IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8662 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NEELOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K51, NEELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), MEENACHIL TALUK, PALAI. *3. SHYLAMMA VINOD, W/O. VINOD, AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT KADUVAKUZHYCKAL HOUSE P.O.NEELOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL. THIRD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 20.5.2010 IN I.A. NO.5251/2010. *4. JELSON FRANCIS MATHEW S/O. MATHEW, AGED 27 YEARS VADAKKEKUTTU HOUSE, P.O.NEELOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADDL. FOURTH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.26.5.2010 IN I.A. NO.6604/2010. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY FOR ADDL.R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8662 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) and rules there under. According to the petitioner, the bank is a Class I bank and it is working in profit. The bank has a Head Office and four branches. Altogether there are 13 staff members in the bank out of which two are not available. As per the classification, the bank can appoint 30 staff members of which 17 posts are still vacant. 2. Due to the shortage of staff, the Board of Directors decided to fill up the vacancies of three attenders and one peon on 11.1.2010. Accordingly, the bank published a notification inviting applications for the said posts. Pursuant to the notification, a number of candidates applied. The President of the bank was authorised to conduct the written test and interview as per the stipulations contained in Circular No.18/91 dated 7.6.1991 and Circular No.18/94 dated 8.6.94. The said circulars have been produced as Exts.P3 and P4. 3. Accordingly, the written test was conducted on 27.2.2010 W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 2 and the interview on 12.3.2010 and a ranked list has been prepared. However, on the same day, Ext.P5 order of stay was issued by the first respondent directing that all further proceedings for the appointments be stopped. The matter remains at the said stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P5 proceedings are absolutely unjust and unsustainable. According to the counsel, the President was authorised to conduct the written test. He had engaged one E.O.Thankappan, a retired Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies for the purpose considering his knowledge and expertise in the field. Thus, according to the counsel, the stipulations in the circular have been scrupulously followed and there were no grounds for stay of the selection process. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, pursuant to a complaint alleging irregularities in the matter of the selection that was being conducted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted by the first respondent through the Assistant Registrar, Meenachil. The report of the Assistant Registrar revealed that there were no records available in the petitioner bank about the W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 3 number of applications received, the details of the applications etc. There were also no records available to show who was the “outside agency” engaged by the President for conducting the selection process. Acting on the said report of the Assistant Registrar, Ext.P5 proceedings were issued directing further proceedings to be stopped. It has been stated in Ext.P5 that the selection process was stopped only temporarily. Therefore, if the petitioner had stopped the process and replied to the first respondent promptly, a hearing could have been conducted and the issue could have been resolved. Instead, the petitioner conducted the interview and thereafter has approached this Court with the above writ petition. Therefore, the first respondent prays for the dismissal of this writ petition. 6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit disclosing the name of the person who was engaged to conduct the selection process and contending that the said person came within the scope of the expression “outside agency” contemplated by the circular. According to the petitioner, the selection process was done properly and since the ranked list has already been published, what remains is only to make the appointments. W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 4 7. Pursuant to the orders in impleading petitions I.A. No.5251/2010 & 6604/2010, additional respondents 3 and 4 have been impleaded in the writ petition. They are candidates who have not been selected for appointment. Additional respondents 3 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits producing Ext.P3 series documents and contending that the selection process was in violation of the circulars applicable and are liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard Sri. P.P.Jacob, who appears for the petitioner, Sri. K.S.Muhammed Hashim, the learned senior Government Pleader as well as Sri. C.J.Joy, the learned counsel for additional respondents 3 and 4. 9. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the said proceedings have been issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Assistant Registrar, Meenachil who had been directed to inquire into the complaints against the selection process adopted by the petitioner. The said report showed that though the President had been authorised to conduct the written test by the petitioner as per the resolution dated 5.2.2010, there were no records available in the bank to show whether the procedural formalities contemplated by the circulars applicable had W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 5 actually been complied with. It has been reported that there were no records available in the bank showing the number of applications received or other details of the application. There were also no records with the bank to show whether an “outside agency” had been engaged to conduct the written test and interview. It was in the absence of such essential details that Ext.P5 proceedings have been issued directing further proceedings to be stopped temporarily. 10. According to the petitioner, such records are available and can be produced at any time. It was also submitted that the written test and interview were conducted by a properly competent person who satisfies all the qualifications in the relevant circulars. The above assertions on the part of the counsel for the petitioner are disputed by counsel for additional respondents 3 and 4. It is submitted that the appointments are made without following any of the mandatory procedures and in such a way as to ensure that persons in whom the President or the other members were interested are selected. 11. In the nature of the allegations and counter allegations raised, it is not possible to decide the factual disputes within the contours of the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. First W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 6 respondent is sufficiently empowered and competent to go into the disputed facts and to take a decision. In fact, the case of the first respondent is that it is only because of the pendency of this writ petition that the proceedings could not be finalised till date. In the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the factual allegations raised, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings contemplated by Ext.P5 within a specified time. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings contemplated by Ext.P5 in accordance with law and the relevant circulars that are applicable, after giving an opportunity of being heard to all interested persons, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN (JUDGE ) vps W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 7 W.P.(C) No.8662/2010 8