IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 28842 of 2006(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.P. ASHOKAN, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SRI.UNNI. K.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM. 2. PARAKKADAVU SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD. NO.2843, PARAKKADAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT. *ADDL.R3. JOSHY.T.V, THEVASSERY HOUSE, KURUMASSERY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R4. BINDU.B., KUNNATHUKUDY HOUSE, KURUMASSERY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R5. BINDU.K.S., KALLATTU HOUSE, KURUMASSERY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 TO R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/10/2007 IN I.A. 14141/2007. R1. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN, R2. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN ADV.SRI.NISHIL.P.S. R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28842/2006-H: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P.1: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 18/91 DTD. 07/06/91 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. EXT.P.2: PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE R.1. DTD. 02/11/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST FURNISHED BY THE OUTSIDE AGENCY M/S. JAYAME & COMPANY, ANGAMALY. EXT.R2.A1: THE RESULT SHEET OF THE INTERVIEW HELD BY THE DIRECTOR T.D. VISWANATHAN. EXT.R2.A2: THE RESULT SHEET OF THE INTERVIEW HELD BY THE DIRECTOR K.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN. EXT.R2.A3: THE RESULT SHEET OF THE INTERVIEW HELD BY THE DIRECTOR M.K. PRAKASAN. EXT.R2.A4: THE RESULT SHEET OF THE INTERVIEW HELD BY THE DIRECTOR C.A. PAULACHAN. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE RESULT SHEET OF THE CANDIDATES PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE MARKS SECURED IN THE WRITTEN TEST AND THE AVERAGE OF THE MARKS SECURED IN THE INTERVIEW. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE RANK LIST PREPARED BY THE BANK. //TRUE COPY// prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.28842 of 2006 ================================== Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The second respondent, a Service Co-operative Bank advertised for selection and appointment of Peons and Watchmen. Petitioner, a member of that Bank, filed the writ petition alleging mala fides and corruption. He enumerated the names of certain persons in the third paragraph of the writ petition and pleaded that those persons are likely to be selected. At the stage of admission, an interim order was issued enabling the selection to continue. The making of appointment was interdicted. Thereafter, selection was held. Written test and interview were conducted. A firm of industrial and tax consultants conducted the selection. The results have been placed on record along with an affidavit and petition. WPC28842/2006 -:2:- 2. The mere fact that the persons enumerated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition obtained high ranks in the selection, in my view, does not by itself vitiate the selection since it cannot be concluded that their selection was actuated. Those persons were already working with the establishment on daily wages. They would have therefore gained experience and would have found suitable by the selectors. Therefore, simply because the counter affidavit of the second respondent contains a statement that those persons would have applied and had a chance of being selected does not by itself call for drawing any inference against those candidates. 3. Not only that, the petitioner is not a candidate. There are other candidates who may not come within the zone of appointment, going by the select list. None has challenged the selection. WPC28842/2006 -:3:- 4. The materials and pleadings in the writ petition are insufficient to conclude that the impugned selection is mala fide and it is to be set aside at the instance of a person who is only a member of the Society, not even a candidate. If at all there could be any grievance against the selection list which is already published, that can be only with the candidates who had participated in the selection. It is improper to entertain the challenge at the instance of others. This view is also supported by the law laid by the Apex Court. In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is hence dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.