IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25433 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.ANNAMALA, NEAR BHAGAVATHY COLONY, 5TH MILE, KUNNAMKATTUPATHY P.O., VIA. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.G.HARIHARAN, MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MOOLATHARA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.518, MEENAKSHIPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25433/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION (BIO-DATA) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. BANK TO CONSIDER HIM FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PEON. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET ISSUED BY THE R.1. BANK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR FOR THE TEST FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PEON. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY THE R.1. BANK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25433 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2010 JUDGMENT By a notification published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 7.8.2007 as well as in the Dinamalar daily, the first respondent bank invited applications for appointment to the post of peon. The number of vacancies notified was one. Pursuant to the said notification the petitioner applied for appointment as peon in the first respondent bank. He was called to attend the written test held on 6.9.2007. An interview was also conducted. A rank list was thereupon prepared and published. In that rank list, Ms.Preetha was ranked first and the petitioner was ranked second. Ms.Preetha, the first rank holder was admittedly appointed with effect from 25.10.2007. The petitioner contends that being the second rank holder, he is entitled to be appointed as peon in the first respondent bank. The petitioner has not however pleaded or proved that vacancies of peon exist in the first respondent bank against which he can claim appointment. The writ petition is totally silent as regards availability of a vacancy of peon. The case set out by the petitioner is that being the second rank holder, he is entitled to be appointed as peon. WP(C).No.25433/2009 2 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia contended that only one vacancy of peon was notified, that the total number of sanctioned posts of peon in the bank was two and that as the sole notified post was filled up by the candidate ranked first in the rank list, the rank list cannot be operated. It is also contended that as no vacancy exists and as the notification was issued only in respect of one vacancy, the petitioner cannot seek appointment. The learned Government Pleader also supports the said contention. 3. The petitioner has not been able to show that more than one vacancy of peon was notified to be filled. The first respondent bank has categorically stated that there are only two sanctioned posts of peon in the bank and that only one vacancy was notified. It is stated that the said vacancy arose when the peon was promoted after he served for three years as peon and passed the Junior Diploma in Co-operation. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Dr.Dimpi V. Divakaran & Another v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Another (2007 (1) KLJ 545) held relying on earlier decisions of this Court that where only one vacancy was notified, vacancies that have subsequently arisen during the currency of the rank list cannot be filled WP(C).No.25433/2009 3 up from that rank list. It was held that the only exception to the said rule is recruitment by the Kerala Public Service Commission where, the rules of procedure prescribe that all vacancies notified and existing and arising during the currency of the ranked list are to be filled up by advising candidates included in that ranked list. It was also held that if vacancies that arose subsequent to the publication of the rank list are filled up pursuant to the earlier notification, it will amount to denial of opportunity to candidates who qualified after the earlier notification was issued and those who did not offer themselves earlier as only one vacancy had been notified. 4. In the light of the decision of this Court in Dr.Dimpi's case (supra), in the absence of any stipulation in rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Rules that all vacancies arising during the currency of a rank list shall be filled up from that list, it has to held that the petitioner, the second rank holder cannot claim appointment merely based on the fact that he is the second rank holder in the rank list. Further, the petitioner has not proved that a vacancy of peon exists in the first respondent bank. On the other hand the first respondent has categorically averred that only two sanctioned posts of peon exist in the bank and that only one vacancy was notified, when a WP(C).No.25433/2009 4 vacancy arose on the promotion of the incumbent peon to the higher post. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the petitioner has not made out any ground justifying the grant of the relief prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS