal and that the PSC should have accepted the request of Sivasadan and in his place the name of the petitioner should have been advised. This contention is not comet for various reasons. Original Rule 18(ii) of PSC Rules of Procedure was amended with effect from 1-12-1983. As per the earlier Rule any candidate whose same has been included in a ranked list prepared by the Commission may at any time before the receipt of order of appointment relinquish his claim for appointment in writing. As per the amended rule such ??? is possible on or before the date of receipt of requisition for advice against the post which he is to be advised in the instant case, C. Sivadasan relinquished his claim after the Public Service Commission received requisition from the appointing authority for his advise for appointment as Panchayat Executive Officer Gr. II. On the basis of the amended rule P.S.C could not have entertained his request on the last date of the expiry of ranked list. The P.S.C rightly rejected his relinquishment. The contention of the petitioner that the requisition for his appointment was received by the P.S.C on the lest date i.e 4-5-92 Itself and, therefore, be should have been appointed is not correct. The requisition was sent by the District Panchayat Officer and he was not the competent authority to make such requisition as he was not the appointing authority. There was no requisition from the Director of Panchayats, who is the competent authority to report vacancies to the Public Service Commission. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was subsequent ratification by the Director of Panchayats which, we find is of no consequent. For the above reasons, petitioner Pin O.P No. 153 of 1994 is not entitled to a writ of mandamus prayed for in the original petition.

35. Except the petitioner in the case of O.P No. 13722 of 1993, all other petitioners have not been served with advice memo for appointment. The racked list for appointment of L.D Clerks and Last Grade employees expired and the petitioners are not entitled to a writ of mandamus prayed for directing the respondents to report all the pending vacancies in respect of L.D Clerks and Last Grade Servants in the case of O.P No. 13722 of 1993, the respondents may appoint the petitions as L.D Clerk as and when her turn comes.

36. O.P No. 13722 of 1993 is disposed of as stated above. All other original petitions are dismissed.