IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16372 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SEENA T.S., ATTENDER, HIGH RANGE URBAN, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. I-556, ADIMALI P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES (GENERAL), IDUKKI. 2. THE HIGH RANGE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. I. 556, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ADIMALI P.O, IDUKKI 685 561. * ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED ADDL. R3. SUNIL KUMAR.C.B., S/O.C.G.BHASKARAN NAIR, CHALANKAL HOUSE, ADIMALI (PO), IDUKKI DISTRICT. * ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/07/08 IN I.A.8095/2008. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ R2 BY SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY ADDL.R3 BY SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO.20260/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)Nos.16372 & 20260 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Going by Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.20260 of 2008, the petitioner, after undergoing a process of selection of written test and interview on 27-12-2005, was appointed as an Attender in the society in question as per the decision of the committee issued on 30- 12-2005 and she joined duty on 2-1-2006. It has also been noticed by the Joint Registrar in that order that she continued to work till 12-4-2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin duty. By the end of 2007, the Joint Registrar approved the staff pattern for the society, including the post of Attender, which was not available until then. The bank accordingly made the selection and the additional third respondent in WP(C)No.16372 of 2008 was selected with first rank. But the fact remains that the petitioner, WPC16372&20260/08 -:2:- who had already undergone a process of selection and was appointed wayback in 2005 and had joined duty on 2-1-2006 was continuing to work for the society for nearly two years. So much so, even if a post is created and approved, the statutory authorities have to first address themselves to the question as to whether it would be in terms of justice and law to push out an incumbent already in office in the society or whether she ought to be earmarked against the post sanctioned at least from the date of sanctioning of the post. I say this because, in my view, justice is denied to the petitioner, who had been working in the establishment from 2-1-2006. Under the aforesaid circumstances, recording the submission on behalf of the society that the petitioner was re-admitted to duty abiding the directions contained in Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.20260 of 2008, these writ petitions are closed directing the Joint Registrar to hear the society, the petitioner and the additional third WPC16372&20260/08 -:3:- respondent in WP(C)No.16372 of 2008 and take a decision appropriately. I also hasten to add that the society and its committee cannot be treated to have been done any wrong either by appointing the petitioner or proceeding to make a fresh selection in view of the confusion created by the situation in hand. If any emoluments etc. due to the petitioner are yet to be released, the same will be released at the earliest. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.18.7.