IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 2023 of 2008 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27557/2007 Dated 15/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 4TH RESPONDENT: 1. SONY THOMAS, PHARMACIST, NEETHI MEDICAL STORE, THE KIZHATHADIYOOR SERVICE, CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PALA, RESIDING AT MOONGAMAKKAL HOUSE, MANALAMKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. LEELAMMA G., DO. DO. RESIDING AT KALARAKAL HOUSE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. JANET T.PAUL, SALES WOMAN, DO. DO. RESIDING AT MADATHANIPARAMBIL, AMAYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. KIZHATHADIYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1995, PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER FOR R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.889 of 2005 & W.A.No.2023 of 2008 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Koshy, J. In the year 1998, Government permitted 100 Primary Co-operative Societies to open Neethi Medical Stores attached to Taluk Hospitals, District Hospitals and Medical Colleges. The fourth respondent was entrusted to conduct the Neethi Medical Store attached to Pala Taluk Hospital and the Neethi Medical Store started functioning on 1.11.1998. The fourth respondent invited applications to the two sanctioned posts of Pharmacist and Salesmen from qualified persons. It was provided that appointment will be made only after written test and interview. The petitioners succeeded and they were appointed. Petitioners 1 and 2 were fully qualified to the posts. Their appointments were disapproved. Though they were appointed on a consolidated pay, Bank decided to WA 2023/08 2 give them a regular scale. By Exhibit P1 order, the Joint Registrar (General) approved the posts. The Joint Registrar also noticed that they were selected as per the directions in the circulars involved after conducting the written test and interview and the store was running on profit. After sanctioning the posts, the Bank was allowed to give them scales with retrospective effect, as they were working on a consolidated pay from 1998 onwards. Accordingly, Exhibit P2 order was issued by the Bank. By Exhibit P3, the Joint Registrar informed that regularisation of their service in a scale of pay was illegal and therefore, excess pay should be recovered from them. By Exhibit P4, it was informed on behalf of the Registrar that the earlier order (Exhibit P1) is cancelled. The learned single Judge found that Exhibit P1 order was rendered by the Joint Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar. So, the Registrar had no WA 2023/08 3 authority to take back Exhibit P1 and Exhibits P3 and P4 orders were quashed. 2. It is submitted that as per Annexure-A1 order dated 19.3.1999 Government have fixed the qualifications, number of posts and amount of consolidated pay. Subsequently, the Joint Registrar issued Exhibit P1 in 2005. It is admitted that the petitioners were having qualifications and they were working from 1998 till date against the sanctioned posts. It was implemented by Exhibit P2. The learned single Judge held that the Joint Registrar has passed Exhibit P1 in the capacity as Registrar and that cannot be quashed by the Registrar by Exhibits P3 ad P4. It was cancelled even without a notice. This appeal is filed with a long delay of 265 days. In the affidavit for condoning the delay only ground urged is that time was taken by the authorities to take a decision to file appeal. Only a routine affidavit is filed WA 2023/08 4 without disclosing any details. We are not satisfied with the reasons stated to condone the delay. Hence the delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 14th October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv