Antony Dominic, J.
Ext.P3 is a notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting application for the post of Branch Manager in District Co- operative Banks. The petitioner was an applicant to that post and her application was rejected and the same was communicated to her by Ext.P6. The reasons stated in Ext.P6 was that she did not have the prescribed experience of three years service and therefore she was ineligible. It was challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition was filed. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed.
2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Although the learned counsel for the appellant contended that a mistake committed by the Assistant Registrar, who issued Ext.P7 certificate indicating that the petitioner had commenced regular service only on 1.3.2010, cannot be relied on to reject the candidature of the petitioner, we are unable to accept the said submission. Note 2 of the notification provides that the candidates who applied for the post should obtain the Service Certificate from the Assistant Registrar (General) showing the details of the service of the applicant, which render them, eligible to apply for the post and shall produce the same when required by the Commission. Admittedly, the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post, inter alia, requires that the applicant should be a regular employee who has completed the three years regular service and continuing in service in any cadre in the Co-operative Bank, which in this case is a primary society. It was in compliance of the above, the appellant obtained Ext.P7 which in clear terms show that she commenced regular service only on 1.3.2010. Therefore, going by the prescriptions in the notification which was issued by the Public Service Commission, on 1.3.2010 appellant was plainly an ineligible candidate and it was, therefore, that the Public Service Commission has rightly rejected her candidature. It is true that the counsel for the petitioner referred Ext.P1 and service book of the appellant to indicate that the appellant had more than three years service as on 1.3.2010 when the notification was issued. Even if the said contention is accepted, fact remains that in the Service Certificate produced by the appellant in proof of her eligibility to be considered for the post her regular service commenced only on 1.3.2010. Therefore, the appointment order or the service book cannot be relied on to disprove the contents of Ext.P7 obtained and produced by the appellant herself.
We do not find any illegality in the decision of the Public Service Commission or circumstances calling for interference of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge