JUDGMENT

Challenge in this petition is directed against Ext.P4 order issued by the

3rd respondent as per which, the process of appointment to the post of Peon in the 1st respondent bank has been ordered to be kept in abeyance pending further orders. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to keep alive Ext.P1 rank list and also to direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Peon lying vacant in the 1st respondent bank.

2. Brief facts are as under:

A vacancy to the post of one Peon occurred in the 1st respondent bank. The 1st respondent invited applications for filling up the solitary post of Peon. The petitioner also took part in the examination held on 18.01.2020 and a rank list was prepared of 11 persons who scored the maximum marks. Ext.P1 rank list was to be in force for a period of one year. The same was extended for a period of one year more. The 1st rank holder was appointed to the post. Later, when three more vacancies arose, appointments were made on its merits. The persons who were ranked as 1 to 3 have already been appointed. While so, complaints were received by the 3rd respondent about certain malpractices. Later, the complaint was withdrawn as is evidenced by Ext.P2. The petitioner contends that there exists two vacancies of Peon in the 1st respondent bank and one vacancy in the newly merged Puthu Pallipuram Branch. The petitioner would be the person who is entitled to secure an appointment to the post of Peon, as he is the 4th rank holder. While the 1st respondent was deliberating the same, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P4 order stalling the further proceedings. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 order is illegal as the complaint which was earlier lodged before the 3rd respondent has been withdrawn. It is further contended that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of getting appointment to the post and as the rank list is due to expire on 10.02.2022, the petitioner would be subjected to grave hardships. It is on these contentions that the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Joint Registrar in exercise of his powers has revealed that the notification was issued to fill up only one post. The advertisement was made to fill up the said post. According to the learned Government Pleader, vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. It is further submitted that with the appointment of the candidate for the only post in respect of which, the consideration came to be made and select list prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility. It is further submitted that a person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment. The learned Government Pleader would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orissa and another V. Rajkishore Nanda and Others [2010 KHC 4401], State of Punjab V. Raghbir Chand Sharma and another [2002 (1) SCC 113], Mukul Saikia and others V. State of Assam and Others [2009 (1) SCC 386] and that of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sreejith A and Others v Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

and Others [2018 (5) KHC 571] to substantiate her contention.

4. I have considered the submissions and perused the entire records.

Exhibit-P4 is the order passed by the 3rd respondent staying the process of recruitment in the 1st respondent Bank. A reading of Exhibit-P4 would reveal that notification was invited on 28.12.2019 for recruiting one Peon. It is stated that thereafter, a rank list was prepared illegally and two more persons were appointed. Thereafter, a complaint was received by the Joint Registrar that the Managing Committee would be meeting on 29.01.202