Balakrishnan Nair, J.

W.A. Nos.2160 OF 2008 & 184 OF 2009

The point that arises for decision in these appeals is whether the provisions of Rule 182 (4)(v) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule') are mandatory or directory. W.A.No.2160/2008 is filed, by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Pathanamthitta, against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.3170/2008 filed by the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.3260 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). W.A.No.184/2009 is filed, by the Registrar of the Co- operative Societies, Trivandrum, against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20128/2008 filed by a candidate, who applied for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk in Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd.

2. W.A.No.2160/2008 is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to exhibits. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported 15 vacancies of Junior Clerks to the Co-operative Service Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Pursuant to the said intimation, the Board invited applications for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk in the Bank and also for appointment in 34 other Co-operative Societies, which have similarly moved the Board, reporting vacancies of Junior Clerks in the respective Societies. The Board published the notification inviting applications on 10.10.2006. A written test for the candidates, who applied pursuant to the said notification, was held on 9.9.2007. The results of the test were published on 24.7.2007. 695 candidates cleared the written test. The Board by Ext.P2 communication dated 29.11.2007 forwarded the list of candidates to the Bank for conducting interview and for sending the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview to it. The outer time limit for sending the marks after holding the interview was 28.1.2008. At the relevant time, a superseded Managing Committee was in power, which was continuing in office on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 27925/2007. While moving the Writ Petition, challenging the supersession order before this Court, an undertaking was given on behalf of the Managing Committee that they will not make any appointments. In view of the said undertaking, the Managing Committee could not hold the interview within the stipulated time limit. So, it passed Ext.P3 resolution requesting the Board to grant extension of time for the interview. It was followed by Ext.P4 request praying for grant of further time. The Board considered the request of the Bank and issued Ext.P5 communication rejecting the prayer for extension of time. Ext.P6 is an interlocutory application filed in W.P.(C) No.27925/2007 by the President of the Bank, praying for permission of this Court to conduct the interview for appointment of 15 Junior Clerks in the Bank. Since the said petition was opposed by the respondents, no order was passed on it and therefore, it was not possible to hold the interview in time. In the above factual background, feeling aggrieved by the stand taken by the Board in Ext.P5, the Writ Petition was filed praying to quash Ext.P5.

3. The Bank also prayed for a declaration that Rule 182 (4) (v) of the Rules to the extent it requires conduct of interview by the Managing Committee, within two months from the date of receipt of the list of candidates from the Board, is only directory and not mandatory. The Bank prayed for a mandamus directing the Board to extend the time limit for the conduct of the interview as requested in Exts.P3 and P4.

4. The respondents in the Writ Petition resisted the prayers therein, contending that the provisions of the Rule 182 (4) (v) are mandatory and therefore, there cannot be any extension of time. Interview held after the time limit was illegal. The learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions and held that in exceptional circumstances the time limit for interview provided und