IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10569 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOPIDAS.T., S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, THEKKEDATH VEEDU, NELLIKKAD, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SREEJA.T.C., 34 YEARS, THARAKKAL HOUSE, THALIKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR MR.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU.T.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR. 2. THE MOOSPET SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.682, MOOSPET ROAD, THRISSUR-5., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R2 MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10569/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the NOTIFICATION NO.6/2008 DATED 05/04/2008. P2 : COPY OF the CALL LETTER DATED 10/11/2008 FOR INTERVIEW RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF THE RANK LIST. P4 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.69/2008 DATED 18/10/2008 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIE SOCIETIES. P5 : COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE OF SOCIETIES COVERED UNDER SECTION 80(B) OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/03/2009 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. P7 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. P8 : COPY OF the REPRESENTATION DATED 23/03/2009. P9 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES SHOWING THE ANNUAL GENERAL BODY OF the YEAR 2008. P10 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MATHRUBHUMI THOZHILVARTHA ON 14/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2 : COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED LIST OF 328 CANDIDATES FURNISHED BY the CO-OPERATIVE EXAMINATION BOARD. R2(a) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LETTER DATED 10/03/2009 MADE BY SMT.SONY.T.S. TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R2(b) : COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.25 IN THE METTING OF the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF the BANK DATED 19/03/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.10569 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Five posts in the cadre of Junior Clerk under the 2nd respondent Bank were notified by the Co-operative Service Examination Board as per Ext.P1. The petitioners were two of the applicants. They were successful in the written test and were called for interview and Ext.P2 is the intimation issued to the 1st petitioner. The interview was concluded in the first half of December, 2008. On conclusion of the interview, Ext.P3 rank list was published on 27/01/2009, and the petitioners were at Rank Nos. 2 & 3. 2. Appointments were not made and the 1st petitioner made Ext.P6 complaint to the 1st respondent, and Ext.P7 is its receipt. They placed reliance on Exts.P4 & P5. Ext.P4 is a circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, that the selection process and appointment should be completed on an expeditious manner, and that too on a time bound basis. Ext.P5 is the procedure followed by the Examination Board, which provides that appointments should be made by the Committee from the select list WP(C) No.10569/2009 -2- within a period of one month from the date of its publication and that the same shall be reported to the Board. 3. The petitioners submit that the Assistant Registrar, before whom the matter is made over, had received Exts.P6 & P7, and issued notice to the 2nd respondent. When an enquiry was conducted pursuant to Exts.P6 & P7, the Bank appeared and submitted that it was only because of the declaration of parliamentary election and the implementation of Code of Conduct that the appointment could not be made. The Bank assured the Assistant Registrar that once the election is over, necessary steps for appointment will be taken. Accordingly, the complaint was closed and the matter was reported by the Assistant Registrar to the 1st respondent as per his communication No.539/09 dated 10/06/2009, a copy of which has been made available in Court today. Even thereafter, the appointment was not forthcoming, and it was therefore the writ petition is filed. 4. The petitioners submit that there are five vacancies, which were notified to be filled up, available for making appointments from out of Ext.P3 rank list. According to them, while the posts are left vacant, the employees are working against those WP(C) No.10569/2009 -3- posts on daily wages, and further requirements are by deploying sub staff. 5. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that two persons are working as clerks on daily wages and one sub staff, and that the clerks are not selected by the Examination Board. Therefore, the allegation that daily wagers are working as clerks is not disputed by the Bank. 6. However, the delay in making appointment from Ext.P3 rank list is sought to be explained by the Bank referring to Exts.R2 (a) & R2(b). Ext.R2(a) is a complaint dated 10/03/2009 received from one Smt.Soni.T.S to the President of the 2nd respondent, making allegations against the manner in which the interview was conducted. It is stated that on receipt of the complaint, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors in their Meeting held on 19/03/2009, when the President was authorized to examine the matter in detail, and to furnish a report to the Board. It is stated that the President is conducting the enquiry and the report is awaited and that pending decision on Exts.R2(a) & R2(b), further action on Ext.P3 is not taken. WP(C) No.10569/2009 -4- 7. Thus the inaction on the part of the Bank in making appointment from Ext.P3 rank list is justified. Relying on the enquiry that is pending, the question therefore, is whether there is any bonafides in the stand now taken by the Bank. 8. Facts show that the interview pursuant to Ext.P2 was held in the first week of December, 2008 and Rank list was published on 27/01/2009. The alleged complaint (Ext.R2(a)) is dated 10/03/2009, and the allegations in the complaint is regarding the manner in which the interview was conducted by the Board. If a candidate, who had participated in the interview in December, 2008, had any genuine complaint about the manner in which the interview was conducted by the Board, one would expect him to lodge a complaint immediately thereafter. In this case, not only that the complaint was not made immediately, and it was not even made soon after the publication of the rank list. Therefore, on the face of it, Ext.R2(a) complaint is not one inspiring confidence. The stand now taken by the Bank that they are awaiting for the conclusion of the enquiry is also not free from doubt. This is for the reason that pursuant to Exts.P6 & P7, when the Bank participated in the enquiry before the Assistant Registrar, the Bank justified the WP(C) No.10569/2009 -5- delay on the ground of election and the implementation of Code of Conduct, and the Bank had also assured the Assistant Registrar that immediately on the conclusion of the election, appointments will be made. On the other hand, if what stood in the way of the Bank in making appointments was Ext.R2(a) complaint dated 10/07/2009 & Ext.R2(b) resolution dated 19/03/2009, the Bank would have certainly disclosed that fact to the Assistant Registrar. Having not done so, I am not persuaded to accept the version of the Bank that it was because of the complaint and the pending enquiry that they are not making appointments. 9. I am satisfied that the action of the Bank in dealing with the matter is absolutely illegal and unjustifiable. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition directing that necessary directions in this behalf, compelling the 2nd respondent Bank to make appointments from Ext.P3 rank list, will be issued by the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent shall ensure compliance of the direction, on production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg