IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14211 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MINI.K., D/O.VIJAYAN, KOLAYIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-19. 2. K.DHANESH KUMAR, KUNDATHARA HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-19. 3. PRABINDAS K.P., NAVAPRABHA HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-19. 4. NIDHEESH N.P., NOTTIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE-19. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOZHIKODE. 2. PANTHEERANKAVE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2110, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, PANTHEERANKAVE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 019. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14211 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7, an order passed by the 1st respondent setting aside the selection conducted by the 2nd respondent society to the posts notified by Ext.P1, issued by the Bank. 2. As is discernible from Ext.P7, the reason stated for interfering with Ext.P1 and the selection conducted, is that the said notification and the consequential action taken was in contravention of Circular 11/99 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 23/03/1999. The circular required the Society to notify the posts by giving the details of posts, number of posts, scale of pay, age limit, educational qualification, experience required and other details for appointment. It is stated in Ext.P7 that apart from giving designation and the number of posts available, rest of the requirements of circular 11/99 have not been complied with by the 2nd respondent in the process undertaken by them. Such conclusion of the 1st respondent was based on the investigation that was conducted by the Assistant Registrar. WP(C) No.14211/2009 -2- 3. In this writ petition, the main contention raised by the petitioners, who claim to be the selected candidates, is that the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P1, in view of the amendment to Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 4. It is evident from Ext.P1 that apart from giving the designation and number of posts available, other particulars which are required to be given, have not been given. Even the petitioners, who are the successful applicants, have no case that the advertisement issued by the Society, was in compliance with the requirements of Circular 11/99. Therefore, there is a patent failure on the part of the 2nd respondent to comply with the circular and the Bank has not come forward by challenging Ext.P7 so far. In the light of the admitted failure of circular 11/99, I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P7 on the technical point that the 1st respondent did not have jurisdiction to interfere with Ext.P1 and the consequential action that was taken by the 2nd respondent. For these reasons, I am not persuaded to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg