JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank, registered and unctioning within the purview of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, framed thereunder. The petitioner had made a request to the 3rd respondent Co-operative Service Examination Board constituted in terms of Sec.80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, on 19.1.2009, to take steps for conduct of selection examination for appointment to three posts out of which two were in general category and one in SC/ST category. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent Examination Board issued necessary notification in that regard on 20.2.2009 inviting applications from interested candidates for the selection process. The selection examination was duly held on 11.7.2009 by the Board and the consolidated list was sent on 5.12.2009. The rank list was also prepared on 5.12.2009. The details in this regard are referred to in Ext.P4. According to the petitioner-Bank, prior to the receipt of the rank list prepared by the Examination Board, the petitioner Bank had received the audit report for the financial year 2008-09, wherein it was shown that the accumulated loss of the bank is more than rupees three crores. Taking into account the financial constraints of the bank and the need for austerity measures, the bank is said to have resolved as per Ext.P-1 resolution dated 28.12.2009 that the actual appointment from the rank list may be limited to two out of the three posts, and that the first person in the general category and the post set apart for the SC/ST could be appointed and the second post set apart for the general category need not be filled up. Presumably, based on the complaint said to have been given by the candidate, who was aggrieved by such non-appointment to the second general category post, the 2nd respondent Co-operative Examination Board as per Ext.P-2 letter dated 5.1.2010 had directed the petitioner-bank to make third appointment from the rank list and to show cause in that regard. The petitioner submitted Ext.P-3 reply dated 8.1.2010, pointing out the financial crunch suffered by the society in view of the huge losses reported in the audit report and also pointing out the need for austerity measures, which had constrained the bank to limit the appointments only to two personnel out of the three posts earlier notified by the bank. The petitioner submitted Ext.P-3 reply dated 8.1.2010, pointing out the financial crunch suffered by the society in view of the huge losses reported in the audit report and also pointing out the need for austerity measures, which had constrained the bank to limit the appointments only to two personnel out of the three posts earlier notified by the bank. Thereupon, the 3rdrespondent Board issued Ext.P-4 communication dated 8.2.2010 directing the petitioner bank to make the third appointment in purported exercise of the powers conferred to as per Rule 182(4)(viii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent Board has no jurisdiction to issue the directions as the one in the impugned Ext.P-4 proceedings and that the same is ultravires and illegal and beyond the powers of the 2nd respondent and have prayed to quash the said impugned proceedings at Exts.P-2 and P-4. Apprehending that the provisions referred to in Rule 182(4)(viii) of the Kerala Co-operative Rules might be used as a weapon against the petitioner, it has also been prayed in the Writ Petition to grant a declaration that the provisions in Rule 182(4)(viii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, creating an obligation to the Committee of the Co-operative Society to make appointments to the vacancies from the select list so published within one month from the date of publication of the rank list, etc. is bad in law and illegal to the extent it take away the rights of the society to limit appointments considering the financial capacity, requirement and other factors in connection with the administrative exigencies of the society. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner society had filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and P4 and to quash the same. ii. Issue a writ declaring that the direction contained in Ext.P4 by the 2nd respondent is unauthorised and illegal and beyond the powers of the 2nd respondent. iii. ii. Issue a writ declaring that the direction contained in Ext.P4 by the 2nd respondent is unauthorised and illegal and beyond the powers of the 2nd respondent. iii. Issue a writ declaring the Rule 182(4)(viii) of the KCS Rules creating an obligation to the committee of the society to make appointment to the vacancies from the select list so published within one month from the date of publication and shall be reported to the Examination Board is bad in law, illegal taking away the right of the society to make appointment considering the financial capacity, requirement and other factors in connection with the administration of the society. iv. Issue each other order or direction, as this court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The 3rd respondent Co-operative Examination Board has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.8.2012 in the matter. The factual details of the case have been dealt with therein. The main contention is the one urged in paras 8 and 7 of the said counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the functioning of the 3rd respondent-Board is mainly based on he Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the impugned Exts.P-2 and P-4 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent-Board are in compliance with Rule 182(4)(viii). Further, it is stated that it is the mandatory duty of the bank to appoint the eligible candidates from the published list within the stipulated time as per the rules and that the petitioner bank has failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 182(4)(viii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and that the loss stated in the audit report for the year 2008-09 is not a genuine reason to exempt the bank from filling up the existing vacancy and that the bank has a working capital to the tune of Rs. 24.93 crores and that the appointment of a person in the existing vacancy will never affect the financial position of the bank and that the action of the bank shows the reluctance, willful negligence and vested interest in not filling up vacancies from the select list as per the rules, etc. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 4. 4. Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 4. 4. Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Anil Thomas, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4. 5. It is common ground that the petitioner had initially requisitioned the 3rd respondent-Examination Board for setting in motion the selection process for making selection and appointment to three posts in their bank. It is also not in dispute that prior to the receipt of the rank list prepared by the 3rd respondent Board, the petitioner bank had received the statutory audit from the authorities concerned in respect of the financial year 2008-09 and that as per the said audit report, the aggregate loss suffered by the petitioner society for the financial year 2008-09, is to the tune of Rs.3,09,18,36.30/-. These factual aspects are not under any dispute in these proceedings. The 2nd respondent Cooperative Service Examination Board has been constituted as per the provisions contained in Sec.80(B) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. 6. Section 80 B of the Kerala Service Co-operative Societies Act, which was introduced as per the Amendment Act in terms of the Act No. 1 of 2000 published in K.G. Ex. No. 1 dated 01.01.2000 and with effect from 25.01.2001 by SRO 89/2001 published in K.G 46 dated 29.01.2001. Sub-section 1(A) was later introduced under Section 80 B with effect from 28.04.2010. The provisions in Section 80 B as it now stands, reads as follows: “80B.Co-operative Service Examination Board: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or rules or in the bye-laws of any society relating to the recruitment of officers and servants thereof the Government shall, by notification in the Gazatte constitute a Co-operative Service Examination Board for the conduct of written examination for all direct recruitment to posts of and above the category of Junior Clerks in the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, Primary Credit Societies, Urban Co-operative Banks and Primary Agricultural And Rural Development Banks in the State. [1(A)] The Co-operative Service Examination Board shall also conduct competitive or qualifying examination if any for promotion of employees in the societies, in such manner as may be prescribed.] (2) The Examination Board shall consist of not more than three members and the term of the Board shall be five years. [1(A)] The Co-operative Service Examination Board shall also conduct competitive or qualifying examination if any for promotion of employees in the societies, in such manner as may be prescribed.] (2) The Examination Board shall consist of not more than three members and the term of the Board shall be five years. The powers and functions and other conditions of appointment of the members of the Board and the procedures to be followed by the Board for the conduct of examination and the preparation of list of candidates to be interviewed for appointment shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) All appointments shall be made by the committee concerned from the list of candidates after conducting an interview of the candidates and making a select list therefrom in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (3A) of Section 80 and in sub Section (1) of this Section, the committee of a society may, with the prior approval of the Registrar, appoint persons who are professionally or technically qualified or persons with experience and expertise to posts requiring such technical or professional qualifications on contract basis or by the method of deputation for such period, but not exceeding five years, as may be specified.” Provisions have also been made in the Kerala Service Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 to effectuate the provisions contained in Section 80 B of the Act, by amending Rule 182 in Chapter XV of the Rules as per SRO No. 380/2000 published in K.G.Ex.No.45 dated 02.05.2000 with effect from 02.05.2000. Sub Rule 4 of Rule 182 has made provisions in this regard in the matter of the Co-operative Service Examination Board. Later some of the sub-clauses in Rule 182(4) was again amended as per SRO No. 1185/03 published in K.G.Ex.No.40 dated 23.12.2003. The provisions in Rule 182(4) under Chapter (xv) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules which now stands reads as follows: 182(4). In respect of recruitment to societies covered by section 80B of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed:- (i) The Society shall report the vacancy to the Co-operative Service Examination Board and the applications for appointment shall be invited by the Cooperative Service Examination Board, by notification in two vernacular dailies, having wide circulation in the area. In respect of recruitment to societies covered by section 80B of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed:- (i) The Society shall report the vacancy to the Co-operative Service Examination Board and the applications for appointment shall be invited by the Cooperative Service Examination Board, by notification in two vernacular dailies, having wide circulation in the area. The notification shall include the details of number of vacancies, qualifications required for the post, age and reservation, if any, the mode of application, method of appointment and other required details. The Co-operative Service Examination Board may collect application fee along with the application at the rate fixed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time. The Examination Board shall process the applications and prepare the list of candidates to be called for the written test. One copy of the prepared list shall be published in the notice Board of the Examination Board and one copy shall be sent to the society for publication in its notice board. The society shall publish it in the notice board and copies thereof in the branch offices of the society. The arrangements for the written test shall be made by the Examination Board. (ii) The Examination Board shall conduct the written examination of the candidates and furnish a list of eligible candidates to be interviewed to the committee of the society within a period of three months from the date of 10 requisition by the society. The arrangements for the written test shall be made by the Examination Board. (ii) The Examination Board shall conduct the written examination of the candidates and furnish a list of eligible candidates to be interviewed to the committee of the society within a period of three months from the date of 10 requisition by the society. The list so furnished shall not contain the mark secured by the candidates; (iii) The maximum marks for written examination shall be 80 and those who secure [40%] of the marks shall only be eligible to be included in the list for interview; [provided that in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, those who secure 30% of marks and above shall be included in the list] [provided further that the total number of candidates to be called for interview shall be ten times the number of posts advertised to be filled up in each category, if there are more candidates who secured not less than forty per cent marks in the written examination and if the candidate who secured forty per cent or above marks are less than ten times as above, all of the candidates shall be called for interview] (iv) The maximum marks for interview shall be (15) [provided that the minimum marks for interview shall be 3] [iv A) Candidates of home district shall be awarded 5 marks over and above the marks for interview as grace marks. Explanation: For the purpose of this item, candidates of home district means the candidates belonging to the district or districts to which the area of operation of the society extends]. (v) On receipt of the list from the Examination Boars, the committee shall conduct interview of the candidates [with in two months from the date of such receipt] and return the list to the Examination Board noting the marks secured by each candidates, in the interview within a period of two weeks; (vi) On receipt of the list from the society, the Examination Board shall note down the marks secured by each of the candidate in written examination and return consolidated list with the total marks obtained by each candidate. This shall be done within a period of one week. This shall be done within a period of one week. “(vii) On the basis of the consolidated list so received from the Examination Board, the committee shall preparethe rank list of candidates and publish the same in the notice board of the society [within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of such consolidated mark list]. The society shall send one copy of the rank list so published to the Examination Board also. The board shall examine the correctness of such rank list and report to the Registrar, the irregularities, if any. The list shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication of the same by the society. (viii) All appointments to the vacancies shall be made by the committee from the select list so published;[within one month from the date of such publication and shall be reported to the Examination Board].” [(ix) Expenses, if any, incurred over and above the fees collected by the Examination Board, shall be borne by the society concerned] The main issue to be decided in this case is as to whether an employer like the petitioner bank can be compelled to fill up all the vacancies notified in the selection notification pursuant to which the competitive examination and the selection process has been finalised, by the selection board, if they have taken a bonafide decision that such vacancies need not be filled up due to any valid grounds and, if so, whether the justification averred by the petitioner Bank for refusing to make appointments in the instant case is a bonafide decision which is supported by valid grounds. 7. Before dealing with the specific issues as detailed herein above, it would be profitable to make an over all view of the legal position in this crucial aspect of the matter. It is by now trite law that no candidate included in a rank list or selection list finalised pursuant to a notified selection process has any indefeasible right to insist that candidates included in such selection/rank list should necessarily be appointed by the appointing authority. True that a selection notification issued pursuant to a requisition made by the appointing authority amounts to an invitation to the eligible candidates to respond to the said selection process, subject to their qualifications and eligibility. True that a selection notification issued pursuant to a requisition made by the appointing authority amounts to an invitation to the eligible candidates to respond to the said selection process, subject to their qualifications and eligibility. But candidates who are included in the rank/selection list after the finalisation of the selection process have no vested right to demand for appointment under all circumstances. There could be varied and multifaceted fact situations which would justify the appointing authority to decide not to make any appointments for the selection list so finalised, in respect of all or any other vacancies concerned. The legal position in the matter that mere inclusion of the name of the candidates in the selection list for selection of appointments, does not create any such indefeasible right to demand appointment even against existing notified vacancies and that the appointing authorities have no legal duty and obligation to fill up all any other vacancies etc., has been covered by various court rulings in that regard. Profitable reference in this regard could be made to rulings as in Shankar san dash v. Union of India reported in 1991 (3) SCC 47 , All India Sc & ST Employees Assn. & another v. Arthur Jeen & others reported in 2001(6) SCC 380 , Food Corporation of India & others v. Bhanu lodhi & others reported in 2005 (3) SCC 618 , Kerala Agricultural University v. Gopinathan Unnithan reported in 1996 (1) KLT 344 and Babu v. State of Kerala reported in 2009(2) KLT SN.8 (C No.82) SC. 8. In the absence of hostile discrimination or arbitrariness, courts exercising powerful judicial review could not interfere in a matter wherein the appointing authority has taken considered decision not to give appointment to all vacancies notified in the selection process, if it is supported by valid grounds. In the case of Subha B Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(7) SCC 210 , the Apex Court held that even if it is assumed in the facts of that case that 9 more vacancies could be filled up, so long as the employer takes a considered policy decision not to fill up any vacancy, then merely because a candidate's name is found included in the selection list, the same by itself would not be a ground to compel the employer to fill up such vacancies. However it has been reiterated by the Apex Court and by various High Court rulings in number of cases that such refusal to make appointments should not be on the basis of a licence of the employer to act in an arbitrary manner. This has been reiterated in the rulings of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case reported in Shankar san dash v. Union of India reported in 1991(3) SCC 47 , para 7. In the afore stated ruling of the Apex Court in Shankar san dash's case (supra) it has been held that ordinarily the selection notification merely amounts to a invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they will not have any vested right to the post and unless the relevant recruitment rule so clearly indicate, the employer is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of such vacancies. But however that it does not mean that the authority has a license to act in a arbitrary manner and that the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. 9. So the crucial matter to be determined for arriving at a decision on the aforestated issues that arise for consideration in the facts of this case is as to whether the provisions in Sections 80 B of the Act or in Rule 182(4) of he Rules in any way make it mandatory beyond any doubt that the employer is under bounden legal duty and obligation to fill up all or any other vacancies notified in the selection process. Sub-section (iii) of Sec. 80 B clearly provides that all appointments shall be made by the committee concerned from the list of candidates after conducting an interview of the candidates and making a select list therefrom in such manner prescribed. Sub-section (iii) of Sec. 80 B clearly provides that all appointments shall be made by the committee concerned from the list of candidates after conducting an interview of the candidates and making a select list therefrom in such manner prescribed. Therefore, the clear, un-equivocal and unambiguous mandate of the Act is only that in case the appointing authority wants to make any appointments in respect of the categories of post from within the purview of the Examination Board, then necessarily the inherent power of the appointing authority to make such appointments unilaterally in a manner that deems fit and proper, has been denuded by the provisions of the Act and power to make selection of such post is completely vested with the Examination Board constituted in terms of the provisions of Section 80 B of the Act and that the committee of the Cooperative Societies concerned can make such appointments only from the selection list of the candidates prepared by the Examination Board after conducting an interview of the candidates and making a selection therefrom in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules concerned. The said provision in sub-section 3 of Section 80 cannot even be remotely held as requiring and obligating the employer Cooperative Societies concerned, to make appointments and fill up all notified vacancies from the selection list and that it is denuded of its discretion to make a bonafide decision not to make appointments to on or any of the vacancies concerned on any valid grounds. The general principle of service jurisprudence as contemplated in the afore stated rulings of the Apex Court and as reiterated in various other High Court rulings that the employer cannot be obligated with any such legal duty to fill up all or any other vacancies pursuant to a selection process, is not in any way seriously departed, in the provisions made in Section 80B of the Act. As held herein above, in case the employer Co-operative Society, wants to make any appointments to the categories of post mentioned in that section, then necessarily the Employer Co-operative Society is under the legal and bounden duty and obligation to ensure that all such appointments that it wants to make can be so made only from among the candidates so included in the selection list concerned made by the Board, subject to the rules. Now on an examination of provisions contained in Rule 182(4) of the rules, it can be seen that clause (i) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 182 requires the Co-operative Society concerned to report the vacancy to the Co-operative Service Examination Board pursuant to which the selection process set in by that Board. The details of the written examination and interview etc., to be conducted by the Examination Board are dealt with in other clauses of Rule 182(4). Clause (vii) of Rule 182 provides that on the basis of consolidated list so received from the Examination Board, the committee of the Cooperative Society concerned shall prepare the rank list of the candidates and publish the same in the notice board of the Society [within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of such consolidated mark list]. It is further provided therein that the Society thereafter shall send one copy of the rank list so published to the Examination Board also and the Board shall examine the correctness of such rank list and report to the Registrar, the irregularities, if any and that the list shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication of the same by the Society. Sub-rule (viii) of Rule 182(4) further provides that all appointments to the vacancies shall be made by the committee from the select list so published etc and this provisions in clause (viii) of Rule 182(4) is in full consonance with the provisions made in subsection (3) of Section 80B to the effect that all appointments shall be made by the committee concerned from the list of candidates etc., Therefore, the provision contained in Rue 182(4)(viii) also is only to the effect that in case the employer Co-operative Society concerned wants to make any appointment, to the post, then necessarily the employer can make such appointments only from among the candidates included in the rank list/selection list so prepared by the Board as per the Rules. Therefore, this provision in the Rule cannot be understood to impose any obligation or duty on the Co-operative Society to fill up all or any other vacancies for which the selection process was finalised, all or any of the vacancies, at all costs or that the employer is left with no discretion not to fill up only vacancies etc. 10. Therefore, this provision in the Rule cannot be understood to impose any obligation or duty on the Co-operative Society to fill up all or any other vacancies for which the selection process was finalised, all or any of the vacancies, at all costs or that the employer is left with no discretion not to fill up only vacancies etc. 10. Clause (vii) of Rule 182(4) as it now stands in statute book has been introduced in S.R.O 1185/2003 published in KG Ex.No.48 dt 23.12.03 and this amended provision has substituted the provision in clause (vii) as it stood prior to such amendment and clause (vii) of Rule 182 (4) as it stood prior to the amendment as per SRO 1185/03 provided as follows:- (Viii) “On the basis of the consolidated list so received from the Examination Board, the Committee shall prepare rank list of candidates and publish the same in the notice board of the society. The list shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication.” It appears that in the place of pre-amended provisions, the amendment has been now made as per S.R.O 1185/03 with effect from 23.12.03, whereby in the place of the said preamended provisions, the provisions now stipulate as per clauses (vii) and (viii) as follows: “(vii) On the basis of the consolidated list so received from the Examination Board, the committee shall prepare the rank list of candidates and publish the same in the notice board of the society.[within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of such consolidated mark list] The society shall send one copy of the rank list so published to the Examination Board also. The board shall examine the correctness of such rank list and report to the Registrar, the irregularities, if any. The list shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication of the same by the society. (viii) All appointments to the vacancies shall be made by the committee from the select list so published;[within one month from the date of such publication and shall be reported to the Examination Board].” 11. The list shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication of the same by the society. (viii) All appointments to the vacancies shall be made by the committee from the select list so published;[within one month from the date of such publication and shall be reported to the Examination Board].” 11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case Kodakara Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Neena, [ 2010(1) KLT 541 ] held that the action of the appellant Co-operative Society in not filling up the vacancies that arose during the validity of the list prepared pursuant to examination conducted by the Examination Board is not justified and Joint Registrar has rightly directed the appellant to appoint the first respondent, who was next in the list of selected candidates prepared by the appellant pursuant to examination conducted by the Examination Board. After consideration of the above said provisions, the Division Bench held therein that sub-clause (viii) of Rule 182(4) requires the Society to fill up notified vacancies within one month from the date of publication of the list of candidates prepared by it from out of the list received from the Examination Board and that it is pertinent to note that under sub-clause (vii) of Rule 182(4) provides that the validity of the list is retained for a period of two years from the date of publication of the same prepared by the Society and that therefore in the considered view of the Division Bench, the very purpose of keeping the select list valid for two years prepared by the Society based on examination conducted by the Examination Board is to enable the Society to fill up the vacancies arising during the currency of the validity of the list from out of such list. It was also held therein that if the contention of the appellant Bank that only notified vacancies can be filled up from the list prepared is accepted, then there is no reason why the Rule provides for validity of the list valid for two years from the date of publication after it's preparation by the society under the Rules. That the retention of validity of list is only for the purpose of enabling the society to fill up vacancies arising during the period of two years during which period, the list is kept valid by operation of the Rule. That the retention of validity of list is only for the purpose of enabling the society to fill up vacancies arising during the period of two years during which period, the list is kept valid by operation of the Rule. That if the appellant Cooperative Society's argument is accepted, each time when vacancy arises after filling up the notified number of vacancies from the prepared list, examination has to be conducted by the Board immediately after one round of selection, as and when vacancy arises. Therefore, it was held that the contention raised by the appellant Co-operative Society would be totally against the very purpose of sub-clause (vii) of Rule 182(4) by which the validity of the list is retained for two years. In the facts of the case dealt with in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-operative Bank's case (supra), there were six vacancies which were notified in the selection process, which was conducted by the Co-operative Examination Board and appointments were duly made to those six notified vacancies thereafter during the overall currency of the list, several vacancies had send in the bank in the category of the post concerned for which the selection was brought. The appellant service Co-operative Bank took up the stand that since all the notified vacancies in the selection process have been duly filled up by the bank, then the appointing authority cannot be compelled to make appointments from the very same list as against subsequent vacancies which has arisen during the currency of the list. The judgment of the Division Bench in the ruling Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Neena reported in 2001(1) KLT 541 was impugned before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3981/12 and the Apex Court in the ruling reported in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Neena reported in 2013(1) KLT 344 (SC) set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and held that it is an absolute prerogative right of the Board of Directors not to fill up any particular post, even though, feeder category rules had sanctioned the post and enables the Board to effect appointment and employer cannot be compelled to make any appointments. It was contended by the employer therein before the Apex Court that due to financial constraints, the appointing authority should not be compelled to make appointments to the vacancies which had arisen subsequently over and beyond the notified vacancies which were duly filled up by the appointing authorities in that case. Moreover, it was admitted case that no junior to the candidate concerned in the rank list was appointed by the employer, pursuant to the selection list. It is also pointed out that due to computerisation, there was no dearth of staff in the Bank and that financial constraints also deter the Bank in making further appointments. The Apex Court held in para 4 of that ruling as follows: “4. Learned counsel for the First Respondent fairly stated that no junior to her in the rank list was appointed in the Bank as Junior Clerk. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand stated that due to computerization there was no dearth of staff in the Bank and financial constraints also deter the Bank in making further appointments. The Government, in our opinion, has clearly held that a Corporate Bank cannot be compelled to fill up the posts even if posts are permanent. There is nothing to show that the Bank has acted arbitrarily in not filling up the posts. On the other hand, as per the select list, six candidates were already appointed. That being the factual and legal position, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in upsetting the order passed by the Government. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench are set aside, with no order as to costs.” In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Division Bench reported in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank's case (supra) was set aside and reversed by the Apex Court in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Neena [2013(1) KLT 344(SC)]. Bank's case (supra) was set aside and reversed by the Apex Court in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Neena [2013(1) KLT 344(SC)]. Though one of the main grounds on the basis of which the Division Bench had interfered in the matter was that the period of one month envisaged in clause (viii) of Rule 182(4) is for filling up the notified vacancies in the selection process and that validity period of two years envisaged in clause (vii) of Rule 182(4) is for filling up the subsequently arising vacancies during the currency of two years, over and beyond the notified vacancies, the Apex Court in the appellate judgment reported in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank's case (supra) has not in any way directly dealt with that aspect of the matter but at the same time, impugned Division Bench has been set aside and reversed the impugned judgment. Therefore, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the aforestated legal principle decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Kodakara Farmers Service Co-op. Bank's case (supra) spells out any binding ratio decidendi in view of the reversal of that judgment. Therefore, consequently it is only to be held that the said issue has thus been left open by virtue of the reversal of the Division Bench judgment by the Apex Court in the civil appeal. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in any way necessary to decide on the issue as to whether one month period referred to in clause (vii) is for notified vacancies and that the period of two years referred to in clause (vii) is for filling up in subsequently arising other vacancies, as such factual aspects do not actually arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of this case. Going by the facts of this case, two posts in the general category and one post in S.C/ST thus totally to 3 posts were notified in the selection process concerned. After finalization of the rank list/selection list, the petitioner Co-operative Bank has made appointments as against one general post and as against one set apart for SC/ST and as decided not to fill up the other post set apart for general category on the ground of financial constraints. After finalization of the rank list/selection list, the petitioner Co-operative Bank has made appointments as against one general post and as against one set apart for SC/ST and as decided not to fill up the other post set apart for general category on the ground of financial constraints. It is also common ground that the principle of merit as reflected in the rank list has been fully observed by the employer in so far as the most meritorious candidate in the general category and the most meritorious candidate in SC/ST category has been given the appointments. As at present, the non-appointed candidate has not challenged the action of the Bank. 12. There is yet another crucial aspect of the matter. The Bank has stated in the writ petition that the Audit report in respect of the financial functioning of the petitioner Cooperative Society for the financial year 2008-09 was received prior to the receipt of the rank list, which shows that the Bank has suffered a huge loss of about Rs.3,09,18,366.30/-. This factual aspect is not in any way disputed by the respondents 2 and 3. Their only contention is that though this is true, the working capital of the Bank is up to the tune of Rs. 27.93 crores and therefore, the appointment of the second person in the general category will not in any way hamper the functioning of the petitioner Society. The above said stand taken by the respondents 2 and 3 Co-operative Examination Board, is absolutely untenable for reason more than one. In the first place, the Co-operative Examination Board constituted in terms of provisions contained in Section 80(B) of the Act and Rule 182(4) of the Rules has not been given any powers by virtue of those provisions to issue any directions or Supervisory guidelines to the appointment authorities concerned as to whether or not any or all such vacancies should necessarily be filled up. Their duty is to conduct the fair and meritorious selection process subject to the various guidelines and parameters in the provisions of the Act and Rules and also to ensure about the correctness of such rank list and report to the Joint Registrar, about the irregularities if any, in the rank list published in the notice board of the Co-operative Society as referred to in clause (vii) of 182(4). Over and above this, the Act and Rules do not in any way confer any powers either of a substantive nature or even of a supervisory nature to issue any directions or guidelines to the Bank in the aforesaid crucial aspect of the matter. At any rate, the Examination Board is not given any power to adjudge and take a policy decision so as to contradict the considered view of the employer that even though the employer has suffered huge loss to the tune of more than Rs.3 crores, the appointments will not hamper its functioning in view of its stable working capital to the tune of more than Rs. 24 crores etc. Those are all matters which are primarily within the domain of the Co-operative Society concerned and it cannot be said that the Co-operative Examination Board has any supervisory role over such aspects of the Co-operative Bank. Secondly, the consistent stand by the petitioner Co-operative Society is that in view of heavy loss of more than Rs. 3 crores suffered by the Bank for the financial year in question, it has taken considered decision to fill 2 out of 3 posts notified in selection process. The petitioner has not in any way departed from the merit principle of appointing the most meritorious candidates in the respective categories concerned. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that based on the decision of the petitioner Co-operative Bank not to fill up one of the vacancies is only based on a considered policy view of the Bank in its capacity as appointing authority, which is based on relevant consideration regarding the financial and other aspects in the functioning of the Co-operative Society. Accordingly it is only to be held that the decision taken by the Co-operative Bank was not in any way illegal or improper. At any rate, the respondents No. 2 and 3 (Co-operative Examination Board) have no jurisdiction or power to interfere with the said considered view taken by the Co-operative Society. In this view of the matter, the upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned proceedings of respondents 2 and 3 are ultravires and illegal. None of the respondents have any case that the petitioner Bank has made any back door appointment to the unfilled posts. The impugned proceedings herein are Ext.P2 dated 5.01.2010 and Ext.P4 dated 18.02.2010. In this view of the matter, the upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned proceedings of respondents 2 and 3 are ultravires and illegal. None of the respondents have any case that the petitioner Bank has made any back door appointment to the unfilled posts. The impugned proceedings herein are Ext.P2 dated 5.01.2010 and Ext.P4 dated 18.02.2010. Ext.P2 is only a show-cause notice and therefore there is no necessity to quash the same as impugned Ext.P4 proceedings is the order passed finally by the respondents 2 and 3 pursuant to Ext.P2 show cause notice. Accordingly, Ext.P4 proceedings is quashed. In view of the scope and ambit of the impugned provision of the Rules as held in this judgment, there is no necessity to strike down that provision. With these observations and directions, the writ petition (civil) stands finally disposed of.