Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. This is an intra court appeal by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.3.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.33589 of 2016.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short, 'KPSC) at length. We have also heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent as also learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7, who are some of the District Co-operative Banks. These banks are only notifying the vacancies.

3. The challenge was to Exts.P3 and P4. They were two advertisements issued by the KPSC in respect of filling up the post of Branch Manager in District Co-operative Banks. These two notifications prescribed educational qualifications, but, did not mention B.Com (Co-operation) as one of the qualifications therein. The writ petitioner is a member of 'Ezhava' community and had the educational qualification of B.Com (Co-operation). In the absence of such qualification being stated in the notification, he could not apply even though on 2.11.2010, Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 had been amended and as per the said amendment, the qualifications required for the post of Branch Manager were also amended and included B.Com (Cooperation) as additional qualification along with others. This omission being contrary to the statutory rules, wrongly deprived him of an opportunity to apply for the post in question, for which, he was otherwise eligible. He, accordingly, prayed to the Court to quash the two notifications dated 29.9.2016. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that in terms of Rule 187 of the aforesaid Rules, the applicant should have been holding a similar or higher post. The appellant was a clerk and he was aspiring to apply for the post of Branch Manager, which was not predicated in the circumstances. Hence, this intra court appeal.

4. Learned Standing counsel for the KPSC submitted before this Court that the writ petitioner was even otherwise ineligible because both these notifications were in respect of 'NCA' vacancies, that is; 'No Candidate Available', meaning thereby, there had been an earlier notification, but, candidates were not available for the reserved post and therefore, they were carried forward as 'NCA vacancy'. Ext.P3 was in relation to Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian candidates for the district Pathanamthitta and Ext.P4 was for Ezhava, Muslim, Scheduled Caste and Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian candidates for various districts specified therein, to which, the writ petitioner was not eligible, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the KPSC.

5. We do not find any merit in the submission, inasmuch as the petitioner in the writ petition had clearly averred that he belonging to 'Ezhava' community and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the KPSC, in paragraph 3 clearly admitted the said fact and there is no dispute in that regard. Thus, the contention on behalf of the KPSC that the writ petitioner/appellant was not eligible on this count cannot be accepted. Thus, it is apparent that the writ petitioner was eligible as a reserve category candidate to apply, if otherwise found eligible pursuant to notification issued by the KPSC being Ext.P4.

6. On behalf of the KPSC, it was then submitted that both the notifications were 'NCA' notifications, that is; 'No Candidate Available' as noticed above. It is not disputed that in the year 2010, Rule 186 was amended wherein, the qualification of B.Com (Co-operation) was added to the post of Branch Manager. But, it was sought to be suggested that the vacancies could have been prior to 2010 and hence, the same qualification had to be re-notified. Thus, if vacancies were prior to 2010, when B.Com (Cooperation) was not an eligibility qualificatio