Vacancies arising after qualification amendments cannot be filled from pre-amendment ranked lists.

The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a 2017 notification to fill one Law Officer post in the Kerala State Co-operative Bank under the qualifications then in force.

The recruitment rules were amended with effect from 2 August 2021, requiring 60% marks in the law degree and five years’ active practice at the Bar.

A ranked list was published in 2022, and a 2025 Government notification fixed the number of Law Officer posts at three.

The petitioners, who claimed to possess the amended qualifications, sought advice from the ranked list for the additional vacancies.

They also argued that the original recruitment notification should have been cancelled after the rules were amended.

The respondents relied on precedent holding that vacancies arising after an amendment to recruitment rules must be filled under the amended rules through a fresh selection process.

Whether vacancies arising after amendment of the recruitment rules could be filled from a ranked list prepared pursuant to an earlier recruitment notification

Whether the original notification had to be cancelled because the rules were amended before publication of the ranked list

The Court applied the Full Bench ruling in Mohanan K.R. v. Director of Homeopathy, 2006 (3) KLT 641, as followed in Ramesh Babu C. v. State of Kerala, 2013 KHC 3353: vacancies arising after amended recruitment rules come into force must be filled in accordance with those rules, and Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure cannot authorize advice from an existing ranked list contrary to the amended rules.

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 726 of 2025, which held that post-amendment vacancies require a fresh notification and selection under the amended rules.

The Court distinguished Bincy S. v. Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2025 KHC 1294, because the qualifications for the relevant posts there were not different.

The vacancies for which the petitioners sought advice arose after the amended qualifications took effect. Under Mohanan K.R., Ramesh Babu and W.A. No. 726 of 2025, those vacancies could not be filled from a ranked list prepared under the earlier recruitment framework; they required recruitment in accordance with the amended rules.

Rule 14 did not alter that result, because it could not override the Government’s authority to bring amended rules into force.

Bincy S. did not assist the petitioners, as the qualifications in that case remained the same.

The Court also rejected the cancellation argument: the vacancy covered by the original notification had arisen before the amendment, so the amendment did not require cancellation of that notification.

It rejected their challenge to the continuation of the original recruitment process and dismissed the writ petition.