IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19152 of 2010(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THE PRESIDENT, NANMINDA RURAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.NO.D.1988, NANMINDA PO, KOZHIKODE- 673 613. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, VANCHI POORFUND ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. K.M. RAVI, THALIYACHA HOUSE, NANMINDA PO, KOZHIKODE- 673 613. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.19152 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of Nanminda Rural Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The second respondent was appointed as an Attender of the Society. While he was working as a Senior Clerk of the Society, the Managing Committee initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. An enquiry was conducted and finally, the second respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 3.12.2009. Though he had filed an appeal challenging his dismissal before the Managing Committee, the appeal was also dismissed. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Society retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.12.2009. The second respondent claimed that he was entitled to claim promotion to the post of Secretary. Staking the above claim, he had filed WP(C)No.8181 of 2010 before this court. That writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment. It has been observed in Ext.P6 that the claim of the second respondent, if any for promotion can arise only if he succeeds in getting his dismissal set Wpc 19152/2010 2 aside. Therefore, it has been found in Ext.P6 that the claim put forward by the petitioner at that stage was actually premature. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to agitate his claim at the appropriate time. 2. Ext.P6 judgment was passed on 26.5.2010. On 3.6.2010, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram has passed an interim order, Ext.P7 granting an order of stay of appointment of a new Secretary to the vacant post available in the petitioner Society. Ext.P7 order has been passed in ARC No.51 of 2010 filed by the second respondent. Obviously, Ext.P7 has been issued without noticing that this court had already dismissed the writ petition filed by the second respondent. Ext.P7 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. In the nature of the relief that I am proposing to grant, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 4. It has been found in Ext.P6, a writ petition filed by the second respondent himself that he has no right to claim promotion to the post of Secretary of the petitioner's society, since he has already been dismissed from service. Having suffered Ext.P6 judgment, the second respondent has obtained Ext.P7 order from the first respondent. There Wpc 19152/2010 3 is nothing in Ext.P7 to show that attention of the Arbitration Court had been drawn to the existence of Ext.P6 judgment. Since Ext.P7 is only an interim order, I do not propose to interfere with the same. It is open to the petitioner to produce a copy of Ext.P6 judgment before the first respondent and to seek for vacating the order, Ext.P7. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that notice has been served on the petitioner intimating the posting of ARC No.51 of 2010 on 7.7.2010 at the Calicut sitting of the first respondent. Therefore, it is sufficient that the first respondent is directed to consider the question as to the continuance of Ext.P7 interim order on 7.7.2010 itself. The petitioner may move the court for the above purpose by producing necessary documents. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the contentions of the petitioner against continuance of Ext.P7 interim order on 7.7.2010 and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk