IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21991 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MALLIKA P.P., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O GOPINATHAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, CHUNANGAD POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. KAYILIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.KAYILIAD - 679 122, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF KAYILIAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.O.KAYILIAD - 679 122, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SR.G.P.SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.21991 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for being considered for appointment as Junior Clerk in the service of the third respondent, a co-operative bank. Competitions were held through the intervention of the competent authority and a select list was published. That list would be live till 2- 8-2008. Persons with ranks 2, 3 and 4 have been appointed, going by the pleadings on either side. Petitioner, presently aged 34, aspires to be appointed to the existing vacancy in the service of the third respondent bank. However, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit taking the stand that it does not propose to fill up any vacancy, owing to its financial situation even if the vacancy is WPC21991/2008 -:2:- identifiable. It took the stand that it is not going to fill up any vacancy from the ranked list owing to its financial situation. Though it has been demonstrated by the petitioner that at least one more vacancy can be filled from that list, that by itself is insufficient to pass an order in favour of the petitioner. This is because the mere inclusion of name in the select list does not give any entitlement to the petitioner for being appointed. The employer third respondent is well within its right to decide that it shall not make any appointment. Such decision of the third respondent cannot be challenged unless it is shown to be palpably perverse, unavailable on records or mala fide to wreak any sort of situation whereby the petitioner would be, irrationally, mala fide and arbitrarily WPC21991/2008 -:3:- excluded from being appointed. In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to issue any order. Writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.