IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 609 of 2009(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJIMOL S., MANNOOR THEKKATHIL, MULLAKKERI, PANMANA P.O., CHAVARA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, GENERAL, KOLLAM. 2. THE KOLLAM DISTRICT AGRO-DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (LTD.,), NO. Q.1487, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT, THE KOLLAM DISTRICT AGRO-DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (LTD.,), NO.1487, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R2,3 R1 BY GP SRI K SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 609 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner states that she was the sole candidate for selection, pursuant to a notification issued by second respondent for recruitment of Secretary. Learned Government Pleader states that his instructions are to the effect that the selection procedure is not above board. While the allegation of the petitioner is that she was the sole candidate, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 state that there was yet another candidate and it was the reason why there had to be a written test. These are matters that could gain attention of the Joint Registrar since going by the submissions of learned Government Pleader, first respondent is already aware that there are certain disputes in relation to the selection in question. The cope of Superintendence in such matters essentially empowers the first respondent to decide on such issue. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits, first respondent is directed to consider any objection of the petitioner to the selection and also as to whether the respondents 2 and 3 could further go ahead without making any appointment pursuant to the selection. Let WP(C) 609/2009 2 this be done untrammelled by anything stated in this writ petition. Writ petition ordered accordingly. Having regard to the necessity of the Society to have a Secretary, it is directed that the Joint Registrar will decide on the aforesaid issue within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, respondents 2 and 3 and petitioner and any other persons entitled to be heard, will be given an opportunity of hearing. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/25/2