Ramachandran Nair, J.

Writ Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Bank challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge vacating the order of the Government in appeal, restoring the order of the Joint Registrar and directing the appellant to appoint the first respondent in the Writ Appeal as Junior Clerk pursuant to her inclusion in the select list prepared by the Appellate based on the examination conducted by theCo-operative Service Examination Board in the year 2003. We have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, counsel appearing for the Appellant- Bank and Sri. P.N. Mohanan, counsel appearing for the first respondent.

2. The Co-operative Service Examination Board constituted under Section 80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, conducted examination for selection of Junior Clerks for appointment to various Banks including that of the appellant. Pursuant to list of candidates prepared by the Examination Board, the appellant-Bank prepared merit list wherein the first respondent figured as rank No.6. Even though six vacancies were notified for appointment as Junior Clerk, on account of appointment by rotation, the first respondent was not appointed in the first round. However, during the currency of the select list which was valid upto 10.11.2005, several vacancies arose for the post of Junior Clerk in the appellant-Bank. However, the Bank took the stand that vacancies arose during the currency of the merit list prepared on 11.11.2003 cannot be filled up with candidates therein and according to appellant-Bank, once notified vacancies, namely, six, were filled up no more vacancy could be filled up from out of the list prepared, no matter the list was valid during the period the vacancies arose. The claim of the first respondent is that since vacancies arose during the currency of the select list wherein she is next to be appointed, she is eligible to be appointed. Since the Bank did not take any action, the first respondent approached this Court with a Writ Petition for direction to the Bank to consider her claim for appointment, and this Court vide judgment in WPC 31511 of 2005 dated 6.1.2006 directed the Joint Registrar to consider first respondent's claim. The Joint Registrar vide Ext.P2 order directed the appellant-Bank to appoint first respondent. Against this order, the appellant approached the Government with an appeal under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act and the Government vide Ext.P4 order cancelled the direction issued by the Joint Registrar against which the first respondent filed the WPC. This Court though did not go into the Rules governing the validity of the list of selected candidates, cancelled the order of the Government stating that Government has not assigned any tenable reason for interfering with Ext.P2 order of the Joint Registrar. It is against this judgment this appeal is filed by the Bank.

3. Counsel for the appellant has referred to various decisions of this Court and that of the Supreme Court and contended that there is no provision to appoint more than the notified vacancies from the list prepared. The decisions cited are two Division Bench decisions of this Court in RAJA MOHAN V. STATE OF KERALA, ILR (1997) 1 Ker. 199, and NAZER V. STATE, (1996) 1 K.L.T. 321. Further counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in PREM SINGH V. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, (1996) 4 SCC 319 for the proposition that notified vacancies only could be filled up from the list prepared. The further contention of counsel based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. V. RAJKUMAR SHARMA, (2006) 3 SCC 330, S. RENUKA V. STATE OF A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 195 and STATE OF UP V. OM PRAKASH, (2006) 6 SCC 474 is that even if there is failure on the part of the appellant in not filling up the vacancies from the select list, still neither the Joint Registrar nor this Court has power to direct the appointment of the first respondent from the select list. Counsel appearing for the first respondent has re