IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27493 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHERIFF VADAKKAYIL, S/O. HAMSA, VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, ARAKKAL, POST THENNALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THENNALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., POST VALAKULAM, MELE KOZHICHENA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, TENNALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,POST VALAKULAM, MELE KOZHICHENA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,POST VALAKULAM, MELE KOZHICHENA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 27493 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a temporary employee of the 1st respondent society. By Ext.P5 circular, the 1st respondent society has published the decision taken in the meeting of the managing committee of the bank taken on 17.9.2009. In that circular it has been stated that all temporary employees of the society except sweepers, watchmen and salesmen would be terminated from service with effect from 1.10.2009. The petitioner is challenging the same. According to him, the said decision has been taken only in view of the Section 65 enquiry which has been ordered against the society. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working for more than four years in the society and it is violative of principles of natural justice to terminate his service without any notice. The petitioner also submits that it is discriminatory to terminate the service of the petitioner, when other similarly situated employees are retained in service. W.P(C) No. 27493 of 2009 -2- 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner is a temporary employee. For terminating the service of a temporary employee, it is not necessary to issue any notice or to comply with other mandatory procedure. Whether it is as a result of the impending Section 65 enquiry or not, in so far as admittedly the petitioner is a temporary employee and the 1st respondent society does not need the services of the petitioner any more, the petitioner cannot insist that the petitioner should be continued in service. As far as allegation of discrimination is concerned, specific reason is mentioned in Ext.P5 for retaining others who are doing essential work. In the above circumstance, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs