Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The appellant approached this court with the original petition challenging Ext.P7 and seeking a declaration that he is entitled to be appointed as a clerk/cashier in the service of Kollam District Co-operative Bank based on Ext.P5 advice memo and seeking consequent directions. He did not succeed. Therefore, this appeal. 2. Admittedly, he was employed in a primary Co-operative society which was affiliated to the said District Co-operative Bank when Ext.P2 notification was issued by the Public Service Commission on 6.10.1999. The said notification invited applications for appointment to the post of clerk cum cashier in the service of the District Co-operative Bank. It contained two parts. The first part invited application from open market towards 50% of the total vacancies and the second part invited applications from those working in various affiliated primary Co-operative societies with three years’ experience for the remaining 50%. The appellant responded and submitted his application under the second part. He underwent the process of selection. He was included in the rank list. A memo of advice Ext.P5 dated 3.12.2001 was issued by the Public Service Commission. By the time, he had left the service of the primary Co-operative society affiliated to the district Co-operative Bank, where he was working. In the meantime, the Public Service Commission issued Ext.P7 circular to the effect that, in order to get appointment against the 50% of the vacancies included in part II of Ext.P2 notification, the incumbent shall be continuing in the service of the concerned affiliated primary Co-operative society. This made the appellant ineligible for appointment in terms of Ext.P5 advice. It was in the above circumstances, he challenged Ext.P7. 3. It is submitted by the appellant/petitioner that service in the primary Co-operative bank affiliated to the district co-operative bank is only an additional qualification as held by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in Benny v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies [1998 (1) KLT 858]. So, that being an additional qualification, the Public Service commission cannot insist that a person who is possessing such qualification should be in the service for getting appointment or for being considered for the post of clerk-cum-cashier, in an affiliated co-operative Society. It is further submitted that rules 186 and 187 of the Kerala Co-operative Society to get appointment against the said 50% vacancies. 4. Without Ext.P2, the petitioner could not have applied for this direct recruitment. It is further submitted that rules 186 and 187 of the Kerala Co-operative Society to get appointment against the said 50% vacancies. 4. Without Ext.P2, the petitioner could not have applied for this direct recruitment. Ext.P2 makes it clear that applications were invited under Part II only from the employees of the affiliated primary co-operative society for the purpose of appointment of such incumbents. Rule 186 or 187 which stood at the time of Ext.P2 notification dated 6.10.1999 did not envisage such direct recruitment from among the staff of the society affiliated to District Co-operative Bank. Therefore, the petitioner can seek direct recruitment only by reason of Ext.P2 notification and not by reason of Rule 186 or 187 as they stood on 6.10.1999. When the petitioner became eligible for direct recruitment only based on Ext.P2, necessarily, he has to conform to the standards stipulated therein under Part II inviting applications from among the employees of the primary Co-operative societies alone. Moreover, a division Bench of this court in Vijayan v. the Kerala public Service Commission (ILR (2005) (1) Kerala 404) made it clear as follows: “This Rule did not reserve 50 per cent vacancies for the employees of member societies. The reservation was, however, made by the commission in the notification inviting applications. It is common case of the parties that such reservation could be made by the Commission. It is for these reserved seats that the appellants had applied for appointment. When the notification is read in the context of Rule 187 it is clear that the 50 per cent seats reserved for the posts of Clerks/Cashiers were meant for the employees of the Primacy Co-operative Societies which are affiliated tot e District Co-operative Bank in which the appointment is sought. The Rule provided that experience in a member society would be an additional qualification for the post and in that context 50 per cent seats were also reserved only for the employees of the affiliated societies. There is a District co-operative Bank in each district which is a central society to which various Primary Co-operative Societies are affiliated. The purpose of making reservation in the District co-operative Banks is that vacancies in that bank should be available to the employees of the Primary Societies affiliated thereto. There is a District co-operative Bank in each district which is a central society to which various Primary Co-operative Societies are affiliated. The purpose of making reservation in the District co-operative Banks is that vacancies in that bank should be available to the employees of the Primary Societies affiliated thereto. The object is to provide an avenue for appointment to the persons working within the district in the societies affiliated to the District Co-operative Bank. The notification inviting application will have to be read in the light of this object and when so read it would mean that an applicant would become eligible only if he was an employee of a Primary Co-operative society which was affiliated to the District Co-operative Bank in which the application was made and not otherwise.” Thus, it is clear that the purpose of direct recruitment notified in Ext.P2 is that the vacancies in the Kollam District Co-operative Bank where the appellant aspires appointment should be available to the employees of the primary Co-operative society affiliated to that District Co-operative bank. The Division Bench had made it clear that the object was to provide avenues to the persons working within the district in the societies affiliated to the District Co-operative Bank. It is an admitted position by the appellant that when Ext.P5 offer of appointment was made, he was not an employee of the primary co-operative society. Therefore, he does not satisfy the requirement in Ext.P2 notification. When the object has been only as mentioned by the Division Bench in Vijayan’s case, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 unless other materials are placed before us. Nothing of that sort has been placed before us. 5. Moreover, considering the rule in the similar nature providing for such reservation in the direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department, another division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1380/94 and connected cases has made it clear that: “The post of Sub Inspector to which they apply in reserved for the Ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department or constabulary. The reserved post must go to benefit the members of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department and constabulary. In other words, the reservation of post of Sub Inspector is only to members of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department or member of constabulary. The reserved post must go to benefit the members of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department and constabulary. In other words, the reservation of post of Sub Inspector is only to members of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department or member of constabulary. The member of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department or member of constabulary who applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police can get selected to the post of Sub Inspector of Police only if on the date of selection he continues to be a member of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department or in the constabulary. Putting it in other words, if a person, being a member of the ministerial staff of the Police/Vigilance Department or constabulary, applied for the post set apart for direct recruitment to the category of Sub Inspector of Police, is not continuing in the ministerial staff or in the constabulary as on the date of selection as Sub Inspector, he cannot get the post of Sub Inspector of Police.” When we adopt this view, the judgment impugned cannot be said to be faulty to invite interference from out hands. Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.