IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 21940 of 2007(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE NADUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.NADUVIL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN, ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KANNUR. 2. BINOY JOSEPH, PEON, NADUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARUVANCHAL BRANCH, P.O.KARUVANCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21940/2007-J: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STAFF PATTERN OF THE BANK APPROVED BY THE R.1. DTD. 01/04/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FEEDER CATEGORY RULES OF THE BANK. EXT.P.3: LIST OF EMPLOYEES AS ON 31/03/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DIRECTION DTD. 03/07/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.21940 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 is an action by the Joint Registrar interfering with the service matters of the petitioner society. The dispute is as to whether the second respondent Binoy Joseph or yet another person namely M.J.Shiny was entitled to be promoted to a particular post. That issue cannot fall for any orders at the hands of the Joint Registrar exercising powers of the Registrar, because, it falls within the exclusive domain for arbitration in the light of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, as has been held by this Court in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar [2006 (1) KLT 199], affirmed by the Division Bench in Raveendran v. State of Kerala [2007 (3) KLT 558]. With the availability of such remedy and on the basis of the express exclusion of all other authorities in terms of Section 69, the impugned Ext.P4 is void and non est and cannot stand. It is, however, pointed out that there is a likelihood of two vacancies WPC.21940/07 Page numbers being available as of now and the second respondent and the other candidate could be accommodated. Their entitlement to such posts will depend upon their qualification with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancy. Preserving opportunity of the petitioner to do so, this writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext.P4. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.