IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13551 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.SATHEESHKUMAR,S/O.ANNAMALA, NEAR BHAGAVATHY COLONY,5TH MILE,KUNNAMKATTUPATHY. P.O,VIA CHITTUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MOOLATHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.518,MEENAKSHIPURAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678533. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),PALAKKAD,PIN-67800. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 13551/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION (BIA-DATA) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER HIM FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PEON EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A. No.490/2010 DATED 24.3.2010 OF THE HON'BLE COURT EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALAM DAILY MATHRUBHOOMI DATED 11.1.2011 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK IN W.P.(C) No. 25433/2009 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.2.2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES ON 11.2.2011 EVIDENCING DESPATCH OF EXHIBIT.P6 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE vps P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13551 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to a notification issued by the first respondent bank, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Peon. He was called to appear for written test that was held on 19.10.2007. An interview was also held and thereafter a select list was prepared. The petitioner was ranked second in the list. It appears, the first rank holder was appointed. Though there was yet another vacancy, the petitioner was not appointed. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No. 25433 of 2009 in this Court. By judgment delivered on 15.1.2010 the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Writ Appeal No.490 of 2010. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 24.3.2010. 2. The main contention raised by the bank before the learned single Judge and before the Division Bench was that though one vacancy is in existence, the Board of Directors have decided not to fill up the vacancy. However it was on yet another ground that the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, namely that as only one vacancy was notified only one vacancy can be filled up. Though an appeal was filed W.A. No.490 of 2010, by judgment delivered on 24.3.2010 the Division Bench rejected the petitioner's prayer for a direction to the bank to appoint him based on his position in the ranked list. But the Division Bench left WPC No.13551/2011 2 open the right of the appellant to seek appointment in accordance with the rules during the currency of validity of the select list. The validity of the ranked list had in the meanwhile expired. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 notification dated 10.1.2011 the bank invited fresh applications for appointment to one post of Peon and one post of Night Watchman. The last date for submission of applications was 27.1.2011. The petitioner did not apply for appointment. Instead he submitted Ext.P6 representation before the bank requesting for appointment as Peon based on the inclusion of his name in the ranked list that was prepared and published pursuant to the notification issued on 7.8.2007. This writ petition is filed mainly seeking a direction to the first respondent bank to consider Ext.P6 request and to refrain from making any appointment to the post of Peon pursuant to Ext.P4 notification, till a decision is taken on Ext.P6. 3. The fact that the petitioner had applied earlier pursuant to the notification dated 7.8.2007 by which the bank had invited applications for one post of Peon is not in dispute. The petitioner was ranked second in the ranked list prepared pursuant to that notification. Though the vacancy notified was filled up, there was yet another vacancy. The bank did not fill up that vacancy. The petitioner thereupon moved this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 25433 of 2009. By judgment delivered on 15.1.2010, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that as only one vacancy was notified WPC No.13551/2011 3 only one vacancy can be filled up and therefore the petitioner cannot seek appointment. Though the petitioner carried the matter in appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. 4. In my opinion, in view of the fact that the entitlement of the petitioner to seek appointment pursuant to the notification issued on 7.8.2007 stood rejected with Ext.P3 judgment, he cannot contend that based on the inclusion of his name in the ranked list prepared pursuant to that notification, he should be appointed in future as and when vacancies arise. That apart the petitioner has no case that he had applied pursuant to Ext.P4. If he was really interested in seeking employment, in view of Ext.P3 judgment, he should have applied afresh pursuant to Ext.P4 notification. That having not been done, the petitioner cannot seek a direction to the bank to consider his request for appointment based on the inclusion of his name in the ranked list published in the year 2007. I therefore find no grounds to grant the relief prayed for. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps