Court ruled that retrospective enforcement of Recruitment Rules is lawful despite the candidate's arguments.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner belongs to SIUC Nadar Community and is unemployed. The Kerala PSC, by Ext.P1 Notification dated 30.04.2022, invited applications from SIUC Nadar reservation community for appointment as Clerk / Cashier in the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank. A written examination was conducted on 23.04.2024. The petitioner participated in the written examination.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that no steps were taken thereafter to publish the rank list and to advice candidates for appointment. The 1^st respondent has taken a stand that since the Bank has amalgamated with the 2^nd respondent-Kerala Bank, there is no need to proceed with the selection.

3. The petitioner states that after the amalgamation of District Co-operative Banks and formation of Kerala Bank, the Government approved Recruitment Rules for Kerala Bank as per Ext.P8 G.O. dated 24.03.2023. As per the said G.O., the Recruitment Rules will come into force from 02.08.2021. By Ext.P8, the Kerala Bank was directed to take steps to fill up vacancies strictly in lines with the Recruitment Rules.

4. The petitioner would urge that the Government has no authority to enforce the Service Recruitment Rules retrospectively with effect from 02.08.2021. In K.R. Mohanan v. Director of Homoepathy and others [2006 (3) KLT 641] , this Court has held that any vacancy which arose after the amendment of any special Rules can be filled only in accordance with the amended Rules. The respondents will have to fill up the vacancies arose earlier in accordance with unamended Rules as per the law prevailing at the time of occurrence of vacancies.

5. The Kerala PSC has now issued Ext.P7 Notification dated 08.04.2025 ordering that the selection proceedings earlier initiated cannot be proceeded with. The petitioner therefore seeks to quash Ext.P7 and to declare that enforcing the new Recruitment Rules with effect from

02.08.2021 is void and unconstitutional.

6. The 1^st respondent-PSC filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. The 1^st respondent states that the the decision of the Government to merge the District Banks with the State Co-operative Bank and set up a modern Bank was taken as part of a restructuring of the short-term debt structure of the State. In the above situation, new Special Rules need to be formulated regarding appointments in the State Cooperative Bank. Therefore, the Government intimated that it is inappropriate to issue notifications under existing Special Rules of District Co-operative Bank as the new Bank needs people, who are qualified to face the challenges of modern times and Special Rules need to be formulated for the purpose.

7. The Government requested the Commission to cancel all steps initiated for pursuing selection vide the notifications issued to various posts in DCBs and SCB and also requested not to publish any more notifications for the vacancies, if any, available in various posts in 13 District Cooperative Banks and State Cooperative Bank. Further, the Government have also informed that as the Bank came into existence on 29.11.2019, there is no technical impediment in issuing advice from the existing rank list to the vacancies reported before the said date.

8. In terms of the request of the Government, the Commission decided on 19.05.2020 to cancel all the ongoing notifications in various posts in DCBs except Malappuram, until further orders from the Government. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 1^st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2^nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

10. The petitioner applied