IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29211 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.G. SATHEESH, S/O. K.P.GOPINATHAN, AGED 28 YEARS, KIZHAKKEPURAYIL, P.O. PALLAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ITHITHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.476, P.O. MALAKUNNAM, CHANGANACHERRY-686 552, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE PRESIDENT, ITHITHANAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.476, P.O. MALAKUNNAM, CHANGANACHERRY-686 552. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN R4, R5 BY BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29211 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT A ranked list for appointment as Junior Clerk in a Co- operative Bank was published by the PSC. That list expired on 22.8.2005. Even before that, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who is Sl.No.4 in that list. Persons at Sl.Nos.1 to 3 have already been appointed. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to be appointed as against a vacancy that would arise if and when an employee already in service would be promoted as a Branch Manager. It is on that anticipation that this writ petition has been filed. Even as of now, the Bank has not promoted the person the petitioner has referred to in the writ petition. Still further, the right of a person is only to aspire for promotion and to be considered if eligible. It would be too far fetched a claim for one, that a vacancy would arise if another, who is already in service, would be promoted and then the petitioner should be appointed as against that vacancy. Even if WPC.29211/05 2 the petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramswarup Saroj [2000 (3) SCC 699] to say that the expiry of the list during the pendency of this writ petition may not stand against him, the petitioner cannot sustain this writ petition for any relief sought for. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.