IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 26864 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TINYMOL.J., D/O.JOSEPH.C.A, 'TINYSADANAM', CHEMMAKKADU P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM 691 603. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ULIYACOVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.Q.1003, ULIYACOVIL, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN,SC,CO-OP.SERVICE EXAM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UPFOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.26864 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Prayer sought for in this writ petition is mainly to quash Exts.P5 and P7, in so far as it relates to filling up of the two vacancies of junior clerks in the service of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner also seeks a direction requiring the 3rd respondent to fill up the vacancies from Ext.P2 ranked list. 2. Facts of the case are that, Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the second respondent Board for filling up vacancies in the 58 societies mentioned therein. At Sl.No.8 is the 3rd respondent Society, where there were two vacancies of Junior clerks. In response to Ext.P1, petitioner submitted an application to the aforesaid vacancies. Candidates were called for a written test which was held by the 2nd respondent on 28.1.2006. Finally on 4.4.2006 WP(c).No.26864/08 2 the 2nd respondent sent a list of 209 candidates to the 3rd respondent for conducting interview. 3. On 3.6.2006 the 3rd respondent resolved to conduct interview of the 209 candidates and scheduled the same on 12th, 13th and 15th August, 2006. According to the petitioner, on 3.6.2006 itself, two Directors of the 3rd respondent made a complaint to the Vigilance Department alleging that the Chairman and Members of the 2nd respondent had .accepted bribe and included certain ineligible candidates in the list forwarded by them. On complaints so made, an enquiry was ordered by the Vigilance Department. During its pendency 3rd respondent conducted the interview as scheduled and forwarded a list with the marks to the 2nd respondent for preparing the consolidated ranked list as required under Rule 182. 4. It is stated that, Ext.P2 raked list was accordingly prepared and was published on 24.5.2008. In the meanwhile the Vigilance Department submitted Ext.P6 report, rejecting WP(c).No.26864/08 3 the allegations leveled by the Directors against the Chairman and Members of the 2nd respondent Board. It is also vaguely suggested that the complaints could have been made by the members of the Board of Directors of the Society, for escaping from the legal consequences of having delayed the interview. On receipt of Ext.P6, the first respondent issued Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, the first respondent ordered cancellation of the ranked list for the reason that the Society did not conduct the interview within the time stipulated in Rule 182. It is directed that the amounts realized from the candidates will be recovered in the manner as provided in Section 68 and refunded. It is at that stage this writ petition was filed. 5. Subsequently when fresh steps were taken for filling up the vacancies by issuing Ext.P7, producing the same, the petitioner got the writ petition amended and this court stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 for a period of 2 months by order dated 7.4.2009. It is at this stage the writ petition is coming up for final hearing. WP(c).No.26864/08 4 6. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit, justifying Ext.P5 and mainly relying on the provisions contained in Rule 182 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The 3rd respondent Society has not filed any counter affidavit. 7. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent and the counsel who appeared for respondents 2 and 3. In my view the matter is covered by the provisions of Rule 182 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. 8. The Sub Rule (V) of Rule 182provides that, on receipt of the list of successful candidates in the written test from the Examination Board, the Committee shall conduct interview of the candidates within 2 months from the date of such receipt and return the list to the Examination Board, noting the marks secured by each candidates in the interview within a period of 2 weeks. In this case pleadings show that the Board forwarded list of 209 candidates on 4.4.06 and further the committee resolved to conduct interview on 12th, 13th and 15th August, WP(c).No.26864/08 5 2006 by its resolution dated 3.6.2006. Admittedly this is beyond the two months period specified in Sub Rule(V)of Rule 185. If that be so, there is non-compliance with the time limit prescribed in Sub Rule (V) referred to above. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank V. Deputy Registrar (2008(4)KLT 220). According to him, in view of the law laid down in that judgment, the list is not liable for cancellation even if there is non compliance with the time frame prescribed in Rule 182(V) of the KCS Rules. 10. However, having closely read the judgment I am not inclined to accept the plea of the counsel. The judgment shows that this court has held that the time frame prescribed in the rules are to be applied diligently but however exceptionally exceptional situations could be a ground on which the delayed conduct of the interview could be justified. Thereafter, after adverting to the facts, the learned judge directed that the interview be conducted even though it was WP(c).No.26864/08 6 beyond the two months period specified in he Rules. 11. Understanding the judgment as above, I am inclined to think that although generally, in all cases, the time frame is to be strictly followed. However, if the Society is in a position to satisfy this court, the bona fides of the justifications for the belated conduct of the interview or if a candidate like the petitioner is able to satisfy this court that for bona fide or mala fide reasons the society had delayed the interview, this court will be justified in directing that in such circumstances, the selection process should go on or that the list should not be cancelled. 12. Question is whether, the petitioner has made out such a case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a false complaint was made to the Vigilance and investigation was ordered and that was made use of by the members of the committee of the society to delay the interview. However, a reading of Ext.P6 vigilance report shows that, according to the Vigilance Department the complaint could have been made by WP(c).No.26864/08 7 the members of the Committee in an attempt to avoid the consequences of having delayed the selection process. On an anxious perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition I am unable to find out any pleadings according the society of having delayed the interview to defeat the candidates like the petitioner. If that be so, the time frame as provided under Rule 182(V) of the KCS Rules ought to have been complied with and its non-compliance should result in cancellation of the selection process. Consequently the view taken by the Government in Ext.P5 must be upheld and do so. In the light of this conclusion the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Necessarily, therefore Ext.P5 deserves to be upheld and consequently writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.26864/08 8