IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 13924 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE MUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1284, MUTTOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CYRIAC JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), IDUKKI. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. C.M.JOSEPH, CHARAKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SUNISH PRABHAKARAN, KULETHUMKAL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. BABY.P.V., POOCHAKUZHYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. K.M.ANWAR, KOTHAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. K.V.JOY, KOTTAMKOTTIL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 8. T.V.THANKACHAN, NEDUMPARAIKAL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R7 ADV. SRI.AT.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).13924/2006-G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPROVED FEEDER CATEGORY RULES OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/10/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THEN MINISTER OF CO-OPERATION, KERALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF REQUISITION DATED 04/05/2006 ISSUED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF RESOLUTION NOS.224/3 TO 228/8 DATED 16/05/2006 OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P5: COPY OF PETITION DATED 24/05/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF PETITION DATED 24/05/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF VOUCHER DATED 26/05/2006 OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING FINANCIAL POSITION AS ON 2005 MARCH 31ST OF THE BANK. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE OUTSTANDING FINANCIAL POSITION AS ON 2006 MARCH 31ST OF THE BANK. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2005 OF THE BANK. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE BANK AS ON 2005 MARCH 31ST AND 2006 MARCH 31ST. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE BANK. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/07/2006 SENT BY THE CO- OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PEITIONER. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.785/10 DATED 16/08/2006 OF THE BANK. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2007 OF THE PETITIONER BANK. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13924 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, going by the impugned Ext.P8, had not obtained approval of the Government or the Registrar for re- classification as a class II society. The stand of the Assistant Registrar, as disclosed by Ext.P8, is that the petitioner can be treated only as a class IV society. 2. The petitioner contends that it had a staff strength of 17, of which, 11 retired leaving the skeleton support staff which requires to be immediately augmented. It conducted a selection procedure by inviting applications with the junction of the State Co-operative Recruitment Board and following interim orders of this Court, interviews were conducted and selection lists were prepared. But the fundamental issue would be as to whether the petitioner could have a particular staff strength, identifying it as a class II or a class IV society. This is all the more so because the contesting respondent, a board member, points out that the WPC.13924/06 Page numbers bank had various ancillary activities, including a stationary shop and a textile shop. The staff therein are also identified for the purpose of determining the total staff strength. 3. In the aforesaid scenario, I have considered whether the selection process has been transparent and I find that there is no ground to hold that the selection procedure undertaken warrants interference on any count. Therefore, the selection lists prepared on the basis of the test and interview have to stand. With that position in hand, what is required is for the competent authority to consider whether the society is to be re-classified as a class II society and as to what could be the staff strength, to which, appointments could be made from the select lists already prepared, except the post of secretary which is also lying vacant. Hence, while leaving the petitioner with liberty to appoint the secretary, the first respondent is directed to take up the case of the petitioner for consideration of re-classification and decide thereon within a period of 45 days from now, so that further appointments could be made to see that the staff strength is WPC.13924/06 Page numbers appropriately brought up to ensure that the petitioner society, which is already limping, will have appropriate staff strength. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.13/8.