The main legal point established is that the petitioner has the right to be considered for appointment as the vacancy occurred before the promulgation of the Ordinance and subsequent amendment, and that the Bank is obligated to appoint the petitioner permanently as Data Entry Officer.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. O.V. Radhakrishnan for R2, Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for RI and Mr. V.N. Achutha Kurup for R3.

2. The above Original Petition is filed to declare that S.80(3A) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act does not affect the selections already made and the rights of candidates included in the select list prepared and published by the 3rd respondent to the post of Data Entry Officer on the basis of written test and interview conducted and to declare that S.80(3A) of the Act as unconstitutional and invalid. Though the prayer was sought to declare S.80(3A) of the Act as unconstitutional and invalid, argument was advanced by the learned senior counsel on the merits of the case and in particular with reference to the notification issued under Ext. P1 and the selection made. Hence we confine ourselves in deciding the issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled for -appointment in the Bank as Data Entry Officer.

3. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Data Entry Officer in the 3rd respondent Bank. After the selection process was over the name of the petitioner was included in the list of candidates to be appointed in the Bank to the aforesaid post. Our attention was invited to Ext. P2 rank list. It can be seen that the petitioner's name is second in the rank list. The first rank-holder Roily was given appointment in the month of February, 1995. But in the month of April 1995 the said Roily resigned from service as he got a better placement in the National Informatice Centre, Kavaratty. The petitioner, after knowing about the resignation of Roily approached the Bank and requested to appoint him in that vacancy. But he was informed by the Bank that in view of the Ordinance 10 of 1995 dated 29.4.1995 no further appointment can be made as the 3rd respondent Bank has been included as serial No. 23 in the Schedule of the Ordinance. The said ordinance was challenged by similarly affected persons and this Court by an interim order (Ext. P5) in CMP No. 936/1996 in OP No. 10052/1995, directed the Bank to appoint the petitioner, who was included in the select list in preference to the employment exchange hands or till PSC hands are

selected and appointed in case there is any valid order directing the bank to make appointment through PSC. Pursuant to the said interim order the petitioner was given temporary appointment for 179 days as Data Entry Officer. When the petitioner requested the bank to allow him to continue in service as he is eligible and entitled to be appointed against the permanent vacancy the Bank asked the petitioner to get an order from this Court for that purpose as there is no direction in Ext. P5 order to give appointment for more that 179 days. According to the petitioner there was no direction in Ext. P5 interim order to limit the period of appointment to 179 days only and what is stated by the 3rd respondent is only a wrong interpretation of the order and that the only condition in Ext. P5 is that the persons appointed as per the interim order will not get any right other that what nominees of the employment exchange will been titled to. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition for declaration as already stated and for a mandamus directing the bank to appoint hi m permanently irrespective of the issuance of Ordinance 10 of 1995 or amendment of S.80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 incorporating sub-s.(3A) by the reason of the inclusion of his name in the list prepared for making appointment under it. When similar grievance was brought to the notice of this Court by similarly placed persons pointing out their grievances, this Court passed interim orders directing the concerned banks to allow them to continue in the respective posts until further orders from this Court and they are continuing in service. The petitioner, in support of this contention, produced two such interim