# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`**
## **`TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022`**
## **`PETITIONERS:`**
- **`1 JOJI JAMES K. AGED 42 YEARS S/O LATE K.C. CHACKO, KANNAMTHANAM HOUSE, KANNIVAYAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 670511`**
- **`2 RENJITH K.R. AGED 36 YEARS S/O LATE K.G. REGHUNATHAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, CHENNAMKARY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688501 BY ADVS. S.JIJI M.M.BABY C.A.JOJO`**
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
- **`1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CGM-IN-CHARGE AND SECRETARY, SECRETARY'S DEPARTMENT, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 16TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI, PIN- 400001`**
- **`2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGION, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033`**
- **`3 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI`**
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
2
```
## **`JUDGMENT`**
## **Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2022**
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
_“(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P7 list by the respondents and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same._
_(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to make the appointments to the post of Office Attendants-2020 as notified in P-3 notification only according to the specifications in the P-3 notification and strictly adhering to the rules and norms prescribed by the law”_
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners who are ex-servicemen had applied for the post of Office Attendants under the respondent-Bank pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. It is submitted that they had both scored 106.25 marks each in the written test out of 120 marks and were placed as Serial Nos.13 and 14 in the ranked list in the general category. It is submitted that there were 26 vacancies available at Thiruvananthapuram and that reservation was
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
3
```
only for 11 vacancies. It is submitted that since the petitioners had been included in the list at Serial Nos.13 and 14, they were entitled and eligible for appointment to the post. It is submitted that when the list of selected candidates was published as per Ext.P7, their roll numbers were not included in the list and that no proper reasons have been stated. On the said contentions, the petitioners challenge Ext.P7 list and seek appointment to the post of Office Attendant as notified in Ext.P3 notification.
4. A statement has been placed on record by the respondents in the writ petition. It is contended that the notification specified that there were 26 vacancies available in Thiruvananthapuram, out of which 2 were reserved for OBC candidates, 2 posts for persons belonging to the EWS category, 1 for person having 4[th] category disability, 1 for exservicemen-1 category and 5 for ex-servicemen-2 category. It is submitted that the recruitment to the posts are governed by the Master Circular for recruitment bearing No.G.27/29/05.38.01.2020-21 dated 01.07.2020 issued by the 1[st] respondent. It is stated that the age limit prescribed for applying was between 18-25 years with relaxation of 5
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
4
```
years for SC-ST candidates and 3 years for other backward class candidates. It is submitted that the petitioners are aged 42 and 36 respectively. It is further submitted that it is only in the case of exservicemen that the age relaxation was granted to the extent of the service rendered by them in the Armed forces plus an additional period of 3 years subject to the maximum of 15 years. It is therefore contended that the petitioners who are aged 42 and 36 respectively would be eligible and entitled to participate in the selection and be considered only in the ex-servicemen category and not otherwise.
5. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in **Sourav Yadav and other vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2021 (4) SCC 542]** , it is contended that a person who submits an application under the exserviceman category can be considered in the open category as well only if he has all the qualifications and eligibility required for submitting applications under the open/general category. It is contended that in the instant case, since the petitioners are entitled to apply only under the ex-servicemen category going by the eligibility conditions in respect of age of candidates, the petitioners’ contention that they ought
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
5
```
to have been considered under the general category or the OBC category cannot be accepted. The further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a dual benefit is being given to persons who are eligible under the OBC category as well as the exservicemen category. The answer of the respondents is that the reservation granted to ex-servicemen is admittedly a horizontal reservation and therefore it would have to be exercised in that manner and in case there is any vertical reservation available, the same would also be simultaneously exercised.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioners have obtained 106.25 marks each in the examination as evident from Ext.P4 and P5. However, their contention that they are placed at Serial Nos.13 and 14 in Ext.P6 ranked list is incorrect and it is stated that Ext.P6 is not a ranked list. It is stated that the same is only list of candidates who had secured more than 105 marks in the examination and therefore the list enclosed in Ext.P6 cannot be considered as a ranked list and they cannot claim that they are placed at Serial Nos.13 and 14 in the list. It is submitted that the selection had been conducted strictly in accordance
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
6
```
with the Circular as well as the notification and that there is no illegality as alleged.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would then contend that going by the provisions of the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, an ex-servicemen would be entitled to appointment to any vacancies in Central Civil Services Group C and Group D posts, reserved or not, by deducting the period of such service from his actual age and if the resultant age does not exceed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post or service for which he seeks appointment by more than 3 years, he shall be deemed to satisfy the condition regarding age limit.
8. I have considered the said contention as well. The relaxation in age for applying for the post specifically is with regard to appointment to any vacancy in Central Civil Services or posts under Group C and Group D. The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 defines service to mean a civil service of the Union. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rule relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not be
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
7
```
applicable in the case of recruitment to posts under the Reserve Bank in the unreserved category. The benefit available to ex-servicemen under Rule 5 has been specifically made available to ex-servicemen applying in the quota set apart for them.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the said contention also cannot be accepted. This writ petition thus fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
```
Sd/-
```
```
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
```
```
NP
```
```
WP(C) NO. 20038 OF 2022
```
```
8
```
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20038/2022`**
```
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION AND PERSONAL SERVICE
PARTICULARS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED AT
THE TIME OF RETIREMENT
Exhibit P-2TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE AND RELEASE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ZILA ZAINIK WELFARE
OFFICER DATED 29-02-2020
Exhibit P-3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24-02-
2021 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITS
WEB SITE HEADED RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF
OFFICE ATTENDANTS-2020
Exhibit P-4TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER IN THE WRITTEN TEST
Exhibit P-5TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER IN THE WRITTEN TEST
Exhibit P-6TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AND CATEGORY WISE RANK
LIST ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28-12-2021
Exhibit P-7TRUE COPY OF THE ROLL NUMBERS OF THE FINALLY
SELECTED CANDIDATES PUBLISHED IN THE WEB SITE
OF THE RESPONDENTS DATED 07-09-2022
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL
```
