Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sajitha S vs The Kerala Public Service Commission
2026 Latest Caselaw 1414 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1414 Ker
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sajitha S vs The Kerala Public Service Commission on 10 February, 2026

Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
                                                        2026:KER:11073

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

     TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 31029 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          SAJITHA S
          AGED 26 YEARS
          D/O. SAHAYA DAS,
          KAVILA MEKKEKARA PUTHAN VEEDU,
          MARAYAMUTTOM P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695124


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
          SMT.THAJUNA MARIA FRANCIS



RESPONDENTS:



    1     THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695003

    2     KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK (KERALA BANK)
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          HEAD OFFICE, COBANK TOWERS,
          P.B.NO.6515, VIKASBHAVAN P.O,
          PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695033
                                              2026:KER:11073
W.P.(C) No.31029/2025
                             :2:



    3      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
           CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001


           BY ADV.
           SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,STANDING COUNSEL
           SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,STANDING COUNSEL
           SMT.SONY K.B.,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.02.2026 AND THE COURT ON 10.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2026:KER:11073
W.P.(C) No.31029/2025
                                      :3:




                           N. NAGARESH, J.

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                      W.P.(C) No.31029 of 2025

          `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
             Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026


                            JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

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 1st respondent has 2026:KER:11073

taken a stand that since the Bank has amalgamated with the

2nd 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 2026:KER:11073

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 1st respondent-PSC filed a counter

affidavit in the writ petition. The 1st 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 2026:KER:11073

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.

2026:KER:11073

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 1st

respondent, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2nd

respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing

for the 3rd respondent.

10. The petitioner applied for appointment to the

posts of Clerk / Cashier in response to Ext.P1 PSC Notification

dated 30.04.2022. She appeared in the written test held on

23.04.2024. The Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank

merged with the Kerala Bank and new Recruitment Rules

applicable to the newly formed Kerala Bank were published.

Ext.P8 is the Government Order bringing in force the

Recruitment Rules. Ext.P8 GO ordered that the Recruitment 2026:KER:11073

Rules will come into force from 02.08.2021.

11. The argument of the petitioner is that the

Government cannot direct to implement Recruitment Rules of

the Kerala Bank retrospectively. Ext.P8 is therefore illegal and

is liable to be set aside. The respondents are compellable to

fill up the vacancies in the Bank which arose prior to

24.03.2023 as per the unamended Rules. As the PSC has

already conducted a written test before the making of Ext.P8

Recruitment Rules, the said selection proceeding initiated as

per Ext.P1 should be brought to its logical conclusion.

12. I find that Ext.P1 Notification pursuant to

which the petitioner participated in the written test, was

published on 30.04.2022. Before finalising the selection

proceedings and before publication of the rank list, the newly

formed Kerala Bank decided to frame Recruitment Rules for

the new Bank. The Government directed to bring into effect

the new Recruitment Rules with effect from 02.08.2021.

2026:KER:11073

13. Even though the petitioner submits that

Recruitment Rules cannot be amended retrospectively, it may

be noted that the petitioner cannot have a legal grievance for

not making appointments pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification. The

Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India

[(1991) 3 SCC 47], has held that a candidate who is included

in a select list does not get an indefeasible right to

appointment.

14. The petitioner has not even been included in

a select list. On the basis of an application submitted pursuant

to Ext.P1 Notification and appearance in a written test, the

petitioner cannot claim any right for appointment and on that

score to challenge the retrospectivity of recruitment rules.

The writ petition is therefore without any

merit. The writ petition is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/06.02.2026 2026:KER:11073

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 31029 OF 2025

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30- 04-2022 (CATEGORY NO.135/2022) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DATED 17- 08-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DATED 14-09-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DATED 05- 12-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART DATED 03-01-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08-

                        04-2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8              TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.
                        (P)    NO.87    /2023   /CO-OP    DATED

24-03-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter