RANI S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the subsequent selection of candidates for appointment as Junior Clerks in the 4th respondent-Bank. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Facts leading to the controversy are the following. The appellant along with several others applied for the post of Junior Clerk in the 4th respondent-Bank in the year 2003. Examination was conducted by the third respondent and 52 candidates qualified in the written examination for selection for appointment. The examination result published is produced as Ext.P2 in the W.P.(C). However, when change of the Director Board took place in the year 2004 itself, the new Board found that the Bank's financial position was very bad and, therefore, recruitment of fresh employees cannot be made. Therefore, the Bank vide Ext.R4(A) cancelled the selection process initiated. Admittedly the appellant did not challenge Ext.R4(A) proceedings of the Bank which was issued in 2004. In the course of time, the Bank's financial position improved and the Bank proceeded to initiate selection process and in this regard third respondent conducted examination. Several persons who qualified in the written examination along with appellant earlier also participated in the next examination conducted by the third respondent in 2007. The appellant challenged the fresh selection on the ground that under the previous selection she was qualified and she was not considered for appointment. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim holding that appellant had no vested right. It is against this judgment the appellant has approached this Court with Writ Appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors., 1990 3 SCC 157and contended that once appellant has passed the written examination, she has a vested right to be considered for selection to the post. However, respondents' case is that once selection process is cancelled by the Society by recalling the requisition for selection, what little right accrued to the appellant also gets cancelled. We do not find force in the appellant's contention because in the first place, among 52 candidates who passed the written examination, appellant is the only candidate who challenged the same. Secondly, even though Society initiated selection process and the selection was half-way through, it was still open to recall the selection process if the Society felt that it's financial position does not justify employment for the time being, no matter posts were there. Appellant has not pointed out any irregularity or illegality in the fresh selection process initiated in 2007 which has resulted in the selection. In the circumstances, appellant is not entitled to any relief because the previous selection where she got qualified was cancelled by Ext.R4(A) and, therefore, the selection does not survive any longer. Unfortunately the appellant got overaged disabling from writing examination again in 2007, though similar others who participated in the earlier examination and qualified in the written test like the appellant wrote the fresh examination in 2007 and as many as 14 were again qualified for the interview. We do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed.