IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 2924 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35023/2009 Dated 10/12/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SEEJA P.G., PADIYAMKUNNU HOUSE, CHOWARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAFNA SALIM, W/O.RAFEEQ, MUTTEL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. REMYA C.P., CHEMMADITHUNDIYIL HOUSE, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. 4. SANGEETHA K.A., KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, KUMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 5. E.V.SHEENA, ELANJITHARA HOUSE, PANANGHAD P.O., KOCHI. 6. SUBAIR P.K., S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, PLAVIDA VEEDU, KUNNATHERI, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. 7. RAJESH M.T., S/O.M.V.THANKAPPAN, MANGALAPPILLY VEEDU, NEAR RVUHS, CHERAI P.O. BY ADV. SMT.I.S.LAILA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTRA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682017. WA No.2924/2009 2. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, REP. BY THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, KERALA. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R1 SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.2924/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Safai Karmachari under the 1st respondent Bank in Ernakulam district. On being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they underwent the selection process and a list was also prepared. Later, the Bank realised that a mistake has crept in the requisition sent by it to the Employment Exchange, concerning the age limit of the candidates to be sponsored. Instead of 26 years, the maximum age limit was shown as 24. On realising the said mistake, the Bank cancelled the selection process and issued Ext.P5 requisition to the Employment Exchange, to sponsor fresh candidates within the age limit of 26. Challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed. The WA No.2924/2009 - 2 - Bank contended that they are only correcting a mistake and therefore, their action was within jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the Bank and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, we directed the Bank to file an affidavit, detailing the circumstances under which Ext.P5 was issued. Pursuant to the said direction, the Bank has filed a detailed counter affidavit and the appellants have filed a reply affidavit also. Going by the materials on record, we are satisfied that the Bank was correcting a mistake committed by it. In fact, they were bound to consider all the candidates within the age limit of 26 years. But, the earlier requisition sent to the Employment Exchange was to sponsor candidates who have not crossed 24 years. So, a substantial number of persons, who are eligible to be considered for selection as per the Regulations of the Bank, were kept out of selection. To cure the said illegality, fresh steps were taken by Ext.P5. We find that the action of the Bank is within jurisdiction. The Bank should be conceded freedom to correct WA No.2924/2009 - 3 - the mistake committed by it in the selection process. Therefore, we find nothing illegal with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.