Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J.
Manju M – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Chief Secretary – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11804 OF 2024
Decided On : 22-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.226
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Amendment to Rules - Prospective application - Candidates have a vested right to be considered in light of rules in force - No universal rule that vacancies must be filled as per law existing at the time of vacancy creation - Government is entitled to restructure cadre or change recruitment criteria provided it is fair and reasonable and adheres to constitutional standards. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners applied for a post pursuant to a 2019 notification. During the selection process, new recruitment rules were introduced, leading to the cancellation of the old notification and the issuance of a new one. The petitioners, having become overaged under the new rules, approached the court. Interim orders permitted the petitioners to participate in the selection process provisionally, and the government subsequently granted a one-time age relaxation. The petitioners claimed they were provided inadequate facilities during the exam compared to other candidates and sought a re-examination.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the government's grant of age relaxation rendered many original prayers irrelevant. Regarding the claim of unfair examination conditions, the court held that it cannot adjudicate upon factual disputes concerning facility quality at test centers. As none of the petitioners qualified in the written examination based on merit, no further relief could be granted.
Issues: Whether the petitioners have a vested right to have the selection process completed under the old recruitment rules; and whether the court can direct a re-examination based on claims of inadequate facilities at the testing center.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate acquires a right to be considered under the rules existing on the date of advertisement, but this does not create an absolute vested right to have the selection process completed under those same rules if the government takes a policy decision to restructure or amend regulations. Furthermore, administrative and factual grievances regarding examination conditions cannot be subject to judicial intervention under Article 226 where disputed questions of fact exist.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Petitioner: Smt.A.Aruna, Smt.Jisha Shaji
For the Respondent: Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Sc, Sri.Bimal K.Nath, Sr.Govt.Pleader
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cancellation of recruitment due to change in service rules. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedural background and interim protection granted by court. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. applicability of recruitment rules regarding age and selection rights. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. non-interference in administrative examination conduct and factual disputes. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
T.R. Ravi, J.
The petitioners had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Clerk Gr.I in the 4th respondent Bank pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 15.11.2019 issued by the 5th respondent. During the pendency of the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 notification dated 15.11.2019, the Kerala Co-operative Bank Recruitment Rules 2021 were notified on 04.08.2021. A true copy of the relevant pages of the above notification has been produced as Ext.P4 in the writ petition. The Rules are prospective. Category 11 in Ext.P4 is Clerk/Cashier. Under Ext.P4, there is no post of Clerk Gr.I. The 5th respondent thereafter issued Ext.P5 notification on 15.06.2022, whereby it was notified that the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 15.11.2019 stands cancelled, since under the new Recruitment Rules to the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. dated 02.08.2021, the post of Clerk Gr.I stand re-designated as Clerk/Cashier, and the qualifications for the post have been changed. The petitioners contend that Ext.P5 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 notification in 2019 should be completed to fill vacancies up to 02.08.2021, as per the then-existing rules.
2. Petitioners 1 and 11 approached the 5th respondent seeking relaxation regarding the upper age limit under Ext.P4 rules. The 5th respondent sent Ext.P7 reply stating that the amended Special Rules have not yet been received. The Kerala State Co-operative Bank Recruitment Rules, 2023 were issued thereafter on 24.03.2023, and it was published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 27.03.2023. A true copy of the Rules has been produced as Ext.P8. Ext.P8 came into force with effect from 02.08.2021. As per Ext.P8, no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to any of the categories in force, if she/he has not completed 18 years of age and if she/he has completed 40 years of age, as on 1st January of the year in which the applications for the appointment are invited. All the petitioners are overaged as per Ext.P8. They cannot apply pursuant to any notification that is issued based on Ext.P8 Rules. Their grievance is that if the selection process had been completed and a ranked list issued pursuant to Ext.P1, they could have been appointed to the vacancies in the post of Clerk/Cashier. In the alternative, the petitioners seek age relaxation and pray that they should be permitted to apply for the next selection process. The petitioners further contend that Ext.P9 series notifications issued after the coming into force of the new rules, for filling up NCA vacancies as per the earlier rules, would support their contention that the vacancies up to 02.08.2021 are to be filled up following the earlier rules, and Ext.P5 seeking to cancel the entire selection process was uncalled for. Reliance is placed on Ext.P10 proceedings dated 08.06.2023, which was issued pursuant to various judgments of this Court, to submit that the vacancies which existed before the amalgamation of District Banks to the KSCB were to be filled up as per the existing Recruitment Rules. Pending this writ petition, several interim orders have been issued. On 22.03.2024, this Court, after noticing that the 5th respondent had not issued any notification to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4th respondent bank and the matter regarding age relaxation is to be considered by the Government, directed the 2nd respondent to take up the issue regarding age relaxation of persons who had applied under Ext.P1 notification within two months. While so, Ext.P17 notification was issued
![Meenal Shashikant Joglekar ] R/of Worli, Mumbai Vs State Of Maharashtra, ] Through Information & Public Relations Dept. - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 103](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Bombay_3.png)
