IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29830 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3143, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TEEKOY. 2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K-3143 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI V.J.JOSE. BY ADV. MR.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL MR.BINU PAUL MR.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 29830 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner bank initiated proceedings for filling up two vacant posts of peons in the bank. But by Ext.P2 dated 11.10.2007, the respondent directed the petitioner not to proceed further with the selection procedure in view of certain complaints received by him. Ext.P2 was issued on 11.10.2007. But thereafter the respondent did not take any further action pursuant to Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, this is illegal and against the law laid down by this court in Elempel Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Govt. of Kerala [2000 (3) KLT 389] and Kerla Primary Co- operative Societies Association v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies [2003(1) KLT 352]. According to the petitioner, except a vague allegation regarding some complaint from somebody, there was no reason whatsoever for the respondent to interfere with the selection procedure. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that after passing an order forbearing the petitioner from continuing the selection procedure for filling up two posts in the petitioner bank, respondent had a duty to take W.P(C) No. 29830 of 2009 -2- further steps pursuant thereto and pass a final order either way expeditiously. More than two years have gone by and the respondent has not taken any further steps pursuant to Ext.P2. 4. In the above circumstances, the respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 reply and take a final decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs