IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 619 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.2328/2006 Dated 31/07/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. REKHA S. VYSAKH, NEAR L.P. SCHOOL, KALAVOOR, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. 2. AZEENA M.A. JOLLY GARDENS, THRIVENI JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. ABDUL JALEEL, PAPAMOOTTIL HOUSE , ZAKARIA BAZAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPREENTED BYY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.K. VIJAYAMOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.10.2009, THE COURT ON 30/10/2009, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.619/09 in W.A. No.2328/06 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Antony Dominic, J Review of the judgment in W.A. No.2328/2006 is sought for. 2. The petitioners, who had filed the writ appeal, were included in the ranked list published by the PSC for the post of Clerk cum Cashier, in the 3rd respondent Bank. The list was valid till 31.12.2004. In W.P(c).No.34129/04, this court had passed Ext.P1 interim order directing the respondent Bank to report 70 vacancies, with a further direction to the PSC not to advice the candidates. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the PSC to issue advise memos to those vacancies reported pursuant to Ext.P1 order. According to the petitioners, certain third parties had filed writ appeals against the judgment in the writ petition and the appeals were dismissed. It is also pleaded that the Bank had sent proforma of only 36 persons to the PSC and that therefore PSC issued advise memo to those candidates alone. According to them, in view of Ext.P1 order, the remaining 34 vacancies should also be reported and filled up from the ranked list. They also referred to RP.NO.619 /09 IN W.A.No.2328/06 :2 : the resolution passed by the Bank on 28.6.2006 to suggest the existence of 34 vacancies. These contentions were considered by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition, and the writ appeal was also dismissed. 3. In this review petition, counsel reiterated the contention that in terms of Ext.P1 interim order, 70 vacancies which were in existence were directed to be reported and as the Bank filled up only 36 vacancies, the remaining 34 vacancies should also be filled up from the list. As far as this contention is concerned, we find that against Ext.P2 judgment of the learned Single Judge, W.A.No.2042/05 and connected cases were filed, which were dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 25th October, 2005. In the judgment, the Division Bench clarified that it will be within the right of the Bank to inform the PSC about any decision to reduce the number of vacancies that were to be filled up. This judgment has become final and in pursuance to the above direction of the Division Bench, it was open to the Bank to restrict the number of vacancies to 36. During the course of the hearing of this Review Petition also, counsel for the Bank submitted that they did not have 34 more vacancies to be filled up from the list. Now that judgment in the Writ Appeal has become final and as it was open to RP.NO.619 /09 IN W.A.No.2328/06 :3 : the Bank to limit the number of vacancies, we cannot find fault with the Bank in filling up only 36 vacancies. 4. In so far as the resolution dated 28.6.2006 relied on by the Review Petitioners is concerned, admittedly the ranked list was valid only up to 31.12.2004. If that be so, any vacancy which is available subsequent thereto cannot be filled up from the expired ranked list. Therefore this resolution passed after the expiry of the ranked list cannot revive the expired ranked list. The Resolution therefore does not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner. 5. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench show that all these contentions have been duly adverted to. We do not find any error in the judgment warranting consideration of the review petition. Review petition fails and is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/