1. The petitioner, an unemployee, applied for the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the first respondent Bank pursuant to the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the second respondent. In Exhibit P1 rank list which came into force with effect from 31.12.2009, the petitioner secured Rank No.57, the validity of the rank list being up to 31.03.2014, originally.

2. On 21.06.2013, as the first respondent reported eleven vacancies, the second respondent advised persons up to the rank 56. It has, however, transpired that the person with Rank No.54, belonging to general category, did not join. Having expected that the petitioner would be accommodated in the non-joining vacancy, when no positive steps were taken by the respondent Bank in that regard, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of a direction to the first respondent to report, within the validity of Exhibit P1 rank list, the vacancy of clerk cum cashier in the first respondent bank, which arose on account of the non-joining of the person holding 54th rank. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the second respondent to advise the petitioner for appointment to the post of clerk cum cashier, with a consequential direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the said post.

4. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, chronologically, that the writ petition was filed on 28.02.2014, when the rank list was subsisting. Initially, the matter came up for consideration on 03.03.2014, and later it underwent many adjournments till 29.05.2014. The rank list was to have originally expired on 31.03.2014, but was extended till 30.06.2014.

5. According to the learned counsel, on 29.05.2014 this Court issued an interim direction to the effect that the respondent Bank shall report the vacancy caused by the non-joining of the candidate with Rank No.54, as otherwise it would lapse by 30.06.2014.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that though there is certain controversy whether the respondent Bank has reported the vacancy, it can be seen from Exhibit R2(a), coupled with the interim direction 29.05.2014, that the respondent Bank reported the vacancy. Even otherwise, in the light of the interim direction, contended the learned counsel, the very communication in Exhibit R2(a) shall be treated as reporting of the vacancy.

7. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that once a vacancy has been reported, it cannot be recalled and that the vacancy position shall be reckoned as on the date of the reporting of the vacancy, notwithstanding the subsequent changes, as is evident from Exhibit P3 circular.

8. The learned counsel, trying to refute the contentions of the respondent Bank that in course of time it was down-graded and even the existing posts were declared supernumerary, would contend that recently the respondent Bank appointed one Mr. Krishnankutty. Further, one Mr. Babu has also, subsequent to filing of the writ petition, retired from service as a Clerk-cum-Cashier.

9. The learned counsel would lay specific emphasis on the fact that in course of time the respondent Bank has also opened seven new branches. In elaboration of her submissions, she would contend that the aspects of fresh appointment and opening of branches have not been specifically denied, not even adverted to, by the respondent Bank in its pleadings.

10. Further, drawing my attention to Exhibit P4 notification by the second respondent calling for anticipated vacancies, the learned counsel would contend that it contains the name of the first respondent Bank as one of the employers to report the anticipated vacancies. According to her, only in order to defeat the right of the petitioner, who had an indefeasible right at the time when the vacancy was reported, the respondent Bank has come forward with a defence of down-grading of the Bank, which, according to her