IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35023 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 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, KALAPPURACKAL 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): --------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 017. 2. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, KERALA. BY G.P. SRI.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 35023 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT In the branches of the first respondent situated in Ernakulam district there were vacancies in the category of Safai Karmachari. It is stated that the first respondent made a requisition to the second respondent to sponsor candidates to fill up 11 such vacancies. In response to that, 105 candidates were sponsored, interview was conducted and select list was also finalized. 2. Although all procedures were completed, appointments were not made. By Ext.P5 communication issued by the bank to the second respondent on 28-4-2009, they requested for cancellation of their requisition on the ground that a mistake was committed stipulating maximum age limit as 24 instead of 26. As the petitioners came to realize that after finalizing the selection process the requisition was cancelled, they have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to make appointments from the select list already finalized and not to fill up the vacancies, by calling fresh list of candidates. 3. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is cancellation W.P.(C) No. 35023/09 2 of select list at this distance of time is arbitrary and that the bank is liable to make appointments from the select list already finalized. It is also contended that from the select list prepared on identical requisition in relation to other districts, appointments have been made and therefore the reasons or mistake stated in Ext.P5 is incorrect. 4. The petitioners have no case that the upper age limit is not 26. If that be so, if the requisition made by the bank stipulated the maximum upper age limit as 24, the bank has clearly committed an error. If an error has been committed, at any point of time, the same can be corrected and decision to correct an error cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be arbitrary warranting interference. If the bank has power to correct the mistake, cancellation of the select list published, based on an erroneous requisition, is the natural consequences and such action does not call for any interference. If the maximum that the petitioners can seek is to get themselves sponsored by the second respondent against the fresh requisition that is already made. For this purpose it will be open to the petitioners to move the second respondent. 5. In so far as the contention of the petitioners that from the select list prepared on identical requisition in other districts appointments have been made, that factually does not appear to be correct, at least in so far as W.P.(C) No. 35023/09 3 Palakkad district is concerned. This is for the reason that in W.P.(C) No. 33858 of 2009 similar complaint has been raised by a candidate from Palakkad district. Even otherwise, if appointments have been made on such selection that is clearly wrong and an erroneous act cannot be a precedent to be followed in future. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.