JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk by direct recruitment, on 13.3.1998, to the service of the third respondent, a co-operative bank. She is a post graduate in Commerce with Higher Diploma in Co-operation. 2. The second respondent, the Co-operative Service Examination Board issued Ext.P1 notification calling for applications for recruitment in different co-operative establishments, including as Assistant Secretary in the third respondent bank. Contending that such selection and direct recruitment is impermissible in law, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition on the further plea that she is entitled to be considered for promotion to that post in terms of R.185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969; the “Rules”, for short. She instituted the Writ Petition after moving the Joint Registrar seeking intervention in the matter. Acting on the fact that the petitioner moved the Joint Registrar, making complaint against the bank, she was placed under suspension. That is challenged by an amendment. Also challenged, by way of amendment, is Ext.P6 approved Feeder Category Rules as they now stand. The challenge thereto is on the ground that the prescription of direct recruitment, therein, as a method of appointment to the category of Assistant Secretary is impermissible on the face of the legislative mandate contained in R.185. 3. The President of the third respondent was impleaded as additional fifth respondent. The candidate who came out successful with the first rank, following the selection in terms of Ext.P1, was impleaded as additional sixth respondent. 4. The third respondent bank and the selected candidate impeach the entitlement of the petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary and contend that on the face of Ext.P6 approved Feeder Category Rules, direct recruitment has been legitimately resorted to and such a course is not impermissible on the face of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the “Act” and the Rules. It is also pointed out that the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 notification by moving the Joint Registrar only about 3 or 4 months after the issuance of Ext.P1 and it is unjustifiable for the petitioner to insist on any relief being granted in this Writ Petition, in any manner, interfering with the selection and appointment of the additional sixth respondent, when the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly contended that a writ, as sought for, be not issued. However, the learned counsel for the bank has very fairly stated that the order placing the petitioner under suspension was issued because of lack of proper advice. No attempt was made to sustain that order in the course of arguments. 5. Going by her qualifications already noticed, the petitioner possesses the educational qualifications for being appointed as the Assistant Secretary. She is, in fact, a post graduate in Commerce and possesses Higher Diploma in Co-operation. As of now, she is aged 42 years. It is stated that she does not have the aid of any rule of reservation for further movement, up the ladder, by promotion. While it may be a matter of heart-burn for a person to stagnate for a quite long time in a particular post or category, as has happened to the petitioner, the entitlement for promotion is a matter which is governed by the Act, Statutory Rules and approved Feeder Category Rules. In the absence of any complaint about any unlawful denial of any promotion, the question that arises for decision in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim appointment by promotion to the category of Assistant Secretary in the third respondent bank, though she is stagnating in the post of Junior Clerk from 13-3-1998, the date of her entry into service. 6. Going by Ext.P6 Feeder Category Rules, Junior Clerk/Junior Cashier is at Sl.No.7 and Assistant Secretary/Manager is at Sl.No.2. In between, there are four categories. The plea of the petitioner, as projected by her learned counsel, is that in terms of R.185(1), in the absence of employees being available in the feeder category to a post, for promotion; those employed in the lower categories can be brought up the ladder by creating a supernumerary post. This is projected as the net effect of the second proviso occurring after sub-r.(1) of R.185. 7. In view of an apparent controversy regarding the wording of that proviso as printed in certain text books, the gazette version has been perused. 8. Sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of R.185 relate to certain categories of posts in co-operative societies. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of R.185 authorize direct recruitment by maintaining a particular ratio between promotion and direct recruitment. In view of an apparent controversy regarding the wording of that proviso as printed in certain text books, the gazette version has been perused. 8. Sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of R.185 relate to certain categories of posts in co-operative societies. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of R.185 authorize direct recruitment by maintaining a particular ratio between promotion and direct recruitment. The post of Assistant Secretary is a post which falls under sub-r.(2) in case of primary co-operative societies and urban banks having a deposit of more than Rs.10 crores. The third respondent does not have such financial status. Even when sub-rule applies, there cannot be any direct recruitment in excess of twenty five per cent of the total strength of the respective posts. There is only one post of Assistant Secretary in the third respondent’s establishment. Therefore, the post of Assistant Secretary in the third respondent’s establishment is not one to which sub-r.(2) applies. 9. This takes us to sub-r.(1) of R.185. It provides for promotion on the basis of seniority in the feeder category. The feeder categories, for such purpose, are to be specified by the society, by framing suitable regulations, with the approval of the Registrar. Therefore, when the society frames the regulations specifying the feeder categories, with the approval of the Registrar, it becomes the feeder categories prescribed for the purpose of R.185(1). On the face of that feeder category, promotions have to be effected in terms of R.185(1) and in terms of the provisions of sub-rr. (2), (3) and (4) to the extent they govern the field. The first proviso to R.185(1) enjoins that on the relinquishment of promotion to a post by a senior in the feeder category, the immediate junior in that category shall be promoted. The first proviso to R.185(1), therefore, works in relation to the feeder category only. The second proviso provides further that if all the employees in the feeder category to a post relinquish promotion, an employee on the immediate lower category shall be promoted to the post after promoting him to the feeder category, by creating a supernumerary post in the feeder category. It also postulates the abolition of the supernumerary post so created, immediately on the promotion of that employee from the feeder category to the post/category to which promotion is being made. It also postulates the abolition of the supernumerary post so created, immediately on the promotion of that employee from the feeder category to the post/category to which promotion is being made. Therefore, the second proviso works in the zone of the feeder category and its immediate lower category. The said proviso does not admit any elasticity, to stretch it to categories which are further down in the Feeder Category Rules. Going by Ext.P6 Feeder Category Rules, the post of Assistant Secretary, to which the impugned selection is made is in Category No.2. Category No.3, namely, Chief Accountant/Chief Cashier, is its feeder category. Category No.4 (Internal Auditor) is the category which is the immediate lower category of Category No.3 (Chief Accountant/Chief Cashier). Therefore, the second proviso to sub-r.(1) of R.185 can aid only a person in Category No.4 in Ext.P6 Feeder Category Rules to claim for the creation of a supernumerary post in Category No.3, in situations envisaged by that proviso; to seek further movement up the ladder, for being considered for appointment as Assistant Secretary. The petitioner, who is at Category No.7, cannot get the aid of the second proviso to R.185(1), for being considered for appointment by promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. 10. Hence, though the petitioner possesses the educational qualifications to hold the post of Assistant Secretary, going by the Feeder Category Rules, she is not eligible for being considered for promotion to the category of Assistant Secretary from Category No.7, Junior Clerk/Junior Cashier, with the aid of R.185(1), including the second proviso thereto. 11. This takes us to the question regarding the availability of direct recruitment as a method of appointment to the category of Assistant Secretary in the third respondent’s establishment. R.185, which governs the field of promotion, does not; and cannot be read to, take care of situations which do not fall directly under that rule, including the three provisos thereto. A situation where there is no qualified hand in the feeder category or in that category which is the immediate lower category to the feeder category is not conceived of, envisaged or provided for, in R.185. That is an area where a rule of promotion is not prescribed. A situation where there is no qualified hand in the feeder category or in that category which is the immediate lower category to the feeder category is not conceived of, envisaged or provided for, in R.185. That is an area where a rule of promotion is not prescribed. In the absence of any method of appointment being prescribed, it is open to every employer to make direct recruitment because that is the primary manner in which relationship of employer and employee is created. Hence, when the field is unoccupied by any rule authorizing or compelling promotion, or any other specified mode or method of appointment, such field is available for direct recruitment. So much so, the prescription in Ext.P6 that direct recruitment shall be an alternate method of appointment to the category of Assistant Secretary cannot be found fault with. Not only that, Ext.P6 is approved by the competent authority and in the absence of any violation of the law; which, as already noticed, is just not there; Ext.P6 prescribing direct recruitment as an alternate method of appointment to Category No.2 (Assistant Secretary/Manager) stands. 12. Even if the findings and reasons in the preceding paragraphs regarding the sustainability of direct recruitment as method of appointment are to be impeached, that cannot be had at the hands of the petitioner who, as already seen, is incompetent for being considered for promotion to the category of Assistant Secretary, she being neither in the feeder category nor in the category which is immediately lower to the feeder category for the post of Assistant Secretary. Therefore, the beacon of justice would instruct the writ court to dissuade itself from interfering with Ext.P6 and the selection leading to the appointment of the additional sixth respondent. The discretion, on this point, has necessarily to be exercised against the interest of the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that without obtaining exemption under R.181 of the Rules, it may be impermissible to make an appointment by direct recruitment in the case in hand. As already noticed, there is no violation of any rule in the matter. Therefore, requesting for exemption does not arise. The impugned action stands even without any exemption being granted in exercise of the authority under R.181 of the Rules. 14. As already noticed, there is no violation of any rule in the matter. Therefore, requesting for exemption does not arise. The impugned action stands even without any exemption being granted in exercise of the authority under R.181 of the Rules. 14. The petitioner also seeks relief on alleged entitlement for age relaxation for service candidates for applying to the post of Assistant Secretary. The age for direct recruitment is statutorily fixed as per R.183 of the Rules. There is no power for the employer to relax that. 15. As recorded above, Ext.P5 decision placing the petitioner under suspension is not being supported by the third respondent employer. The same also does not stand to reason. In the result, while repelling all other claims and contentions of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is allowed in part quashing Ext.P5. No costs.