IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9659 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THE PANTHEERANKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.2110, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GEN), KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9659/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP. 5693/03 K.DIS. DTD. 29.9.03 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP. 177/09 DTD. 20.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9659 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Class-I Primary Agricultural Credit Society has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings by which all further action for selection and appointment of employees to the petitioner bank has been stayed by the respondent. 2. The petitioner had invited applications for selection and appointment to three posts of Peons and one post of Night Watchman. According to the petitioner, the applications were invited in accordance with the staff pattern of the Society which is a Class-I Primary Agricultural Credit Society. 3. Pursuant to the notification, 43 applications were received, out of which, 37 were found to be in order. Therefore, hall tickets and interview tickets were sent under certificate of posting. Accordingly, on 28.2.2010, a written test was conducted. However, only 17 candidates appeared. After the written test, according to the wpc No.9659/2010 2 petitioner, there were a number of complaints about the non-receipt of hall tickets and interview call letters. On receipt of the complaints, in order to enable all candidates who were found eligible to appear for the test, the written test held was cancelled and it was decided to conduct a fresh written test and interview on 21.3.2010. However, on 20.3.2010 at about 3 p.m., Ext.P2 order of the respondent was served on the petitioner. As per Ext.P2 order, the petitioner has been directed not to conduct the test. According to the petitioner, the respondent has no authority to stay further proceedings for selection of the personnel who are absolutely essential for the petitioner to conduct its activities. According to the petitioner, there are absolutely no grounds warranting the issue of Ext.P2 order. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the same. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. According to the counter affidavit, as per Resolution No.14 dated 13.10.2008 of the Board of Directors, the petitioner bank published a notification in the Malayala Manorama and Varthamana Dailies on wpc No.9659/2010 3 30.11.2008 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Attender, Peon and Night Watchman. According to the respondent, a number of complaints were received by the authorities regarding the selection process. The complaints were sent to the Assistant Registrar (General), Kozhikode for his report. As per the report of the Assistant Registrar (General) dated 9.1.2009, it was informed that the notification in the dailies and subsequent action taken by the petitioner were in contravention of Circular No.11/99 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The circular required the society to notify the posts by giving the details of the number of posts, scale of pay, age limit, educational qualification, experience required and other details for appointment. As per Circular No.18 of 1991 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, applications to the posts shall be invited through advertisements in leading dailies having wide circulation in the area. It was found that the advertisements issued by the society were not in compliance with the requirements of Circular Nos.11/1999 and 18/1999. It is further pointed out that the bank was wpc No.9659/2010 4 running at a loss and that the present attempt to appoint additional staff would only adversely affect the financial stability of the bank. 5. Apart from the above, complaints were received by the respondents regarding various other irregularities committed in the selection process. It is pointed out that the report of the Assistant Registrar (Kozhikode) revealed that a written test was conducted on 28.2.2010 for which 17 candidates out of 37 appeared. However, when the written test was over, the bank authorities declared that the test was cancelled. The cancellation of the test was done as per resolution dated 2.3.2010 of the sub committee of the selection. Following the cancellation, an advertisement was published in the Mathrubhumi Daily on 16.3.2010, wherein it was informed that the written test and interview for the above posts would be held on 23.3.2010. At the same time, in another advertisement in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 17.3.2010, it was notified that the written test was proposed to be held on 21.3.2010. According to the respondent, on examining the above discrepancies revealed by the report of the wpc No.9659/2010 5 Assistant Registrar (General), Kozhikode, the respondent was convinced that the action of the petitioner in the matter of conduct of the selection process was against the relevant rules and that the procedure adopted also violated the credibility of the Co-operative Institution. The respondent therefore suspected that the Board of Directors of the bank really wanted to appoint their candidates through the back door in the guise of an open competition. In view of the above, as per Ext.P2, the selection process has been stayed by the respondents. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the written test conducted on 28.2.2010 was cancelled only for the reason that very few candidates had participated in the written test and therefore, the bank wanted to give an opportunity to all the candidates to appear in the test. It is pointed out that no particular provision of law has been pointed out to have been violated by the petitioner in conducting the selection process and therefore, Ext.P2 has been issued without any justification. The bank is in need of staff and therefore, the delay in making the appointments was causing needless hardship and trouble wpc No.9659/2010 6 to the petitioner. 7. I have heard Mr.Swathi Kumar who appears for the petitioner as well as the Senior Government Pleader Mr.Muhammed Hashim. 8. Ext.P2 is an order by which the respondent has stayed the selection process initiated by the petitioner. It is stated in Ext.P2 that soon after the written test and interview on 28.2.2010, the petitioner bank had returned the hall ticket, answer papers etc. of the candidates and had declared that the examination itself was cancelled. Subsequently, the petitioner had published two advertisements in the Mathrubhumi news paper intimating that the test would be conducted on 23.3.2010 and thereafter the petitioner intimated that the test had been advanced to 21.3.2010. On getting the report of the Assistant Registrar (General), Kozhikode who inquired into the procedure adopted by the petitioner and reported about the discrepancies, the respondent has come to the conclusion that the petitioner's actions were not justified. It is in the above circumstances, a stay of the selection process has been issued by the respondent. In the wpc No.9659/2010 7 circumstances narrated in the counter affidavit, there is nothing to find fault with the impugned action. The circumstances are certainly sufficient to justify the conclusion that has been drawn by the respondent. The respondent has only stayed the selection process. I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P2 justifying an interference with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I also notice that Ext.P2 is an appealable order under Section 83(1)(j) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/