Holding

Each batch of twenty candidates is a separate unit for applying reservation under Rules 14‑17; the High Court’s addition of a proviso to Rule 14(a) is impermissible.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (Rules 14‑17) to determine how reservation should be applied in appointments of Medical Officers (ISM). The Kerala High Court had read a proviso into Rule 14(a), treating the unit of appointment as the total number of vacancies when they exceeded twenty, and had relied on the integrated‑cycle roster to justify its view. The Court held that the language of the Rules is clear and must be read literally, meaning each batch of twenty candidates constitutes a separate unit for reservation, and Rule 14(b) operates within that unit without overriding Rule 14(a). It rejected the High Court’s purposive interpretation and the addition of words to the rule, emphasizing that courts cannot amend statutes. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed. The decision reaffirmed the principle that reservation provisions are enabling, not mandatory, and that long‑standing administrative practice should not be disturbed absent clear illegality.

Issues considered

The correct construction of Rules 14(a) to 14(d) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 regarding the unit of appointment for reservation.
Whether the High Court validly read a proviso into Rule 14(a) to make the unit of appointment variable with the number of vacancies.
Whether Rule 14(b) overrides Rule 14(a) or must be read consistently with it.
The relevance of the integrated‑cycle roster under Rule 15 to the concept of unit of appointment.
The applicability of the literal rule of interpretation versus purposive interpretation in service rules.

Subjects

service lawreservationKerala Public Service Commissioninterpretation of rulesunit of appointmentliteral rulecommunal rotationRule 14Rule 15Rule 16Rule 17

Judgment

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 154
I r<

A NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY
v. ,.
DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 2009)
MARCH ~10, 2009 <:.
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

SERVICE LAW:

c Kera/a State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 -
Rules 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 - Post of Medical Officer (Indian
System of Medicine) - Reservation in appointments - Held:
High Court's decision to read a proviso into rule 14(a) is based
on conjectures and surmises as to what the legislature ,.

D intended - Hence not a legitimate method of interpretation - )---
High Court's reliance on annexure to Rule 15 is also not
correct - Rule 14(b) has to be read consistently with Rule
14(a} - The correct interpretation of Rules 14 to 17 is that the
Public Service Commission should adopt each batch of 20
candidates as a separate un;t for the purpose of reservation
E
and not take the entire list as one unit.
~
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION:

If two interpretations of the Rules are possible, the one
F that favows the consistent past practice should ordinarily be 'r c
preferred unless it is clearly in violation of the Rules.

Courts should not add or delete words in a statute or rule.

When a statute is clear, it has to be read as it is and the
G literal rule of interpretation has to be applied.
In these appeals against the judgment of the Kerala
...
High Court, the point involved was whether a correct
'
constr~ction has been placed on Rules 14 tQ 17 of the

H 154
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 155
ORS.
"' \
Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 by the A
. Kerala Public Service Commission while selecting
candidates for the post of Medical Officer (Indian system
of Medicine).

Allowing the appeals, the Court
> B
HELD: 1.1. Reading Rules 14 (a) and (b) along with
Rule 14 (d) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services
Rules, 1958 the correct interpretation of the Rules is that
a common rank list as per merit for all the successful
candidates in respect of selection to the vacancies c
notified by the Public Service Commission should be
prepared, and reservation should be applied with
reference to units of 20. That is, the iirst 20 most
meritorious candidates, that Is, from Serial No. 1 to 20 in
that common rank list should first be considered for the D
-.f
purpose of reservation. At that stage, candidates from
Serial No. 21 and below are 11ot to be eonsidered. Out of
these 20 most meritorious candidates, the appointments
have then to be made in accordance with Rule 14 (c).
[Paras 18 and 19) [174-F-H; 175-AJ E
1.2. It is only after the selections have been made
"'!"
against these first 20 most meritorious selected
candidates, that the P.S.C. should mov@ to the next batch
of 20 In the rank list i.e., from Serial No, 21 to 40, and thia
_, same process is to be repeated again. Thereafter the third F
'
batch of 20 candidates i.e., from Serial No. 41to60 should
be considered and selections and appointments made as
per Rule 14 (a). JPara 20) [175-13)

1.3, Rule 14 (b) of the Rules only means that in these G
batches of 20 selected i;andidates *he SC/ST or OBC
·•. ·(
candidate who Is so meritorious t!lat he qµaHfie<I even !n
the open merit then he will be given an open merit §eat
and he wUI not take away any of the nu~erved seats. [Para
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A 21] [175-C]
"

1.4. Hardship is not a relevant consideration when
the meaning of the Rule is plain and clear. The literal rule
of interpretation applies in this case. [Para 22] [175-D]

B 2.The effect of the High Court's decision is to read a
proviso into rule 14(a) of the Rules as follows: "provided
that where the number of vacancies reported to the
Commission for advic1! exceeds 20, the unit of
appointment shall be the number of vacancies reported
C to the Commission". This is not a legitimate method of
interpretation. The High Court could not have re-written
Rule 14(a) in this manner based on its conjectures and
surmises as to what the legislature intended. [Para 23]
[175-E-F]
D
Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (1995) Supp
1 SCC 192; Trading Engineers vs. Sales Tax Officer (1978)
1 SCC 636 and Indra Sawhney vs. Union. of India (1992)
Supp 3 SCC 215, relied on.

E 3.1. It is relevant to note that the Commission has
been advising appointments based on a unit of 20 as
provided in Rule 14(a) for the last more than 30 years. In
fact, this Court in Nair Service Society had referred to the
procedure followed by the Commission in advising
F appointments based on the rank list for the open merit
category and the supplementary list for the reserved
category. An accepted practice which has been followed
by the P.S.C. for so long a period should not be lightly
disturbed, unless there are compelling reasons. If two
G interpretations of the Rules are possible, the
interpretation which favours the practice which was
being followed for a long period should ordinarily be
preferred unless it is clearly in violation of the Rules. [Para
2$] [176-E-F]
H
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 157
+.;. 1 ORS.

3.2. The High Court also erred in placing undue A
reliance on the fact that the annexure to Rule 15
containing the integrated cycle is based on a roster of 100
points. The terms "integrated cycle" and "unit of
appointment" are entirely different concepts. The
rationale for the integrated cycle based on a 100-point B
roster is merely to give effect to the principle of rotation
and sub-rotation among the reserved category
candidates in respect of vacancies that arise at different
points of time over a period of one year to a maximum of
three years that the list is in force. Further, the sub- c
rotation among OBCs in Rule 17(2) with reference to 40%
reservation in favour of OBC and the requirement in the
proviso to Rule 14 (a) that one out of every five posts
reserved for SC/ST shall go to ST and the remaining to
SC, require an integrated cycle of Open Competition 0
candidates (constituting 50%), OBC candidates
(constituting 40%) and SC/ST candidates (constituting the
remaining 10% reservation) which can only be reflected
in a 100-point roster. [Para 26] [176-G-H; 177-A-C]

3.3. The concept of an "integrated cycle" could never E
be the basis for rendering the "unit of appointment" of
20 in Rule 14(a) otiose in cases where the number of
vacancies reported to the Kerala Public Service
Commission exceeds 20. By drawing a distinction
between cases where reported vacancies are 20 or less F
and cases where reported vacancies exceed 20, the High
Court has attempted to fill a perceived "casus omissus"
on the part of the legislature in Rule 14(a) and, in effect,
has written a proviso into the rule that the unit of
appointment would change where the total number of G
vacancies reported exceed 20. It is a settled principle of
interpretation that Courts should not add or delete words
in a statute or rule. [Para 27] [177-D-E]

H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A Nair Service Society vs. District Officer, Kera/a Public
Service Commission (2003) 12 SCC 10, referred to.

4. The Commission cannot wait until the total
number of vacancies is reported to the Commission so
as to determine whether the vacancies have exceeded 20
8
or not. [Para 28] [177-H; 178-A]

The University of Cochin vs. Dr. N. Raman Nair (1975)
3 sec 628, relied on.

c 5.1. In fact, the High Court has, by a process of
interpretation, rendered Rule 14(a) redundant and otiose,
even though the validity of the rule was not the subject
matter of challenge in any of the writ petitions. [Para 29]
[178-8]
D 5.2. Rule 14(b) merely says that the members of OBC
and SC/ST shall be considered for appointment in the
Open Competition category, if found meritorious, and
such appointment shall not affect the number of seats
reserved for the OBCs and SC/ST. Rule 14 (b) ought to
E be read consistently wiith Rule 14(a) to the extent that
where an OBC or SC/ST candidate is so placed in the
merit list that he would be advised against the Open
Competition category, i.e'. between 1,3,5,7,9,11, 13,15, 17,19
the seats in the reserved category, i.e. between
F 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20 shall not reduce to that extent.
The members of OBC and SC/ST would still be entitled
to 40% and 10% reservations respectively. On the other
hand, if Rule 14(b) is interpreted to increase the unit of
appointment from 20 to the number of vacancies where
G .:he vacancies exceed 20, Rule 14(a) would be rendered
redundant and otiose. [Para 30) [178-C-E] •

6. The High Court erred in placing undue reliance on
the fact that the annexure to Rule 15 containing the
H integrated cycle is based on a roster of 100 points. The
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 159
..... -I
ORS .
terms integrated cycle and unit of appointment are A
entirely different concepts. The rationale for the integrated
cycle of 100-point roster is merely to give effect to the
~
principle of rotation and sub-rotation among the reserved
category candidates to vacancies that arise at different
-• points of time during the period of 1 year to 3 years that B
the list is in force. [Para 31) [178-F-G]

7. It is well established that judgments in service
t jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the
particular service rules in the State governing that field.
Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and c
different State Governments can have different methods
of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and
what is challenged is in the matter of application alone.
., The communal rotation has to be applied taking 20
_,, vacancies as a block. [Para 35) [182-E-F] D

Nair Service Society vs. District Officer, Kera/a Public
' Service Commission (2003) 12 SCC 10, referred to.

8. The High Court ought to have considered that the
vacancies were reported to the Commission in various E
spells and filling up the turn of a community is a
continuous process, and the Commission cannot wait to
advise a reservation candidate till his turn arises for
advice and keep the community turn unfilled or advise a
I
-'(
candidate lower in rank retaining a candidate who is F
~
above him in the list by anticipating reporting of
vacancies. The Commission has correctly advised
candidates in the order in which the requisitions were
received, and that too by correctly applying the principle
contained in the.rules. [Paras 36 and 37) [182-G-H; 183- G
~
A-BJ
.,-
9.1. The so-called purposive interpretation sought to
be placed on the Rules by the High· Court was
misconceived and is, therefore, not acceptable. The High H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
•
""
A Court in its observation has sought to find out the
intention of Rules 14 to 17. The question of finding the
intention arises only when a statute is not clear. If the
statute is clear as it is in this case, it has to be read as it
is, and the literal rule of interpretation is to be applied. The
B intention seeking is ordinarily to be done only when the
statute is not clear. [Paras 41 and 42] [184-D-E]

9.2. It may be mentioned that reservation provisions
are enabling provisions. In other words, the State is not
bound to make a reservation, but it is empowered to do
c so in its own discretion. [Para 43] [184-H]

M. Nagraj and OthE1rs vs. Union of India and others
(2006) 8 sec 212, referred to.

10.1. Different State Governments in the country may
D
have different methods for providing reservations, and
these will be valid as long as the method adopted by a
particular State Government does not violate any
constitutional provision or statute. It is not for this Court
to decide on the wisdom or otherwise of the said method
E of reservation. This Court should exercise judicial
restraint and not interfere with the same unless there is
some clear illegality. Thi! method prescribed by the Rules
made by the State Government suffers from no infirmity
or illegality, and hence the High Court acted wrongly in
F allowing the Writ Petition. [Para 45] [185-B-D]

10.2. The High Court was in error in directing the
Commission to ignore the express mandate of Rule 14
(a). The High Court wai; wrong in holding that the said
G Rule only applies when the vacancies are less than 20.
In fact the direction of the High Court in the impugned ...
judgment really amount~s to treating the entire number of
vacancies which in the present case is 250 as one unit,
'
which is against the express mandate of Rule 14(a). Thus
H
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 161
ORS.
~\
the High Court has really amended Rule 14(a) and (c) of A
the Rules, which was not in its jurisdiction. It is only the
legislature which can amend the law, and not the Court.
[Para 46] [185-E-F]

10.3. The correct interpretation of Rules 14 to 17 is B
that the Public Service Commission should adopt each
batch of 20 candidates as a separate unit for the purpose
of reservation and not take the entire select list as one
unit. [Para 47] [185-G]

10.4. It is true that reserved category candidates can c
compete for the non-reserved post as provided for in
Rule 14 (b). [Para 48] [185-H; 186-A]

R.K. Sabharwa/ and others vs. State of Punjab and others
'1 (1995) 2 sec 745, relied on. D
__,/
Case Law Reference:
(1995) Supp 1 sec 192 relied on Para 23 •
., (1978) 1 sec 636 relied on Para 23
E
(1992) Supp 3 sec 215 relied on Para 23
(2003) 12 sec 1o referred to Para 25
(1975) 3 sec 628 relied on Para 28
F
--.. (2006) 8 sec 212 referred to Para 43
(1995) 2 sec 745 relied on Para 48
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1991 of 2009.
G
;.
From the Judgment &Order dated 23.05.2008 of the High
-( Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1697 of 2007.

H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
.....
A WITH

C.A. No. 199212009, C.A No. 199312009

C.A. No. 199412009, C.A. No. 1995-199912009

B C.A. No. 200012009

K.K. Venugopal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Kishnan Venugopal;
T.L.V. Iyer, P.P. Rao, M.N. Rao, L. Nageswara Rao, Dr. Rajiv
Dhavan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Shwetank
c Sailkwal, Utra Babbar, Shyam Mohan, S. Ravi Kumar, Shyam
Mohan (for Mis. Lawyer's Knit & Co.,) C.S. Rajan, A.O. Sikri,
Romy Chacko, A. Venayagam Balan, Vipin Nair, P.B. Suresh
(for Mis. Temple Law Firm,) G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, L.
Nageshwara Roy, Anand, Roy Abraham, Seema Jain,
Himinder Lal, Ramesh Babu M.R. E.M.S. Anam, Fazlin Anam,
D ..._
K.S. Gopalan, M.T. George, P. Jacob, Baby Augustine, Ranjith
K.C., Haris Beeran, S. Marzook, Radha Shyam Jena, C.K.
Sasi, K.S. Venugopalan, Harshad V. Hameed and K. Rajeev
for the appearing parties.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

Civil Aeeeal Nos ..........<J1f 2009 [@ SLP(C} Nos. 20419,
29345, 30967 & 267 4 of 20081
F ~
1. Leave granted. --

2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment
dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court in WP No. 1697 of 2007. The appellant society in
G
the first of the appeals is an incorporated body rendering social
service. It purports to espouse the cause of merit in .
appointments in government service and public sector ~

undertakings. The appellant in the second of the appeals (not
a. party before the High Court) is a general category candidate
H
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 163
~\ ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
whose chance of selection and appointment as a medical A
officer was adversely affected by the decision of the High Court.
The appellant in the third of the appeals is the Kerala Public
Service Commission, which is entrusted the task of executing
the recruitment and selection process. The appellants in the
... fourth of the appeals (not parties before the High Court) are B
candidates included in the rank list prepared and published by
PSC for different posts in various departments. According to
them they would have been advised and appointed but for the
interpretation placed by the High Court in its decision in WA
No. 1697 of 2008. c
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. The writ appeal was filed before a division bench of the
High Court against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of
the High Court in W.P. (C). No. 25171 of 2006-V dated
__. 10.4.2007. D

4. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is
whether a correct construction has been placed on Rules 14
to 17 of the Kera la State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958
(in short 'the Rules') by the Kerala Public Service Commission E
(in short the P.S.C.), while selecting candidates for the post of
Medical Officer (ISM).

5. The brief facts of the case are that the Kerala Public
Commission invited applications for appointment to the post
...; of Medical Officer (Indian System of Medicine) under the Kerala
F
Government, by the notification published in the Kera.la Gazette
dated 14.10.2003. The rank list was published on 31.12.2005.
The writ petitioners were candidates and included in the
supplementary list of Muslims at rank Nos.17 and 18. According
to the writ petitioners, 250 candidates were advised, out of G
·.~ which 198 were from the main list and 52 from the
.( supplementary lists. In that process, only 28 Muslim candidates
were advised. It is alleged that going by Rules 14 to 17 in Part
II of the Rules, 30 candidates should have been advised from
the Muslim community. If two more Muslim candidates had been H (,
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A advised, the writ petitioners would have got appointment.
-.
Feeling aggrieved by the omission of the P.S.C to advise them,
the Writ Petition was filed by the two writ petitioners, seeking
the following reliefs:

"(i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd
B
respondent to issue advice memos to the petitioners.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd
respondent to set right the errors and irregularities in
following the principles of communal rotation and
c reservation in advising candidates from Ext.P1 ranked list."

6. According to the writ petitioners, rank Nos.28, 50, 82
and 111 in the main list were Muslims and their turn had arisen
ul"lder the open competition turn. However, they were advised
D for appointment in the reserved vacancies and to that extent
Mlilslim candidates in the supplementary list lost their chances.

7. According to the Public Service Commission, the
candidates were advised strictly in accordance with the Rules.
The rank list was published by the P.S.C. on 31.12.2005 by
E including 252 candidate!S from the main list and 107 from the
supplementary lists of various reservation candidates. Upto
24.11 :2006, 268 candidates were advised from the ranked list
against the fresh vacancies and the non-joining duty vacancies
reported by the appointing authority. It was also stated that the
F last open competition candidate advised was rank No. 213 and ,...
the last Ezhava candidate advised was rank No.226 in the main '
list. It was further stated that the last Muslim candidate advised
was rank No.12 in the supplementary list for Muslims. According
to the P.S.C., the turn of the writ petitioners did not arise for
.G advice, Rank No.8, who belongs to the Muslim community was
advised under the open competition turn, and other Muslim
candidates included in the main list were advised under the ...
>
Muslim reservation turn.

,H 8. The P.S.C filed an additional counter affidavit dated
- """ \
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN &
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
165

1.3.2007 before the High Court. In the said counter affidavit, A
the details of the rotation were given. It was stated therein that
the recruitment to the post of Medical Officer (ISM) ended at
Main Rotation VIII 39 OC. For the present selection, the rotation
.... started at MR VIII 40 OBC and ended at MR XI 7 OC while
working in the rotation for the 267 fresh vacancies reported. As B
on 13.2.2007, 287 candidates were advised including 20 NJD
vacancies. The details of Muslim candidates advised are also
given. Rank No.8, who was a Muslim candidate, was advised
under the open competition turn. The last Muslim candidate
advised from the main list was rank No.252. From the c
supplementary list, 14 Muslim candidates were advised. The
P.S.C emphatically refuted the contention of the writ petitioners
that rank Nos. 28, 50, 82 and 111 should have been advised
under the open competition turn. It is asserted that the advices
___J
were made strictly in accordance with Rules 14 to 17 of the D
Rules.
9. The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition,
allowed it, holding that the method adopted by the P.S.C. was
not in accordance with the Rules. He held that in view of Rule
14(b) of the Rules, the members of Scheduled Castes, E
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes are entitled to
be considered for appointment under the open merit quota and
if any candidate belonging to those communities is appointed
""!
in the open merit quota, the number of seats reserved for the
said communities shall not be affected by the same. The F
learned Judge held that other provisions of Rules 15 to 17
should be read subject to Rule 14(b). Based on that finding,
the learned Judge directed the P.S.C to invoke its power under
Rule 3(c) of the Rules and modify the advices appropriately, so
that the Muslim candidates who got appointment under the G
i
reservation quota, but who would have got appointment under
• the open competition quota, are adjusted against the open
competition quota and in their place, other Muslim candidates
are advised under the reservation quota. Aggrieved by the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, the P.S.C filed the Writ H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
...
~·

A Appeal No. 1697 of 2007.

10. According to the P.S.C., the unit of appointment for
working out rotation is 20, as provided under Rule 14(a). It was
alleged that the learned Single Judge failed to comprehend the
impact of the said provision. The P.S.C is bound by Rule 14(a)
..
B
in working out the communal rotation. It was also contended that
none of the affected candidates was impleaded in the Writ
Petition and for that reason alone, the Writ Petition should have
been dismissed.
c 11. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, notice was
taken out to all affected persons by publishing notice dated
9.10.2007 in all editions of Kerala Kaumudi daily dated
22.10.2007, published from Kerala. In the Writ Appeal, the Nair
Service Society got itself impleaded as additional 7th
D respondent. It supported the contentions of the P.S.C in the
appeal. However, the Division Bench of the High Court
disposed off the writ appeal broadly upholding the judgment of
the learned Single Judge. The High Court held that where the
number of vacancies reported is more than 20, the unit of
E appointment shall be the number of vacancies reported and not
20. It held that if reservation is applied to a 20 point roster, as
done by P.S.C., it will result in denial of reservation to eligible
candidates as per the percentage of reservation set apart for
them and result in candidates under merit quota cornering more
F vacancies than what was due to them at the expense of
communities eligible for reservation. The division bench held
that Rule 14(a) would apply only where vacancies reported are
less than 20. The division bench issued the following directions:
"The three advices made on 1.2.2006, 17.4.2006 and
G 17.7.2006of161, ~10 and 40 vacancies respectively shall ~

be reopened notionally. The turns of the candidates shall
be re-arranged, taking the vacancies as three blocks of
161, 30 and 40 respectively and the three advice lists shall
be notionally re-arranged, as provided in the third proviso
H to Rule 14(c). Every alternative vacancy in the three blocks
..
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 167
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
of vacancies shall be firstly allotted to open competition A
candidates and the remaining vacancies to the
communities eligible for reservation, subject to the rule that
reservation in a particular year shall not exceed 50%. As
a result, if it is found that any of the candidates, eligible
for reservation, were though entitled to be advised but not B
actually advised, they shall be advised for appointment by
the P.S,.C to the appointing authority. For the purpose of
seniority, the advice of the candidates so made will take
effect only from 10.4.2007, the date on which the learned
Single Judge rendered the decision. It is clarified that the c
advices and the appointments of candidates already made
by the P.S.C as per the above mentioned three advices
shall not be affected by this judgment. In other words, relief
is granted in this Writ Appeal without disturbing the
candidates already advised before 10.4.2007. The
0
candidates additionally advised as per this judgment shall
be accommodated by the appointing authority in the
vacancies to which candidates were advised after
10.4.2007 or were reported after 10.4.2007, but before the
main list exhausted. The advice of candidates, if any, made E
pursuant to the interim order of the Division Bench staying
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being definitely
subject to the final orders in the Writ Appeal, can be re-
opened by the P.S.C., to implement this judgment. The
P.S.C shall undertake and complete the exercise and
advise the candidates as directed above within one month F
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The
appointing authority shall make consequential
appointments without further delay. The Writ Appeal is
disposed of as above".
G
12. Before dealing with the contentions of the learned
.1 counsel for the parties we may refer to the relevant rules which
are rules 14 to 17 of the rules. The relevant part of these rules
are quoted below:-
H
1
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS , [2009) 5 S.C.R.

A "14 . Reservation of appointments :- Where the Special
Rules lay down that the principle of reservation of
appointments shall apply to any service, class or category,
or where in the case1 of any service, class or category for
which no Special Rules have been issued, the Government
B have by notification in the Gazette declared that the
principle of reservation of appointments shall apply to such
service, class or category, appointments by direct
recruitment to such service, class or category shall be
made on the following basis:
c (a) The unit of appointment for the purpose of this
rule shall be 20, of which 2 shall be reserved for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 8
shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes
and the remaining 10 shall be filled on the basis of
D merit:

Provided that out of every five posts reserved for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, one shall
go to Scheduled Tribe candidate and the remaining
E four shall go to Scheduled Caste candidates and
in the absence of a candidate to fill up the post
reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, it shall go
to a Scheduled Caste Candidate and vice versa.

(a) The claims of members of Scheduled Castes
F and the

Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
shall also be considered for the appointments which
shall be filh3d on the basis of merit and where a
G candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class is
selected on the basis of merit, the number of posts
reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
or for Other Backward Classes as the case may
H be, shall not in any way be affected.
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 169
"~ ' ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

(c) Appointments under this rule shall be made in A
the order of rotation specified below in every cycle
of 20 vacancies.

1. Open competition

2. Other Backward Classes B

3. Open competition

4. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
. 5. Open competition c
6. Other Backward Classes
'· 7. Open competition
..-<
8. Other Backward Classes D

9. Open competition
10. Other Backward Classes

11. Open competition E
•
12. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

13. Open competition
. --. 14. Other Backward Classes F

15. Open competition
16. Other Backward Classes

17. Open comp~tition G
....
f 18. Other Backward Classes
19. Open competition
20. Other Backward Classes H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A Provided that the fourth turn in the third rotation and
the twelfth turn in the fifth rotation shall go to Scheduled
Tribe candidates and the fourth and twelfth turns in the first,
second and fourth rotations, the twelfth turn in the third
rptation and the fourth turn in the fifth rotation shall go to
B Scheduled Caste candidates and in the absence of a
candidate for appointment against the turn allotted for
Scheduled Tribe candidates, it shall go to a Scheduled
Caste candidate and vice versa:

c
Provided also that in preparing the list of eligible
--
candidates to be appointed under this rule applying the
rotations specified above in every cycle of 20 vacancies,
the candidates eligible to be selected on open competition
D basis, that is, 1,3,5,7,9,11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 shall be
selected first and, then the candidates for the reservation
turns, out of those1 available in the ranked list in the
particular groups having regard to their ranks. In finalizing
the select list any candidate of the same community
E selected on open competition turns if found to be below
in the order of the candidates selected from the same
community on the basis of reservation, for the fixation of
ranks as per rule 27 of these rules, candidates of the same
community obtaining higher marks shall be interchanged
F with the candidates of the same community in the
reservation turn for the purpose of ranking.

(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, posts
to which appointments are made by direct recruitment from
a common ranked list prepared on the basis of a common

-
G test or interview or both, shall be grouped together for the
purposes of observance of the rules relating to reservation
\
of appointments.

(e) A supplementary list of sufficient number of suitable
H candidates, not less than five times the reservation quota,
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 171
·~ \ ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
if available, from each community or group of communities A
for the purpQse of satisfying the reservation quota, shall be
prepared and published.

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
·-+
15. (a) The integrated cycle cprnbining the rotation in B
clause (c) of rule 14 and the ~ub-rotation in Sl!b-rul~ (2) of
rule 17 shall be as specified in the Annexl!r~ to this Part.
Notwithstanding anythin~ contained in any other provisions
of these rules or in the special rules if a suitable candidate
is not available for selection from any particular community c
or group of communities specified in th~ Annexure, such
vacancy shall be kept unfilled, notified separately for that
community or group of communities for that selection year
... and shall be. filled by direct recruitment exclusively from
·-4 among that community or group of -::ommunities. If after re- D
notification, repeatedly for not less than two times, no
suitable candidate is available for selection from the
respective community or group of communities, the
5ele.ction ~hall be made from available other Backward
Classes candidates. In the absence of Other Backward E
Classes candidates, the selection shall be made from
available Scheduled Castes candidates and in their
absence, the selection shall be made from available
Scfleduler;I Tribes candidates.
' "--1
Explanafifm:~ One selection year for the purpose of this
F
rule shall ~e the period from the date on which the
rank list of candidates comes into force to the date
on which it expires.

(b) If a sYlt!ilble candiqate is not !'!vailable for selection from G
.
-:
/
the group pf communities classified as "Scheduled
Castes" in the turn allotted from such group in the
Annexure, the said group shall be passed over and the post
shall t:>e filled up by a suitable candidate from the group
of communities classified as "Scheduled Tribes" and vice H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
~·

A versa.

I. The benefit of the turn forfeited to Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes communities by reason of it being
passed over under sub-rule (b) shall be restored to it, at
the earliest possible opportunity, if a suitable candidate
B
from that particular community or group is available for
selection by making adjustment against the claims of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community that
derived the extra benefit by reason of such passing over.

c 17. Reservation to a category of posts shall not exceed
50% of the total number of vacancies for which
selection is resorted to in a selection year:

Provided that the 50% ceiling to reservation specified
D above shall not apply to the filling up of any number of \.-
reserved vacancies kept unfilled and notified separately as
per sub-rule (a) of rule 15 to be filled exclusively by direct
recruitment from among a community or group of
communities:
E Provided further that such class of vacancies to be filled
up in that year or in any succeeding year or years shall not
be considered together with the vacancies of the year in
which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling
of 50% of the total number of vacancies of that year.
F )-->,

16. There shall be sub-rotation among major groups of
Other Backward Classes.

17. (1) The grouping of Other Backward Classes for the
above purpose shall be as indicated below :
G
1. Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas ..:

2. Muslims '
3. Latin Catholics and Anglo Indians
H
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 173
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
~ \
4. Nadars (Hindu Nadars and Nadars included A
in S.l.U.C)

5. Scheduled Caste Converts to Christianity

6. Viswakarmas
-r
B
7. Dheevaras

8. Other Backward Classes put together i.e.
communities other than those mentioned in
items 1 to 7 above included in the list of c
"Other Backward Classes".

(2) (a) The 40% reservation allowed to Other
Backward Classes shall be distributed among the different
• groups of Backward Classes in the following proportion:-
D
~ (i) For direct recruitment to posts included in the Kerala
Last Grade Service.

Out of every 40 appointments, 11 shall be given to
Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas, 10 to Muslims, 4 to Latin
E
Catholics and Anglo Indians, 3 to Nadars (Hindu Nadars
and Nadars included in S.l.U.C), 2 to Scheduled Caste
Converts to Christianity, 2 to Viswakarmas, 2 to Dheevaras
and 6 to Other Backward Classes put together".

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx F
- •--i

13. The question in this case is about the interpretation of
rules 14 to 17 of the Rules.

14. A bare peru:sal of Rule 14 (a) of the Rules shows that
a unit for appointment for the purpose of Rule 14 shall be 20, G
of which 2 are reserved for SC/ST candidates and 8 for OBC
/'
candidates, while the remaining 10 shall be on the basis of
open merit. The proviso to Rule 14 (a) states that out of 5 posts
reserved for SCi"ST candidates. one post shall go to ST
candidates and the remaining to SC candidates, and in the H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

A absence of ST candidates it shall go to a SC candidate and
vice versa.

15. Rule 14 (b) however, states that if a SC/ST/OBC
candidate is so meritorious that even if he is not treated as SC/
ST/OBC he would still qualify in the open merit then he would
8
not be treated as a SC/ST/OBC candidate and he will be
adjusted against the 10 seats meant for open merit candidates.
In other words, he will not take away the seats reserved for SC/
ST/OBC candidates.

C 16. Some of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents have submitted that Rule 14 (b) will prevail over
rule 14 (a). We do not agree . In our opinion a harmonious
interpretation has to be given to Rules 14 (a) and Rule 14 (b),
and neither prevails over the other.
D
17. It may be noted that rule 14 (a) states that the unit of
appointment for the purpos~~ of the Rule shall be 20. A
specific number 20 has been stated in Rule 14 (a). Rule 14 (a)
does not state that 50% seats are for open merit candidates,
E 40% for OBC candidates and 10% for SC/ST candidates. In
other words, Rule 14 (a) does not mention the percentage of
seats at all, but instead it mentions a specific number, viz., 20.

18. In our opinion reading Rules 14 (a) and (b) along with
Rule 14 (d) of the Rules, the correct interpretation of the Rules
F is that a common rank list as per merit for all the successful
candidates in respect of selection to the vacancies notified by
the Public Service Commission should be prepared, and
re$ervation should be applied with reference to units of 20. That
is,' the first 20 most meritorious candidates, that is, frori Serial
G No. 1 to 20 ir that common rank list should first be considered
for the purpose of reservation. At that stage, candidates from
Serial No. 21 and below are not to be considered.

19. Out of these 20 most meritorious candidates, the
H appointments have then to be made in accordance with Rule
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 175
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
·•... \ ·.

A
14 (c), which has been quoted above.

20. It is only after the selections have been made against
~
these first 20 most meritorious selected candidates, that the
P.S.C. should move to the next batch of 20 in the rank list i.e.,
from Serial No. 21 to 40, and the same process is to be B
-,_ repeated again. Thereafter the third batch of 20 candidates i.e.,
from Serial No. 41 to 60 should be considered and selections
and appointments made as per Rule 14 (a).

21. Rule 14 (b) of the Rules only means that in these
batches of 20 selected candidates the SC/ST or OBC c
candidate who is so meritorious that he qualified even in the
open merit then he will be given an open merit seat and he will
not take away any of the reserved seats.

22. Some of the learned counsel for the respondents D
__. submitted that this will cause hardship to some SC/ST/OBC
candidates. In our opinion hardship is not a relevant
consideration when the meaning of the Rule is plain and clear.
The literal rule of interpretation applies in this case.

23. In our opinion the effect of the High Court's decision E
is to read a proviso into rule 14(a) of the Rules as follows:
"provided that where the number of vacancies reported to the
Commission for advice exceeds 20, the unit of appointment
shall be the number of vacancies reported to the Commission".
This is not a legitimate method of interpretation. The High Court F
"'-<
could not have re-written Rule 14(a) in this manner based on
its conjectures and surmises as to what the legislature intended.
It is now well settled by this Court in Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma
vs. State of Bihar (1995) Supp 1 SCC 192 (para 5) and
Trading Engineers vs. Sales Tax Officer (1978) 1 SCC 636 G
(para 7) that where the language of the Act or the Rules is clear
"' and explicit, the words of the statute alone represents the
F
intention of the legislature. In fact, the effect of the High Court's
reading these words into Rule 14(a) is to increase the total
reservation in favour of the reserved categories beyond 50% H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

..I'
A and to dilute the merit of the>se chosen to ever lower levels in
violation of Rule 15 of the Rules which only embodies the well
settled constitutional principle laid down by this Court in Indra
Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) Supp 3 SCC 215 (para
809).
B
24. Rule 16 provides that there shall be sub-rotation among
major groups of OBCs. Rule 17(1) lists 8 major groups of OBCs
for purposes of Rule 16, i.e. for sub-rotation among major
groups of OBCs. Rule 17(2) provides the proportion in which
the 40% reservation in favour of OBC is to be distributed
c among the major OBC groups, which goes up to serial No. 40.
Rule 15(a) provides an integrated cycle combining the rotation
in Rule 14(c) (i.e. the rotation of candidates from the Open
Competition, OBC and SC/ST in a unit of appointment of 20)
and the sub-rotation in Rule 17(2) among the OBCs.
D
25. It is relevant to notie that the Commission has been \_,

advising appointments based on a unit of 20 as provided in
Rule 14(a) for the last more than 30 years. In fact, this Court in
Nair Service Society vs. District Officer, Kera/a Public Service
E Commission (2003) 12 SCC 10 (para 22) had referred to the
procedure followed by the Commission in advising
appointments based on the rank list for the open merit category
and the supplementary list for the reserved category. In our
opinion an accepted practice which has been followed by the
F P.S.C. for so long a period should not be lightly disturbed, unless
there are compelling reasons. If two interpretations of the Rules
are possible, the interpretation which favours the practice which
~as being followed for a long period should ordinarily be
preferred unless it is clearly in violation of the Rules.
G 26. In our opinion, the High Court also erred in placing
1:mdue reliance on the fact that the annexure to Rule 15
c;:ontaining the integrated cycle is based on a roster of 100 ~

points. The terms "integrated cycle" and "unit of appointment" '
are entirely different concepts. The rationale for the integrated
H <!:ycle based on a 100-point roster is merely to give effect to
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 177
... \ ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

the principle of rotation and sub-rotation among the reserved A
category candidates in respect of vacancies that arise at
different points of time over a period of one year to a maximum
of three years that the list is in force. Further, the sub-rotation
among OBCs in Rule 17(2) with reference to 40% reservation
-.-
in favour of OBC and the requirement in the proviso to Rule B
14(a) that one out of every five posts reserved for SC/ST shall
go to ST and the remaining to SC, require an integrated cycle
of Open Competition candidates (constituting 50%), OBC
candidates (constituting 40%) and SC/ST candidates
(constituting the remaining 10% reservation) which can only be c
reflected in a 100-point roster.

27. In our opinion, the concept of an "integrated cycle"
could never be the basis for rendering the "unit of appointment"
__._,
of 20 in Rule 14(a) otiose in cases where the number of
vacancies reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission D
exceeds 20. By drawing a distinction between cases where
reported vacancies are 20 or less and cases where reported
vacancies exceed 20, the High Court has attempted to fill a
perceived "casus omissus" on the part of the legislature in Rule
14(a) and, in effect, has written a proviso into the rule that the E
unit of appointment would change where the total number of
vacancies reported exceed 20. It is a settled principle of
interpretation that Courts should not add or delete words in a
statute or rule.
,. -<(
F
28. Normally vacancies are reported to the Commission
on various dates and in different numbers. Even in the present
case, the Commission had received requisitions on various
dates between February 2003 and January 2007 ranging from
3 vacancies to 44 vacancies. This Court in The University of G
Cochin vs. Dr. N. Raman Nair (1975) 3 SCC 628 (para 6),
has observed that Rule 14(c) lays down a scheme of rotation
' for every block of 20 vacancies and this rule must be applied
in the order in which the vacancies occur. Therefore, the
Commission cannot wait until the total number of vacancies is
H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.
I "'
"
A reported to the Commission so as to determine whether the
vacancies have exceeded 20 or not.

29. In fact, the High Court has, by a process of
interpretation, rendered Rule 14(a) redundant and otiose, even
though the validity of the rule was not the subject matter of
8
challenge in any of the writ petitions.

30. In our opinion, Huie 14(b) merely says that the
members of OBC and SC/ST shall be considered for
appointment in the Open Competition category, if found
C meritorious, and such appointment shall not affect the number
of seats reserved for the OBCs and SC/ST. In our opinion, Rule
14(b) ought to be read consiistently with Rule 14(a) to the extent
that where an OBC or SC/ST candidate is so placed in the
merit list that he would be advised against the Open
D Competition category, i.e. between 1,3,5, 7,9,11,13,15,17,19
the seats in the reserved category, i.e. between 2,4,6,
8,10,12,14,16,18,20 shall not reduce to that extent. The
members of OBC and SC/ST would still be entitled to 40% and
10% reservations respectively. On the other hand, if Rule 14(b)
E is interpreted to increase the unit of appointment from 20 to the
number of vacancies where the vacancies exceed 20, Rule
14(a) would be rendered redundant and otiose.

31. In our opinion, the High Court erred in placing undue
reliance on the fact that the annexure to Rule 15 containing the .,._.
F integrated cycle is based on a roster of 100 points. As already
stated above, the terms integrated cycle and unit of
appointment are entirely different concepts. The rationale for
the integrated cycle of 100-point roster is merely to give effect
to the principle of rotation and sub-rotation among the reserved
G category candidates to vacancies that arise at different points
of time during the period of 1 year to 3 years that the list is in
force.

32. In our opinion the High Court erred in proceeding on
H the basis that a large number of vacancies totaling to 267 were
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 179
ORS. [M'ARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
reported to the Commission together. As per the affidavits filed A
by the Commission before the High Court, the requisitions were
received during the relevant period at various stages. The
details of the vacancies reported during the present selection
and the turn in which rotation started and ended at each stage
of working out the rotation were as under: B

Letter No. & Date No. of Rotationstarted/ Date of
vacan- ended of advice
cies c
D3-7204 02 dt. 27/2/03 3
............... dt. 10/10/03 44
D3-18859 03 dt.25/3/04 45
................. dt.15/9/04 15 MR VIII 40 OBC D
................ dt.30/12/04 15 Do
............... dt. 14/2/05 3 MR X 1 OC 01/2/06
............... dt.21 /6/05 16
.............. dt.05/9/05 20 D3 2885 06 E
............. dt. 08/3/05 30 MR X 2E to MR 17/4/06
x 31 oc
D3 2885 06 dt. 18/6/06 40 MR X 72 32 SC 17/7/06
to MR & 71 OC F
03 18859 03 dt. 17(10 MR X 72 SC 17/7/06
28/6/06 NJD & to MR X 77 OC
?fresh)
D3 2884 06 03 dt. 1 NJD 14/8/06
G
0717106
y
D3 12473 06 dt. 7 MR X 78E to 28/9/06
08/9/06 MR X 85 OC
D3 12473 06 dt. 7 MR Y 78E to MR 28/9/06
12/10/06 x 85 oc H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
f -'

A 24/11/06
03 2884 06 dt. 5 NJO
07/11/06
03 12473 05 dt. 1NJO 19/12/06
16/11/06
B 03 12473 06 dt. 15 MRX92ST 11/01/07
04/12/06 & 21/12/06 to MRXI 7 OC
03 2884 06 & 3 NJO 13/02/07
12473 06 dt. 23/01/07
c The details of candidates belong to Muslim community
advised from the ranked list are as follows:

Rank Name Turn in which Date of
0 No. advice advised
1 Suni Babu P.P. MRVlll 36 M 01/02/06
8 Muhseena H MR VIII 53 OC 01/02/06
28 Shahid M MRVlll 46 M 01/02/06
E 50 Assainar M MRVlll 56 M 01/02/06
82 Simi Devan MRVlll 66 M 01/02/06
111 Shamsad P MRVlll 76 M 01/02/06
132 Abdul Rafeeq O.P. MRVlll 80M 01/02/06
F 149 Jaseena Beegom T 01/02/06
MRVlll 86 M
161 Sumayya V.K. MRVlll 96 M 01/02/06
170 Vaheeda Rehman A MR IX6 M 01/02/06
183 Benazir K.I. MR IX 16 M 01/02/06
G
185 Nazeema P.K. MR IX26 M 01/02/06
192 Shabna Beegum MR IX 30 M 01/02/06
220 Fakrudeen A MR IX 36 M 01/02/06
221 Nadarsha P.K. MR IX46M 01/02/06
H
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 181
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
235 Shaik Anwar KS MR IX56M 01/02/06 A
246 Abdul RV Pottammal MR IX66 M 01/02/06
247 Shamsudeen K MR IX 76M 01/02/06
252 Bensha P Bashir MR IX80 M 01/02/06
B
Supplementary List - Muslim

1 Abdul Razak P MR IX80M 01/02/06
2 Bindu N Lal MR IX 96 M 17/04/06
3 Shahina P.K. MRX6M 17/04/06
c
4 Rehana P MR X 16 M 17/04/06
5 ·, Muhas K Kareem MR X 26 M 17/07/06
6 Anitha A Khader MRX 30 M 17/07/06
D
7 Murunnisa N K MRX 36 M 17/07/06
8 Arita VP MR X46 M 17/07/06
9 Sareena N MR X 56 M 17/07/06
10 Sahida T MR X 66 M 17/07/06
E

11 Raseena Beevi M MR X 76 M 28/09/06
12 Rahina V K MR X 80 M 06/11//06
13 Shemi K Mohammed N MRX 86 M 11/01/07
F
·"' ---· 14 Beena S MR X 96 M 11/01/07

33. This Court in University of Cochin vs. Dr. N. Raman
Nair(1975) 3 SCC 628 has observed that Rule 14(c) lays down
a scheme of rotation for every block of 20 vacancies and this G
rule must be applied in the order in which the vacancies occur.

y 34. This Court in Nair Service Society vs. District Officer,
Kera/a Public Service Commission (2003) 12 SCC 10 (para

H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

( fl
A 22) had the occasion to examine the Rules, the ranked merit
list and the supplementary reserved list prepared by the
Commission, and the principles followed by the Commission
in making the appointments. This Court observed as follows:

B " .... Based on the proc:edure so prescribed, KPSC
prescribes the ranked merit list in the order of merit. The
candidates are arranged strictly according to the
community or caste or group or according to the cycle of
rotation, in reservation. The number of candidates to be
included in this rank list is filed with reference to some
c principles followed by them, which are explained in para
4 of KPSC's writ appeal before the High Court (pp. 102-
103). The candidates are advised for appointment as and
when vacancies are reported, but following the rules of
reservation and rotation prescribed in Rules 14 to 17".
D
The Commission has advised appointments based on a unit
of 20 for the last more than 30 years. The principle of
reservation, rotation and sub-rotation are all applied based on
this unit of 20.
E
35. Several decisions have been cited before us by the
respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service
jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the
particular service rules in the State governing that field.
F Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different
State Governments can have different methods of reservation.
There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is
in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the communal
rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block.

G 36. The High Court ought to have considered that the
vacancies were reported to the Commission in various spells
and filling up the turn of a community is a continuous process,
and the Commission cannot wait to advise a reservation
candidate till his turn arises for advice and keep the community
H
'--- NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 183
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
.... \
turn unfilled or advise a candidate lower in rank retaining a A
candidate who is above him in the list by anticipating reporting
of vacancies.

37. In our opinion the Commission has correctly advised
candidates in the order in which the requisitions were received,
-t B
and that too by correctly applying the principle contained in the
rules.

38. Rule 14 prescribes the procedure for implementation
of reservation of appointments. Clause (a) of this Rule
prescribes that unit of appointment for the purposes of this Rule c
shall be 20 whereas clause (c) specifies the order of rotation
in every cycle of 20 vacancies. Though the proviso to the sub-
rule provides that candidates selected on open competition
turns can be interchanged with the candidates selected on the
basis of reservation, the same is permissible within the unit of o.
~
20 only.

39. The High Court in paragraph 15 of the impugned
judgment has observed :

"15. The point to be decided is whether such application E
of rotation will run counter to any of the provisions of Rules
14 to 17 or whether that will give effect to the intention of
the said Rules. We are of the view that none of the above

~ .. said Rules stand in the way of applying .the rotation as
above by allotting every alternative vacancy to merit quota
and reserved quota. Rule 14(a) contemplates a situation
F

of reporting of vacancies numbering less than 20. There
are hundreds of posts where the number of vacancies
reported will normally be below 20 at a particular point of
time. Vacancies are reported in large numbers only in the G
case of LO.Clerks, Police Constables, Medical Officers
.... etc. When vacancies numbering more than 20 are
y
reported and if reservation is applied as stated above by
allotting every alternative vacancy firstly to open
H
---- ....
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

A competition candidates and the remaining vacancies to
candidates eligible for reservation, the same will effectuate
the purpose of the rules of reservation. The members of
Other Backward Classes will get 40% of the vacancies
meant for them. We are of the view that for canvassing for
B the above position, the writ petitioners need not challenge
any of the Rules. A proper construction of the Rules which
will advance the object of them will mandate the P.S.C to
make the advices as stated above. Any other application
of the Rules will amount to ultra vires and unauthorized
c action."

40. With respect we are unable to agree with interpretation
of Rules 14 to 17 given by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.

D 41. It may be mentioneid that there is no challenge to the
validity of these Rules. Hence we have to read the Rules as
they are. In our opinion, the so-called purposive interpretation
sought to be placed on the Rules by the High Court was
misconceived and is, therefore, not acceptable.
E
42. The High Court in its observation quoted above has
sought to find out the intention of Rules 14 to 17. In our opinion
the question of finding the intention arises only when a statute
is not clear. If the statute is clear as it is in this case, it has to
be read as it is, and the literal rule of interpretation is to be
F applied. In our opinion intention seeking is ordinarily to be done
only when the statute is not clear.
43. It may be mentioned that reservation provisions are
enabling provisions. In other words, the State is not bound to
G make a reservation, but it is empowered to do so in its own
discretion vide M. Nagraj and Others vs. Union of India and
others (2006) 8 SCC 212. In paragraph 102 of the said
judgment, the Constitution Bench of this Court observed: "The
impugned constitution amendments are enabling in nature. They
H
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 185
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
leave it to the States to provide for reservation." A

44. The same view has been taken in paragraphs 107 and
123 of the aforesaid decision.

45. Different State Governments in the country may have
different methods for providing reservations, and these will be 8
valid as long as the method adopted by a particular State
Government does not violate any constitutional provision or
statute. It is not for this Court to decide on the wisdom or
otherwise of the said method of reservation. This Court should
exercise judicial restraint and not interfere with the same unless C
there is some clear illegality. In our opinion the method
prescribed by the Rules made by the State Government suffers
from no infirmity or illegality, and hence the High Court acted
wrongly in allowing the Writ Petition. We are ciearly of the
opinion that the High Court has placed a wrong interpretation D
on the relevant Rules.

46. In our opinion the High Court was in error in directing
the Commission to ignore the express mandate of Rule 14 (a).
The High Court was wrong in holding that the said Rule only E
applies when the vacancies are less than 20. In fact the
direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment really
amounts to treating the entire number of vacancies which in the
present case is 250 as one unit, which is against the express
mandate of Rule 14(a). Thus the High Court has really
amended Rule 14(a) and (c) of the Rules, which was not in its F
jurisdiction. It is only the legislature which can amend the law,
and not the Court.

47. In our opinion the correct interpretation of Rule 14 to
17 is that the Public Service Commission should adopt each G
batch of 20 candidates ·as a separate unit for the purpose of
reservation and not take the entire select list as one unit.
48. It is true that reserved category candidates can
H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

A compete for the non-reserved post as provided for in Rule 14
(b), which only provides what has already been laid down by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in R.K. Sabharwal and
others vs. State of Punjab and others (1995) 2 SCC 745. Rule
14(b), however, will apply only to units of 20 candidates, and
B not for the total vacancies.

49. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed,
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court as well as of the learned Single Judge, are set aside
C and the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.

CA No ..........of 2009 [@ SLP(Civil) No. 21139 of 20081

50. Leave granted. The appellant was one of the
0 candidates in the Rank list published by the P.S.C. for
appointment to the post of High School Assistant (Natural
Science - Malayalam Medium). She is a convert from a
Scheduled Caste to Christianity and claimed benefit of
reservation available to Other Christians. She approached the
E High Court in WP No. 12816/2007 alleging that P.S.C. had
advised an open competition category candidate for the post
reserved for 'OX' category for which she was an eligible
candidate. Her grievance is that while disposing of her petition
along with WA No. 1697/2007, the High Court by enunciating
F the legal principle incorrectly, had wrongly denied her relief on
the erroneous impression that her tum did not arise before the ' .
expiry of rank list. As we are holding that the interpretation of
Rules 14 to 17 by the High Court was erroneous, the dismissal
of her writ petition has to be upheld, though on a different
ground.
G
CA No..........of 2009 C@ SLP(Civil) Nos. 439-443 of 20081

lj1. Leave granted. These appeals are filed by P.S.C.,
being aggrieved by the common order dated 11.11.2008 of a
H learned Single Judge disposing of WP(C) No. 25077, 26089,
NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY v. DR. T. BEERMASTHAN & 187
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
24158, 28435 and 16599/2008 (filed by some candidates after A
the rank lists were published and advices were made) with a
direction to the P.S.C. to apply the principles laid down in the
judgment dated 23.5.2008 of the Division Bench in WA No.
1697/2007 to all advices made by P.S.C. on or after 23.5.2008
in respect of bulk vacancies exceeding 20 in number reported B
to it in a given requisition (or where the requisition received from
the appointing authority on a given day exceeds 20 vacancies).
Following our decision in the Civil Appeals arising from WA No.
1697/2007, these appeals are allowed and the writ petitions
are dismissed. No costs. c
G.N. Appeals allowed.

'f