IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 3482 of 2002(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BINU THOMAS, KARUKAYIL HOUSE, MANIMOOLI, VAZHIKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.WILSON URMESE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), MALAPPURAM. 2. THE VAZHIKADAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F 1668, MANIMOOLI, VAZHIKADAVU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. ANISH MATHEW, PEON, VAZHIKADAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO. F.1668, MANIMOOLI, VAZHIKADAVU. 4. RIAZ, PEON, VAZHIKADAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1668, MANIMOOLI, VAZHIKADAVU. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, R2 BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN, R3 & R4 BY ADV.MR.BABU S. NAIR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 3482 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for the post of Peon in the 2nd respondent Bank. A written test was conducted on 13-10-2001 and interview on 17-11-2001. A select list was prepared containing six persons out of whom respondents 3 and 4 were appointed. The petitioner challenges the appointment of respondents 3 and 4. According to the petitioner, the entire procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent was sham and it was only to facilitate appointment of respondents 3 and 4 a farce written test and interview were conducted. The petitioner would allege that the decision to appoint respondents 3 and 4 had already been taken even prior to the conduct of the written test and in fact all the local people knew that they were going to be appointed. The same also came to be true when respondents 3 and 4 were so appointed. The petitioner would submit that the entire procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent was against the procedure prescribed under law and therefore the selection and appointment are totally unsustainable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) call for the records leading to the selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4; (b) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry in the matter of selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Peons in the 2nd respondent Bank; (c) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate action on Ext. P 1 and thereby cancel the appointment of respondents 3 and 4.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent denying all the allegations. They would submit that applications for appointment to the two posts of Peons were invited by notification O.P No.3482/02 -: 2 :- published in two leading dailies, namely, Malayala Manorama and Chandrika and all the applicants, who applied pursuant to the notification, were asked to appear for a written examination on 13-10- 2001. 275 candidates appeared for the test, which was conducted by an outside agency and the outside agency so appointed conducted the examination following the procedure prescribed in that regard and prepared list of successful candidates. 22 candidates who secured minimum marks were called for the interview held on 17-11-2001. The Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent-Bank interviewed them and a rank list was prepared consisting of 6 persons, out of whom, respondents 3 and 4, who secured the first and second ranks, were appointed. According to 2nd respondent, the entire procedure was transparent and there is absolutely no reason even to suspect any malpractice in the selection and appointment. 3. I have considered the rival contentions i detail. 4. Except the bald allegations in the original petition, the petitioner has not been able to supply any material in support of the allegations raised against the selection. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations also. Therefore, on the basis of the mere allegations raised in the original petition, I do not think that I can validly set aside the appointment of respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/