Judgment : Devan Ramachandran, J. Even though this appeal impels various assertions, averments and allegations, the germane question is whether the appellants obtain locus standi to challenge the promotion of the party respondents. 2. The controversy has its genesis in the fact that the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited (Corporation for short), reported 11 vacancies in the post of “Accountant/Senior Assistant” to the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), for being filled through direct recruitment. This was done because, at the time when the said vacancies arose, there were no qualified hands available for promotion. 3. Admittedly, as per the Special Rules applicable to the post in question, the normal method of filling up the vacancies is through promotion; and it is only where the qualified hands are not available on the date of occurrence of the same, can direct recruitment be resorted to. 4. As is expressly conceded, at the time when Ext.P2 notification was issued by the Public Service Commission, only 11 vacancies were reported; and it is admitted that they were all filled up from persons like the appellants, included in Ext.P3 Rank List prepared pursuant thereto. 5. However, the appellants took a contention that, after Ext.P2 notification had been issued, several vacancies arose and that even then there were no qualified persons. They say that, however, instead of reporting such vacancies to the Public Service Commission by the Corporation, the latter chose to wait until 12.06.2023, to promote the party respondents; and that this was done because, it is only then, that they obtained the necessary qualification. 6. The appellants contend that the action of the Corporation in having waited to obtain qualified persons to effect promotions in vacancies that arose prior to such, is in direct conflict with Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules; and assert that, had this not been done, such would have had to be reported to the PSC, to be then filled up from the persons included in Ext.P3 Rank List like, themselves. 7. It is rather obvious – also being admitted -that, at the time when the party respondents were promoted through Ext.P6 order dated 12.06.2023, Ext.P3 Rank List had not come into force because, its date is 11.01.2024. 7. It is rather obvious – also being admitted -that, at the time when the party respondents were promoted through Ext.P6 order dated 12.06.2023, Ext.P3 Rank List had not come into force because, its date is 11.01.2024. This Rank List was pursuant to Ext.P2 notification dated 15.03.2021, which specified the vacancies as being 11 – it being intended to fill up solely those vacancies to which qualified persons were not available. 8. Interestingly, the contention of the appellants is that they are entitled to have been considered for appointment even though the vacancies in question had arisen after Ext.P2 notification, because there were no qualified persons even thereafter; and that, had that been done, they would have obtained seniority higher than what they have now, because they now are placed under the party respondents who were promoted in the meanwhile. 9. Sri.Rajesh K.Raju – learned counsel for the appellants, argued that, when the Corporation had acted illegally in promoting persons to vacancies that arose prior to them having been qualified, such will have to be seen to be illegal and hence null and void. He contended, that if this Court is to hold so, then his clients would obtain higher seniority since the party respondents will have to be reverted to their original position. 10. Sri.R.K.Muraleedharan and Sri.Brijesh Mohan – learned counsel for the party respondents, however, argued that the appellants obtain no locus to challenge either Ext.P6 order or the promotion offered to their clients. They asserted that their clients were validly promoted through a properly authorised proceeding; and hence that the challenge by the appellants to such can only be construed to be at the best, in public interest since they were not even in the contemplation of appointment, much less being included in the Rank List, at the time when such promotions were effected. They reiteratingly pointed out that the Rank List came into life only on 11.01.2024; and consequently that any right could be claimed by the appellants only after that date and not prior to it. 11. Sri M. Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the corporation, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Muraleedharan and Sri.Brijesh Mohan; supplementing it saying that, as far as his client is concerned, they have acted correctly and in full justification of the Special Rules. 11. Sri M. Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the corporation, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Muraleedharan and Sri.Brijesh Mohan; supplementing it saying that, as far as his client is concerned, they have acted correctly and in full justification of the Special Rules. He asserted that Ext.P2 notification takes only 11 vacancies which were available at that time, and that no further had been reported to the PSC, for it to have embarked upon any further selection process. He showed us that Ext.P2 notification called for candidates for selection only to 11 vacancies because, they were those available for direct recruitment, on account of the absence of qualified persons eligible for promotion at that time. He impressed upon us that the General Rules applicable to the PSC will not apply in this case, since, the normal mode of filling up of vacancies is through promotion, with direct recruitment being allowed to be resorted to only when there are no qualified hands eligible for being promoted. He prayed that this appeal be therefore, dismissed. 12. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, affirmed that only 11 vacancies had been reported to his client and that they have therefore, notified them through Ext.P2, to finally culminate in Ext.P3 Rank List. He did not enter into the issue whether further vacancies ought to have been reported or otherwise, saying that these are matters which are beyond purview of his client. 13. When we evaluate the rival submissions of the parties, it is without doubt that the appellants were included in Ext.P3 Rank List, pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, only on 11.01.2024. Apart from the unimpeached declaration of law that inclusion in a Rank List does not provide a candidate an indefeasible right to Appointment, the fact remains that any other right they could claim, would only flow from the date they were appointed; or, at the best, after they found a place in the said list. 14. In the case at hand, the party respondents were promoted with effect from 12.06.2023, which is much prior to the coming into force of Ext.P3 Rank List; and the challenge to their promotion could have been, therefore, not done by the appellants. 15. 14. In the case at hand, the party respondents were promoted with effect from 12.06.2023, which is much prior to the coming into force of Ext.P3 Rank List; and the challenge to their promotion could have been, therefore, not done by the appellants. 15. Interestingly, the present attempt of the appellants is to assail the promotion of the party respondents, which were effected much prior to even their inclusion in Ext.P3 Rank List; and consequently, their claims in this case can, by any stretch, only be construed to be a cause in public interest and not underpinned on service jurisprudence, since they had not even entered service at that time. 16. When we say so, we are fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri. Rajesh K.Raju, that, had the party respondents not been promoted, then, perhaps, the vacancies would have had to be reported to the PSC. This contention in our view, is speculative and wholly conjectural because, it is even open to the Corporation not to have reported or to have left the vacancies unfilled, being within their realm of discretion, into which, courts cannot normally intervene. 17. We do not propose to speak any further on this issue because, we are without doubt that the locus of the appellants, to challenge the promotions of persons who were given such benefit even prior to their inclusion in the Rank List, is unavailable and untenable. 18. Since the learned Single Judge has also concluded as afore, we obtain no reason to interfere. This appeal is consequently dismissed.