JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are persons who have submitted application to the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Banks in the State, pursuant to a notification dated 14.12.2009 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Since, common issue is raised, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.1 W.P.(C)No.5419 of 2016:- The petitioner applied for selection to the post of Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Bank in Thrissur District, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification (Category No.433/2009) dated 14.12.2009 issued by the 1st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (for brevity 'the PSC'). The petitioner possesses B.Com with Co-operation as optional subject, as evidenced by Ext.P2 degree certificate. He also possesses Masters Degree in Commerce in Co-operative Management, as evidenced by Ext.P3 certificate. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 admission ticket to appear for the written test held on 22.09.2012. After successful participation in the written test, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 letter dated 26.04.2013 of the PSC, whereby he was requested to submit copies of the certificates/documents proving his qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted copies of Exts.P2 and P3, along with other supporting documents. However, by Ext.P6 communication dated 05.06.2013, the PSC has rejected the candidature of the petitioner stating that he does not possess the qualification notified in Ext.P1. The petitioner approached the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who issued Ext.P7 communication dated 05.11.2014, wherein it has been stated that the request made by the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the ranked list published by the PSC, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, can be considered only subject to the outcome of SLP(C)Nos.31956-57/2013, 31237/2013, 37265 and 38067- 38072/13 pending before the Apex Court. Ext.P8 is the ranked list published by the PSC for the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Bank in Thrissur District, which came into force with effect from 23.12.2014. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 08.02.2016, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication dated 05.06.2013 issued by the PSC, whereby his candidature stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 ranked list published by the PSC to the extent it does not include the name of the petitioner. 2.2. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 ranked list published by the PSC to the extent it does not include the name of the petitioner. 2.2. On 04.03.2016, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that an issue similar to the one raised in the writ petition has already engaged the attention of the Apex Court. Therefore, this Court ordered that once the Apex Court renders a judgment on the issue, it may be open for the petitioner to take advantage of the same, subject to other statutory limitations. 2.3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is contended, inter alia, that Ext.P1 notification was issued on 14.12.2009, much prior to the amendment of the qualification prescribed for the post of Branch Manager, vide G.O.(P)No.172/2010/Co-op. dated 02.11.2010. Since the said amendment has only prospective operation, the petitioner cannot claim any right based on that amendment. Further, the PSC has decided that vacancies occurred after the amendment made on 02.11.2010 need not be advised from Ext.P8 ranked list published pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. 2.4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Civil Appeals arising out of the SLPs referred to hereinbefore were allowed by the Apex Court by the order dated 21.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases. A copy of the said order is placed on record, along with I.A.No.11484 of 2018 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to accept additional documents. 3.1. W.P.(C)No.13957 of 2018:- The petitioners in this writ petition have applied for the post of Branch Manager in Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 14.12.2009 issued by the PSC. They possess B.Com with Co-operation, M.Com, etc. Pursuant to their application, the petitioners were issued with Ext.P2 and similar admission tickets for the written test. On successful completion of the written test, they were issued with Ext.P3 and similar communications, whereby they were asked to submit the copies of certificates/documents proving their qualification. According to the petitioners, at the time of verification of certificates, they were informed that they cannot be considered for the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Bank, as they do not possess the qualification notified in Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, at the time of verification of certificates, they were informed that they cannot be considered for the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Bank, as they do not possess the qualification notified in Ext.P1. 3.2. The petitioners moved this writ petition on 28.05.2018, after Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court dated 21.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases, wherein the Apex Court held that the amendment made vide G.O.(P)No.172/2010/Co-op. dated 02.11.2010 is clarificatory in nature. According to the petitioners, at present there is no ranked list for the post of Branch Manager and a fresh list has to be prepared including the candidates, who possess B.Com with Co-operation, who had appeared for the written test. The request made by the 1st petitioner, vide representation dated 26.08.2017, was replied by the PSC by sending Ext.P5 communication dated 03.10.2017, wherein it has been stated that steps are being taken to file review petition and hence, further decision in the selection process of Branch Manager will be taken based on the orders on that review petition. 3.3. The petitioners 1 and 2 moved Ext.P6 representation dated 14.11.2017 before the Secretary of the PSC to consider their candidature for the post of Branch Manager in Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank, in the light of Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases. The petitioners moved to this Court in W.P.(C)No.5622 of 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the PSC to consider them to the post of Branch Manager, in the light of Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment dated 06.03.2018, whereby the Secretary of the PSC was directed to consider Ext.P6 representation made by petitioners 1 and 2 and also that made by the 3rd petitioner, strictly in accordance with the law, with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. In Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C)No.5622 of 2018, it was made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the request made by the petitioners, and all legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners were left open to be raised before the PSC. 3.4. In Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C)No.5622 of 2018, it was made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the request made by the petitioners, and all legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners were left open to be raised before the PSC. 3.4. Now, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed on 28.05.2018, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider them to the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Bank, Kozhikode in the light of Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court, after conducting interview along with others who approached the Apex Court. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are eligible to be considered for selection to the post of Branch Manager and they are to be included in the ranked list, as the qualification acquired by them are found eligible in terms of Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court, which is clarificatory in nature. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking an order to implead the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank, as additional 3rd respondent. 4.1. W.P.(C)No.21036 of 2018:- The petitioners, who possess B.Com with Co-operation and also M.Com, as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P4 certificates, have submitted application for the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Banks in Thrissur and Pathanamthitta Districts respectively, pursuant to Ext.P10 notification dated 14.12.2009 issued by the PSC. The petitioners were issued with Ext.P11 and similar admission tickets for the written test held on 29.09.2012. After successful participation in the written test, the petitioners were issued with Ext.P12 communication dated 26.04.2013 and Ext.P13 communication dated 14.06.2013 of the PSC, whereby they were requested to submit copies of the certificates/documents proving their qualification. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted copies of Exts.P1 to P4 along with other supporting documents. However, the candidature of the petitioners were turned down on the ground that they were not having the requisite qualification as per Ext.P10 notification. Ext.P14 is the communication dated 04.09.2014 issued by the PSC in this regard to the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, in Ext.P15 order in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases, the Apex Court held that the amendment made vide G.O.(P)No.172/2010/Co-op. dated 02.11.2010 is clarificatory in nature and as such, the petitioners are also eligible to be appointed as Branch Managers, in terms of Ext.P10 notification. According to the petitioners, in Ext.P15 order in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases, the Apex Court held that the amendment made vide G.O.(P)No.172/2010/Co-op. dated 02.11.2010 is clarificatory in nature and as such, the petitioners are also eligible to be appointed as Branch Managers, in terms of Ext.P10 notification. The petitioners came to know about Ext.P15 order of the Apex Court from Ext.P16 news report, which appeared in Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha dated 26.05.2018. 4.2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition on 25.06.2018, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to include their name in the ranked list for the post of Branch Managers in Thrissur and Pathanamthitta District Cooperative Banks, prepared pursuant to Ext.P10 notification. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P14 communication dated 04.09.2014 issued by the PSC, whereby the 2nd petitioner was informed that the amendment made to Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules has no application to Ext.P10 notification dated 14.12.2009. 4.3. The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are opposed by the PSC, by filing a counter affidavit. The petitioners have also filed a reply affidavit, producing therewith a subsequent notification dated 29.09.2016 issued by the PSC for the post of Branch Manager in Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank from qualified candidates belonging to Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian Community. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.2 of 2018, seeking an order to implead Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank and Thrissur District Co-operative Bank as additional respondents 4 and 5. 5.1. W.P.(C)No. 33777 of 2018:- The petitioner applied for the post of Branch Manager in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank pursuant to Ext.P3 notification dated 14.12.2009 issued by the PSC. The petitioner possesses B.Com with Co-operation as evidenced by Ext.P1 certificate. According to the petitioner, she has also secured M.Com Degree from University of Calicut. She was issued with Exts.P4 admission ticket to appear for the written test held on 29.09.2012. After successful participation in the written test, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 communication dated 26.04.2013 of the PSC, whereby she was requested to submit copies of certificates/documents proving her qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted copy of Ext.P1 along with other supporting documents. She was issued with Exts.P4 admission ticket to appear for the written test held on 29.09.2012. After successful participation in the written test, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 communication dated 26.04.2013 of the PSC, whereby she was requested to submit copies of certificates/documents proving her qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted copy of Ext.P1 along with other supporting documents. However, by Ext.P6 communication dated 05.06.2013, the PSC has rejected the candidature of the petitioner stating that she is not eligible to be considered for the post of Branch Manager, as she did not acquire HDC/JDC. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Chairman of the KPSC. 5.2. On coming to know of Ext.P8 order dated 21.08.2017 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712/2017 from Mathrubhumi Thozhil Vartha dated 26.05.2018, the petitioner moved Ext.P9 representation dated 02.06.2018 before the 2nd respondent with a request to participate in the interview. The 1st respondent vide Ext.P10 communication dated 30.08.2018 rejected the said request by stating that in view of the order of the Apex Court, only those candidates, who are appellants before the Apex Court alone can be considered for selection to the post of Branch Manager, as approved by the Commission, and in such circumstacnes, at the time of recasting the ranked list, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5.3. On 16.10.2018 when this writ petition filed on 15.10.2018 came up for admission the learned Standing Counsel for PSC was directed to file statement. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that B.Com with elective subject Co-operation and Higher Diploma in Co-operation (HDC) are equivalent qualification and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the recruitment to the post of Branch Manager in the 3rd respondent District Co-operative Bank, notified as per Ext.P3; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for the post of the Branch Manager in the 3rd respondent Bank, permitting her to participate in the interview and other recruitment process; and a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication dated 05.06.2013 and Ext.P10 communication dated 30.08.2018 issued by the PSC. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and also the respective Standing Counsel for the District Co-operative Banks. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC and also the respective Standing Counsel for the District Co-operative Banks. 7. The sole issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their candidature to the post of Branch Manager in the respective District Co-operative Banks, in terms of notification (Category No.433/2009) dated 14.12.2009 issued by the PSC, in the light of the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases. 8. The petitioners applied for the post of Branch Manager in District Co-operative Banks in the Sate pursuant to the notification dated 14.12.2009 issued by the PSC. By the said notification, applications were invited for the post of Branch Manager in the scale of pay of Rs.9725-26900. The number of vacancies in each Districts are specified in the said notification. The qualification prescribed in the notification dated 14.12.2009 for the post of Branch Manager reads thus:- (i) Graduation from a recognized University with not less than 50% marks in the aggregate and Higher Diploma in Cooperation. (HDC or HDC & BM of the State Co-operative Union of Kerala or HDC and HDCM of National Council for Cooperative Training or successful completion of the subordinate (Junior) Personal Co-operative Training Course Junior Diploma in Co-operation). OR BSc. (Co-operation & Banking) from Kerala Agriculture University. (ii) MBA/CA/M.Com/M.Sc (Co-operation and Banking) of the Kerala Agricultural University will be a preferential qualification. 9. The qualification prescribed in the notification dated 14.12.2009 for the post of Branch Manager in District Cooperative Banks, was based on the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the Government Orders and also the Recruitment Rules of the respective District Co-operative Banks, which existed at the time of publication of that notification. The qualification prescribed in that notification is one in conformity with clause (ia) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and G.O.(P)No.131/05 Co-op dated 19.05.2005. The petitioners in these writ petitions possess B.Com with Co-operation and they do not possess the qualification of HDC/JDC prescribed in the notification. Subsequent to the notification dated 14.12.2009, clause (ia) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 186 has been amended by G.O. (P)No.172/2010/Co-op. The petitioners in these writ petitions possess B.Com with Co-operation and they do not possess the qualification of HDC/JDC prescribed in the notification. Subsequent to the notification dated 14.12.2009, clause (ia) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 186 has been amended by G.O. (P)No.172/2010/Co-op. dated 02.11.2010 and as per the said amendment, B.Com with Co-operation, recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala with not less than 50% marks in aggregate, was included as one of the qualifications for the post of Branch Manager. As the amended provisions came into force only on 02.11.2010 and the notification in question was one published on 14.12.2009, the candidates having B.Com with Co-operation were not considered for selection. 10. The action of the PSC in not considering candidates who possess B.Com. with Co-operation was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. Certain candidates approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court, vide interim orders in different SLPs, directed the respondents therein to keep 35 posts vacant for the petitioners in those Special Leave Petitions. In compliance with the interim orders, the PSC decided to release advise for the vacancies, which arose before the amendment of Rule 186, reserving vacancies for the petitioners in those Special Leave Petitions. The PSC has also decided that, the vacancies occurred after the amendment need not be advised from the Ranked list. 11. As already noticed, the petitioners in these writ petitions have approached this Court on 08.02.2016, 28.05.2018, 25.06.2018 and 15.10.2018 respectively challenging their exclusion from the ranked list published by the PSC pursuant to notification dated 14.12.2009, for the post of Branch Manager in District Co-operative Banks in the State. Their candidatures were rejected at the time of verification of documents, based on various communications issued by the PSC in July, 2013. Thereafter, the PSC published the ranked list, and a copy of the ranked list for the District Co-operative Bank in Thrissur District is marked as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.5419 of 2016, which came into force on 23.12.2014. 12. Some of the candidates similarly situated to the petitioners in these writ petitions, who were excluded from the process of selection, approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.37412 of 2009 and connected cases and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.03.2013 was under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.31237 of 2013 and connected cases. 12. Some of the candidates similarly situated to the petitioners in these writ petitions, who were excluded from the process of selection, approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.37412 of 2009 and connected cases and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.03.2013 was under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.31237 of 2013 and connected cases. In those Civil Appeals, the Apex Court passed interim orders (one such order in SLP No.31237 of 2013 is placed on record as Ext.P15 in W.P.(C)No.21036 of 2018), whereby 35 posts of Branch Managers were directed to be kept unfilled, in order to protect the interest of the petitioners in those SLPs. In view of the aforesaid interim orders, after keeping such number of posts of Branch Managers vacant, the PSC proceeded with the process of selection and filled the remaining posts from the candidates included in the ranked lists, which came into force in the year 2014. 13. By the order dated 21.08.2017, the Apex Court allowed Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and directed that the appellants be considered eligible in the process of selection. It was made clear that any appointments already made need not be disturbed. The order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases reads thus; “Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellants have completed B.Com. Degree with Cooperation as a special subject and applied for the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Banks in the State of Kerala, in pursuance of Notification dated 14th December, 2009 issued by the Public Service Commission. They have been held to be ineligible on the ground that prior to Notification dated 2nd November, 2010, they did not have diploma in co-operation, as required, even if they had a B.Com. Degree with Co-operation as a special subject. The High Court has held that Notification dated 2nd November, 2010 which makes them eligible will apply prospectively. We are of the view that the said notification was in the nature of clarification and the object of selection being to get the best candidates, the appellants could not be excluded from being considered. Accordingly we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellants be considered eligible in the process of selection. We are of the view that the said notification was in the nature of clarification and the object of selection being to get the best candidates, the appellants could not be excluded from being considered. Accordingly we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order and direct that the appellants be considered eligible in the process of selection. It is made clear that any appointments already made need not be disturbed.” (Underline supplied) 14. A reading of the order in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases would show that, though the Apex Court held that the notification amending clause (ia) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 186 was in the nature of clarification and the object of selection being to get the best candidates, the appellants could not be excluded from being considered, the Civil Appeals were allowed setting aside the impugned judgment with a direction that the appellants be considered eligible in the process of selection. In the order dated 21.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases, the Apex Court has confined the reliefs to the appellants before it, i.e., the candidates who have challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, whose right has been protected by granting interim orders in those SLPs to keep 35 posts of Branch Managers unfilled. 15. In State of Utter Pradesh v. Aravind Kumar Srivastava [ (2015) 1 SCC 347 ] , the Apex Court has stated in categorical terms that the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees are given relief by court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit. In the said decision, the Apex Court has also held that the said principle will be subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the said judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence. Paragraph 22 of the said decision reads thus : “22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: 22.1 Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India, (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 16. In Union of India v. Shri Hanuman Industries [ (2015) 6 SCC 600 ], the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the co-applicants in the earlier round of litigation immediately approached the court and obtained relief. However, the respondent applicants before the Apex Court waited till the said relief was affirmed by the Apex Court on 01.05.2009 and only thereafter, on 27.08.2009, approached the High Court for similar relief. The Apex Court held that, the respondent applicants, in view of their deliberate laches, negligence and inaction have disentitled themselves to the benefit of adjudication in the earlier lis. Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said decision read thus: “18. The pleaded facts and the competing arguments have received our due attention. To start with, it is not disputed that the writ petitioners in the earlier round of adjudication were applicants under SPINE alike the respondents herein. Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said decision read thus: “18. The pleaded facts and the competing arguments have received our due attention. To start with, it is not disputed that the writ petitioners in the earlier round of adjudication were applicants under SPINE alike the respondents herein. They being appalled by the delay in the grant of their receivables there under and being faced with the letter dated 05-02-2007 whereby pending receipt and scrutiny of the reports as called for, further sanction/ disbursement of Grants-in-Aid under the said scheme was stopped, did promptly approach the Guwahati High Court with a batch of writ petitions in the year 2007 itself and as narrated hereinabove were favoured with a direction to the implementing authorities for consideration of their application for the investment subsidy in accordance with law without being influenced by the said letter. Admittedly, the respondents herein elected not to join them and instead, soon thereafter this Court affirmed the above verdict on 01-05-2009, staked their claim on 27-08-2009. There is evidently thus a time lag of more than two years by which the respondents’ challenge was delayed. 18.1. It is a matter of record, that by letter/notification dated 04-05-2010 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of DONER, NEC, Shillong, confirmation of the decision of withdrawal and closure of SPINE with effect from 23-02-2007, was notified. A plain perusal of the contents of this document would reveal in no uncertain terms that the withdrawal and closure of SPINE had been effected by an Order of Government of India vide NEC/PLAN/ii- 23-2-2007. Thus the letter/notification dated 04-05-2010, did relate back to 23-02-2007 for all intents and purposes. Therefore the scheme, SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed on and from 23-02-2007. As a corollary, on a cumulative reading of the letters dated 05-02- 2007, 23-02- 2007 and 04-05-2010 as well as the resolution dated 21-02-2007 it is indubitable that SPINE stood withdrawn and/or closed with effect from 23-02- 2007. As adverted to hereinabove, by letter dated 01- 10.2007, as a consequential step, the proposal which had remained unprocessed as per the standard procedures of the scheme were returned to the State Governments. The list of proposals remitted back admittedly included those amongst others of the respondents herein. As adverted to hereinabove, by letter dated 01- 10.2007, as a consequential step, the proposal which had remained unprocessed as per the standard procedures of the scheme were returned to the State Governments. The list of proposals remitted back admittedly included those amongst others of the respondents herein. It is thus patent that on such date i.e. 01-10-2007, the claims of the respondents had not been accepted and in view of the closure of the scheme, were returned to the respective State Governments. In this pronounced backdrop, the plea of the respondents that at the institution of the writ petitions in 2009, no decision had been taken rejecting their applications fades into insignificance, as those by implication had not been entertained under the scheme. 18.2 The letters dated 04-08-2006, 04-09-2007 and 12-09-2007 to which our attention has been drawn in course of the arguments, suffice it to mention, do not contain any assurance on the part of the implementing authorities promising grant of the subsidy allowance under the scheme or any other incentive to the respondent. No reference has been made before us of any other document qua the other respondents. We are thus constrained to hold that there was no promise on the part of the public functionaries in charge of implementation of SPINE to the respondents to extend benefits there under, in-spite of the decision to withdraw or close the same with effect from 23-02-2007. xxxxx xxx xxx xxx 22. On a consideration of the totality of the aspects involved, we are thus of the unhesitant view that the respondents herein in view of their deliberate laches, negligence and inaction have disentitled themselves to the benefit of the adjudication in the earlier lis. In the accompanying facts and circumstances in our comprehension, it would be iniquitous and repugnant as well to the public exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the respondents on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is even otherwise inapplicable to the case in hand.” 17. In the accompanying facts and circumstances in our comprehension, it would be iniquitous and repugnant as well to the public exchequer to entertain the belated claim of the respondents on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel which is even otherwise inapplicable to the case in hand.” 17. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, with reference to the pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds that, if the order dated 21.08.2017 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases is read along with the interim orders of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.31237 of 2013 and connected cases, conclusion is irresistible that the benefit of the order dated 21.08.2017 is extended only to the appellants in those Civil Appeals, who have secured interim orders in the SLPs to keep 35 posts of Branch Managers unfilled. The benefit of the order dated 21.08.2017 shall accrue only to the appellants before the Apex Court and such an intention is stated expressly by the Apex Court in that order. Therefore, the petitioners in these writ petitions are not entitled for consideration of their candidature in the process of selection to the post of Branch Manager in the District Co-operative Banks in various districts, claiming the benefit of the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases. The petitioners who did not challenge the rejection of their candidature, in the year 2014 to the post of Branch Manager, as per the notification dated 14.12.2009 issued by the PSC, and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay, only because of the reason that their counterparts, who had approached the Apex Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in their case, should be extended to them. The petitioners in these writ petitions, who are facilitators, are not entitled for any reliefs in these writ petitions, especially when the relief granted by the Apex Court in the order dated 28.01.2017 in Civil Appeal No.10712 of 2017 and connected cases is confined to the appellants before it. In the result, these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.