IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33417 of 2007(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- RANI S., SUKUMARA VILASAM, VALLICODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, M.G. ROAD, OVER BRIDGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE VALLICODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.61, VALLICODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689659, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN – R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.P.U.SHYLAJAN,SC,CO-OP.SERVICE EXAM. - R3 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN- R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33417/2007 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET EXTRACT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RESULTS OF EXAMINATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHIL VARTHA DTD. 6/12/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION EXTRACT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 26/10/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE SOCIETY DTD. 02/08/2004. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY DTD. 28/08/2006. EXT.R4(C): COPY OF DETAILS OF SHORT LIST OF CANDIDATES. EXT.R4(D): COPY OF SHORT LIST PREPARED FOR THE PANDALAM THEKKEKARA SOCIETY AND THAT OF THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.33417 OF 2007 (C) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, aspiring to be a Junior Clerk in the service of the fourth respondent bank, applied for being considered following a composite notice issued by the third respondent for selection to co-operative banks including the fourth respondent. The written test was conducted by the third respondent on 8-11-2003. Ext.P2 list of successful candidates was published on 10-12-2003 and forwarded to the fourth respondent. No interview was conducted by the Board of the fourth respondent. At that point of time, Rule 182 (1)(4)(v) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, as it now stands, was not there. This means that there was no statutory compulsion on the Board to conduct the interview within a period of two months. Whatever that be, no interview was ever held on the basis of Ext.P2 list. Later, the bank decided not to make any appointments. Even on 2-8-2004 the bank noticed that it was facing financial deadlock and would not therefore, make any appointments. After about four years, Ext.P3 notification for W.P.(C) No.33417/08 - 2 - selection and appointment of Junior Clerks in the service of the fourth respondent was published on 26-10-2007. The petitioner promptly filed this writ petition on 12-11-2007, seeking to quash that invitation of applications and for a direction to the fourth respondent to conduct interview on the basis of Ext.P2 list and to make appointments accordingly. The heart burn of the petitioner is that by the time the second notification was published, she had become age barred for any consideration in terms of that. ] 2. The fourth respondent bank takes the stand that there cannot be any compulsion to make appointment by interviewing the candidates in Ext.P2 list and the petitioner does not have any vested right, either under any legislation or under any principle of service of law, to insist that she has right to be interviewed and still further, to be appointed, even if selected. 3. The third respondent Examination Board and the fourth respondent were, during the course of an earlier hearing, directed to consider whether those included in Ext.P2 list could also be interviewed. There was an attempt to find out ways and means to give an opportunity to the candidates in Ext.P2 select list. The third W.P.(C) No.33417/08 - 3 - respondent has reported that the written test that led to Ext.P2 list was held for six establishments, of which interviews were held by all the establishments other than the fourth respondent and appointments made, which fact, in turn, would mean that the marks scored at the written test, that led to Ext.P2 list, would not remain to be secret or confidential. Any interview on the basis of Ext.P2 list, at this point of time, would not be one wherein purity could be expected or ensured. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P2 is not a select list, following the entire process of selection including the interview and therefore, any rule prescribing a period for its validity could not have any impact. It is accordingly contended that Rule 182(1)(4)(viii) of the Rules prescribing a period of two years validity to a select list will not have any implication. Technically, that may be so. Still further, Ext.P2 is rightly impeached as one, which is not a final select list. Rule 182 (1)(4)(viii) establishes that the currency of a select list should not be more than a period of two years. Even without any prescription as to the period for completion of the selection, it would be W.P.(C) No.33417/08 - 4 - unreasonable to assume that the selection could be dragged for about 4 years. That would be the result if this Court is to compel the interview of the petitioner who wrote the written test on 8-11- 2003. The petitioner cannot establish vested right for being appointed, even if selected. Equally so is the quality of the alleged entitlement to be interviewed, merely because she is one in Ext.P2 list. If the petitioner has a case that she could not be excluded from being interviewed on the basis of Ext.P2 list, as of now, Ext.P3 has led to a further written examination and many of those who found cleared in Ext.P2 list are stated to be in the list of candidates who were found successful in the written examination following Ext.P3. It would not be justifiable to change the status, at this point of time. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/9/7/8 // True copy // P.A.to Judge.