and the same would have been filled up only by the end of the academic year 2016-17, as per the norms and that therefore, the said vacancy even if it has arisen on 15.07.2016, could have been lawfully reported to the appointing authority only for the purpose of inter-district transfer quota appointments and not for any other method of appointment until the end of March, 2017 and it is only thereafter, that it could be known that no personnel could be appointed in the interdistrict transfer quota and thereafter, the appointing authority with all due diligence has immediately and forthwith reported the said vacancy to the Public Service Commission in the prescribed proforma of vacancy requisition report on 02.05.2017, etc. Since this is the admitted fact of the matter, it can be seen that the appointing authority could have lawfully utilized the said vacancy, only for the purpose of inter-district transfer quota and not for any other method of appointment until the end of March, 2017. Hence, even if it is assumed that the vacancy in question has arisen on 15.07.2016 as found by the Tribunal, the same could not have been lawfully reported by the appointing authority to the Public Service Commission for regularizing a candidate in the direct recruitment quota. In other words, the very
