JUDGMENT : T.R. Ravi, J. The petitioners had applied for selection and appointment to the post of Clerk Gr.I in the 4 th respondent Bank pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 15.11.2019 issued by the 5 th respondent. During the pendency of the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 notification dated 15.11.2019, the Kerala Co-operative Bank Recruitment Rules 2021 were notified on 04.08.2021. A true copy of the relevant pages of the above notification has been produced as Ext.P4 in the writ petition. The Rules are prospective. Category 11 in Ext.P4 is Clerk/Cashier. Under Ext.P4, there is no post of Clerk Gr.I. The 5 th respondent thereafter issued Ext.P5 notification on 15.06.2022, whereby it was notified that the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 15.11.2019 stands cancelled, since under the new Recruitment Rules to the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. dated 02.08.2021, the post of Clerk Gr.I stand re-designated as Clerk/Cashier, and the qualifications for the post have been changed. The petitioners contend that Ext.P5 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 notification in 2019 should be completed to fill vacancies up to 02.08.2021, as per the then-existing rules. 2. Petitioners 1 and 11 approached the 5 th respondent seeking relaxation regarding the upper age limit under Ext.P4 rules. The 5 th respondent sent Ext.P7 reply stating that the amended Special Rules have not yet been received. The Kerala State Co-operative Bank Recruitment Rules, 2023 were issued thereafter on 24.03.2023, and it was published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 27.03.2023. A true copy of the Rules has been produced as Ext.P8. Ext.P8 came into force with effect from 02.08.2021. As per Ext.P8, no person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to any of the categories in force, if she/he has not completed 18 years of age and if she/he has completed 40 years of age, as on 1 st January of the year in which the applications for the appointment are invited. All the petitioners are overaged as per Ext.P8. They cannot apply pursuant to any notification that is issued based on Ext.P8 Rules. Their grievance is that if the selection process had been completed and a ranked list issued pursuant to Ext.P1, they could have been appointed to the vacancies in the post of Clerk/Cashier. All the petitioners are overaged as per Ext.P8. They cannot apply pursuant to any notification that is issued based on Ext.P8 Rules. Their grievance is that if the selection process had been completed and a ranked list issued pursuant to Ext.P1, they could have been appointed to the vacancies in the post of Clerk/Cashier. In the alternative, the petitioners seek age relaxation and pray that they should be permitted to apply for the next selection process. The petitioners further contend that Ext.P9 series notifications issued after the coming into force of the new rules, for filling up NCA vacancies as per the earlier rules, would support their contention that the vacancies up to 02.08.2021 are to be filled up following the earlier rules, and Ext.P5 seeking to cancel the entire selection process was uncalled for. Reliance is placed on Ext.P10 proceedings dated 08.06.2023, which was issued pursuant to various judgments of this Court, to submit that the vacancies which existed before the amalgamation of District Banks to the KSCB were to be filled up as per the existing Recruitment Rules. Pending this writ petition, several interim orders have been issued. On 22.03.2024, this Court, after noticing that the 5 th respondent had not issued any notification to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent bank and the matter regarding age relaxation is to be considered by the Government, directed the 2 nd respondent to take up the issue regarding age relaxation of persons who had applied under Ext.P1 notification within two months. While so, Ext.P17 notification was issued on 09.04.2024 fixing the last date for receipt of application as 15.05.2024, and since the Government has not taken any decision regarding age relaxation, the petitioners approached this Court raising the grievance that they will not be able to apply as per Ext.P17 notification and seeking an interim order to provisionally allow them to apply. This Court, by order dated 12.04.2024 , directed the 5 th respondent to accept the application submitted by the petitioners provisionally. On 06.08.2024, this Court took note of the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not able to confirm the submission of their application online and ordered that this shall not invalidate the application submitted by the petitioners if the same are otherwise in order. On 06.08.2024, this Court took note of the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not able to confirm the submission of their application online and ordered that this shall not invalidate the application submitted by the petitioners if the same are otherwise in order. On 04.09.2024, this Court granted an extension of time for approval of the amendment of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Recruitment Rules, 2023 and directed respondents 5 and 6 to provisionally permit the petitioners to appear for the written examination pursuant to Ext.P17 notification by issuing necessary admission tickets. On 23.01.2025, this Court directed the Government to take a decision with respect to age relaxation within two months. The petitioners were issued with hall tickets, and they have also participated in the examination. They have contended that, unlike the other candidates, they were asked to write the examination in cubicles which did not have proper lighting, and they had difficulties in filling out the bubble sheets in the OMR sheet due to poor light. They submit that they were denied a fair chance to compete with other candidates who underwent a regular physical examination procedure. It is further submitted that they were not given an opportunity to file complaints against the provisional answer key. Pending the writ petition, the 11 th petitioner passed away. It is also submitted that the 20 th petitioner could not apply to write the examination provisionally and hence could not write it. The petitioners hence pray that all of them should be permitted to write the examination afresh. While so, the Government issued Ext.P17(g) on 19.04.2025 ordering that candidates who applied for the post of Clerk Gr.I in the erstwhile Kerala State Co-operative Bank against Notification No.197/2019 dated 15.11.2019, and might cross the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment for the post category No.11 Clerk/Cashier, are granted a one-time exemption to apply to the post against the Notification No.063/2024 dated 09.04.2024. It was also ordered that, if otherwise eligible, they will be eligible for direct appointment to the post. The petitioners hence contend that the applications made pursuant to orders of this Court must be treated as proper. The writ petitions were amended based on the subsequent events. The prayers as per the amended writ petition are as follows; i. issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P5 and Ext. The petitioners hence contend that the applications made pursuant to orders of this Court must be treated as proper. The writ petitions were amended based on the subsequent events. The prayers as per the amended writ petition are as follows; i. issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P5 and Ext. P15 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary. ia. issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P17 to the extent to which the petitioners are treated as overaged to participate in the selection process in paragraph 7 and they are not given relaxation in age to participate in the said selection process and it seeks to fill up the vacancies of the post notified in Ext. P1 which arose till 02.08.2021 as per Ext. P8 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary. ib. issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection process initiated as per Ext. P17, giving them relaxation in age. ic. Declare that the Kerala Public Service Commission did not provide equal opportunity to the petitioners to write the examination pursuant to the interim order dated 04.09.2024 in I.A.No.4/2024 in WP(C) No.11804 of 2024, unlike other candidates; therefore, a fresh written examination is liable to be conducted for the petitioners as part of the selection process following Ext.P17. id. issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 5 and 6 to implement Ext.P17(g) by conducting fresh examination for persons like the petitioners and to permit the petitioners to participate in the same and to allow them to participate in the selection process pursuant to Ext.P17 by including them in the shortlist and ranked list. ii. Call for records related to the decision to initiate a fresh selection process to the post of Clerk/Cashier reflected in Ext. P16 and quash those by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order. iii. Strike down Rule VII of Ext. P8 to the extent to which it does not give age relaxation to the persons like the petitioners who applied for selection to the post notified in Ext. P1 to apply for the selection process to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent. iv. Declare that, Rule VII in Ext. P8 is liable to be amended/modified giving the petitioners age relaxation permitting them to participate in the selection process to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent. P1 to apply for the selection process to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent. iv. Declare that, Rule VII in Ext. P8 is liable to be amended/modified giving the petitioners age relaxation permitting them to participate in the selection process to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent. v. Declare that; a. The respondents are bound to fill up the vacancies in the post of Clerk Grade I prior to 02.08.2021 and Clerk/Cashier vacancies after 02.08.2021 in the 4 th respondent by continuing the selection process initiated as per Ext P1 as if it was not cancelled. Or in the alternative b. The petitioners are entitled to be given age relaxation enabling them to apply to the next fresh selection process initiated to fill up the vacancies in the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent. vi. Issue a writ of mandamus; a. directing the respondents to fill up the vacancies in the post of Clerk Grade I prior to 02.08.2021 and Clerk/Cashier vacancies after 02.08.2021 in the 4 th respondent by continuing the selection process initiated as per Ext P1 as if it was not cancelled or in the alternative b. directing the respondents to give age relaxation to the petitioners enabling them to apply to the next fresh selection process initiated to fill up the vacancies in the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent. vii. Declare that, the decision of the respondents 5 and 6 mentioned in Ext. P16 to initiate fresh notification for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent, without waiting for the decision of the respondent no. 1 and 2 regarding giving age relaxation to the petitioners is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. viii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 5 and 6 not to issue fresh notification for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier in the 4 th respondent, prior to the decision of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in giving age relaxation to the petitioner. ix. Issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case. x. dispense with the filing of translation of documents in vernacular. xi. direct the respondents to pay the cost of this proceedings to the petitioners. 3. 2 and 3 in giving age relaxation to the petitioner. ix. Issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case. x. dispense with the filing of translation of documents in vernacular. xi. direct the respondents to pay the cost of this proceedings to the petitioners. 3. Heard Smt. Aruna, on behalf of the petitioners, Sri P.C.Sasidharan, on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 and Sri Bimal K. Nath, Senior Government Pleader, for the official respondents/State. 4. There are almost 17 prayers in the writ petition. Most of them are repetitive. The issue that is presently relevant is only regarding the right of the petitioners to participate in the second selection process and to be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk/Cashier. The rest of the issues are already covered by interim orders which have been issued in this case. The petitioners had applied initially for the post of Clerk Gr.I pursuant to a notification dated 15.11.2019. The Recruitment Rules changed in 2021, before the selection process could be completed. The post of Clerk Gr.I is no longer available and the post available is Clerk/Cashier. If the earlier recruitment process is taken to its logical end, even after the coming into force of the new rules, a situation will be created where a person who is selected to the post of Clerk Gr.I will have to be given appointment to a post which is no longer there. After the coming into force of the new rules, the earlier notification was cancelled and a fresh notification for selection was issued. The petitioners became overaged for applying to the post under the new notification. It was in the above circumstances that they approached this Court. Since they had already applied under the earlier notification, they requested that the said applications should be considered for the purpose of selection under the second notification after giving them age relaxation. Ext.P5 is the notification whereby the earlier notification dated 15.11.2019 was cancelled. A new set of rules came into effect in March 2023, as seen from Ext.P8. Since they had already applied under the earlier notification, they requested that the said applications should be considered for the purpose of selection under the second notification after giving them age relaxation. Ext.P5 is the notification whereby the earlier notification dated 15.11.2019 was cancelled. A new set of rules came into effect in March 2023, as seen from Ext.P8. This writ petition was filed on 20.03.2024, two years after Ext.P5 and after the Public Service Commission informed the Government that the applicants under the previous notification cannot be given age relaxation and permitted to participate in the selection process, which is to be initiated based on the new rules. On 22.03.2024, this Court noted the fact that the KPSC had not issued any notification for the post of Clerk/Cashier till then, and the matter regarding age relaxation was being considered by the Government, and directed the Government to decide on the question of granting age relaxation within two months. Ext.P17 notification was issued on 09.04.2024 for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier as per the new rules, fixing the last date for receipt of application as 15.05.2024. On 12.04.2024, this Court directed the 5 th respondent to provisionally accept the applications submitted by the petitioners pursuant to Ext.P17 notification. On 06.08.2024, this Court ordered that the non-submission of confirmation by the petitioners online will not invalidate the applications submitted by them if the same are otherwise in order. The above order was passed after noting the submission of the Government Pleader that advice had been sought from the KPSC regarding a proposal to amend the Recruitment Rules. On 04.09.2024, this Court directed respondents 5 and 6 to provisionally permit the petitioners to appear for the written examination pursuant to Ext.P17 notification by issuing necessary admission tickets. It was made clear that the appearance of the petitioners in the examination is purely provisional, and their eligibility for appointments to the post will be considered in the writ petition. This Court has passed all the above orders based on the submission that the question of age relaxation was under consideration of the Government. The rule-making authority thereafter issued Ext.P17(g) on 19.04.2025. The operative portion of the order reads thus. This Court has passed all the above orders based on the submission that the question of age relaxation was under consideration of the Government. The rule-making authority thereafter issued Ext.P17(g) on 19.04.2025. The operative portion of the order reads thus. “Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Government are pleased to order that those candidates who applied for the post of Clerk Grade I in the erstwhile Kerala State Cooperative Bank (KSCB) against notification No.197/2019 dated 15.11.2019 of Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), which was subsequently cancelled by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) vide Notification No.CS-2/50011/2018-KPSC, dated 15/06/2022 and among them those have crossed the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment for post “category No.11 clerk/cashier” in the Recruitment Rules of Kerala State Cooperative Bank (KSCB) read as 1 st paper above, is granted one time exemption to apply to the post “category No.11 “clerk/cashier” in the Kerala State Cooperative Bank (KSCB) against notification No.063/2024, dated 09.04.2024; and if otherwise eligible, they are eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to the post “category No.11 “clerk/cashier” in the rules. 5. Most of the issues have been laid to rest by the issuance of Ext.P17(g). Even though the KPSC has a contention that age relaxation could not be granted, I do not think this Court should be going into the issue at the instance of the KPSC, since the Rule making authority has already made it clear that persons like the petitioners, if otherwise eligible, are entitled to be considered for the post. The prayers 1, 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3, 4, 5(b), 6(b), 7 and 8 are no longer relevant in view of Ext.P17(g). The counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. [ (1990) 3 SCC 157 ] to submit that a service rule normally operates prospectively unless indicated to the contrary by express language or by necessary implication. It is submitted that the new rules can only be prospective and cannot govern the earlier selection process. The above argument was raised to contend that the process initiated in 2019 should have been taken to its logical end based on the earlier rule, even though the said post is no longer available. The judgment in Devin Katti (supra) cannot be relied upon for such a proposition. The above argument was raised to contend that the process initiated in 2019 should have been taken to its logical end based on the earlier rule, even though the said post is no longer available. The judgment in Devin Katti (supra) cannot be relied upon for such a proposition. In the case at hand, except for submitting applications based on the earlier notification, the selection process had not progressed any further before the amendment of the rules. The petitioners cannot insist that the rule as it stood in 2019 should be applied for completing the selection process, and appointments should be made from the list prepared on that basis to the post of Clerk/Cashier. In Devin Katti (supra) itself the court has also held that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible or otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the said rules as they existed on the date of the advertisement and he cannot be deprived of that limited right. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Pavithran V.K.M. & Anr. V. State of Kerala & Ors. ( 2009 (4) KHC 4 ) . The said decision was relied on to submit that it is a well-settled principle in administrative law that there are no void orders in an absolute sense in administrative matters, and there are only voidable orders and unless a person aggrieved takes recourse to the appropriate remedy at the appropriate time, even an illegal order will be treated as valid and binding. The above judgment was relied on to submit that even if the Government Order permitting the petitioners to participate in the selection process after giving them relaxation of age is illegal, the same must be treated as valid and binding so long as it is not challenged and set aside. There can be no dispute regarding the above proposition. The petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process, and the said order remains in force. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said order in these proceedings. 6. There can be no dispute regarding the above proposition. The petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection process, and the said order remains in force. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said order in these proceedings. 6. Sri P.C. Sasidharan relied on the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh V. Raj Kumar [ (2023) 3 SCC 773 ) . It is submitted that the selection process was cancelled since an amalgamated entity had come into being, and new recruitment rules were required. It was further submitted that the cancellation was in 2022, and the challenge was raised only in 2024. It is further submitted that since Section 74(h)(14) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act came into force in 2019, Ext.P8 necessarily had to be issued, and Ext.P8 specifically says about age relaxation. It is hence submitted that the prayer for declaring that the petitioners are entitled to age relaxation cannot be granted in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the source for direct recruitment and the qualifications have also changed. Another contention raised is that there can be no legal right to get an appointment with a different entity, and that too after age relaxation. In State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows. “36. Analysis A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under: 1.There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein. [ Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725 , Para 26; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar , (2019) 4 SCC 319 , Para 10.] 2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates [59 Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725 , Para 26; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar , (2019) 4 SCC 319 , Para 10.] 3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. [K. Ramulu v. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59 , Paras 12 and 13, Shyam Chandra Das v. State of Orissa, (2003) 4 SCC 218 , Para 9, State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal, (2007) 10 SCC 402 , Para 38; Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725 , Para 28.] . There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. [G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 455 , Para 4.] The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. [Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Charan Ram, (1998) 4 SCC 202 , Para 15; K. Ramulu v. Suryaprakash Rao, (1997) 3 SCC 59 , Para 15.] 4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. [In Delhi Judicial Services Association v. Delhi High Court, (2001) 5 SCC 145 , Para 5]. 5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. [ Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725 , Para 25.] “ 7. 5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. [ Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. , (2011) 6 SCC 725 , Para 25.] “ 7. This Court need not go into the above proposition of law in view of Ext.P17(g), which stands unchallenged. The KPSC cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of Ext.P17(g) collaterally in a writ petition filed by the petitioners, who are claiming relief granted under Ext.P17(g). The Standing Counsel also relied on the decision in State of Orissa V. Mamata Mohanty [ (2011) 3 SCC 436 ] to submit that no relaxation can be granted if there is no enabling provision. It is also submitted that the Public Service Commission has already taken up the issue regarding Ext.P17(g) before the Government, and the Government is considering the same. 8. In reply, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) was rendered in a dispute relating to promotion and not direct recruitment. It is hence submitted that so far as direct recruitment is concerned, the principal laid down in Devin Katti (supra) will have to be followed. 9. In the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 on 28.06.2025, it has been stated that the list of candidates who are eligible for further process of selection was published on 24.03.2025 and the petitioners were not included in the said probability list for the reason that they could not get sufficient marks to be included in the probability list taking into account their performance in the written test. It is stated that a total number of 916 candidates were included in the main list, 930 candidates were included in various supplementary lists, and 34 candidates were included in the differently abled list of the probability list. So, as things stand now, the petitioners came before this Court claiming a right to be considered for the selection. Based on interim orders, they were permitted to participate in the selection process. They participated, and according to the Kerala Public Service Commission, none of them was found eligible for the further process of selection after the written test, since they did not get sufficient marks. Based on interim orders, they were permitted to participate in the selection process. They participated, and according to the Kerala Public Service Commission, none of them was found eligible for the further process of selection after the written test, since they did not get sufficient marks. The petitioners have a case that they did not get a fair opportunity to take the test. Directions have been sought for conducting a fresh test for the petitioners. Arguments are advanced regarding the above claim. There are certain factual disputes regarding the facilities that were available at the place where the written test was conducted. It is also sought to be contended that the same facilities which were made available to the other participants in the written examination were not granted to people like the petitioners, who were permitted to participate in the written test only based on the interim orders of this Court. This Court cannot go into such factual disputes since there are allegations and counter allegations regarding the facilities that are available. According to the PSC, no complaints were raised before the Public Service Commission regarding the conduct of the examination and special arrangements were made in the Headquarters Exam Centre used by the Public Service Commission for conducting several selections. In paragraph 8 of the additional counter affidavit, the details of the facilities that were provided have also been explained. This Court cannot, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , decide on such factual disputes regarding the facility at the examination centre. In the above circumstances, it is not possible to direct the Public Service Commission to conduct a re-test for persons like petitioners. It is hence not possible to grant any relief at this stage to the petitioners other than what was already granted by the interim orders in this case. The prayers to direct respondents 5 and 6 to implement Ext.P17(g) by conducting fresh examination for persons like the petitioners and to permit the petitioners to participate in the same and allow them to participate in the selection process cannot be granted at this stage. So also, there can be no declaration that the KPSC did not provide equal opportunity to petitioners to write the examination pursuant to the interim order dated 04.09.2024 in I.A.No.4/2024. The writ petition is hence dismissed.