IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23814 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BEENA.K., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED RAFI, CHANDANA PARAMBIL HOUSE, SEETHATHODE P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. PRAKASH.P.SASI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SASI P.K., PUSHPAMANGALAM, KOCHUKOICKAL P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SUJITHMON.K, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.P.D.BABY, KALASHAKUZHIYIL VEETTIL, MOONUKALLU, SEETHTHODE P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SUNITHA.V., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.K.KUNJUMON, EDAPPUKALLIL HOUSE, ANGAMOOZHY P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), RANNI. 4. THE SEETHATHODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.Q-42, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SEETHATHODE P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. /2/ 5. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SEETHATHODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.Q-42, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SEETHATHODE P.O., RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. K.U.JANESH KUMAR, S/O.UTHAMAN, KALAYIL, KOCHUKOIKKAL P.O., SEETHATHODE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 7. GIRISH KUMAR, S/O.RAJAPPAN, MAVUNILKKUNNATHIL, KOTTAMONPARA P.O., SEETHATHODE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23814 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent invited application for two posts of Peon and the petitioners also have applied. It is stated that without inviting them for a written test or interview, selection process was completed and appointments were made. It is challenging the appointments so made the writ petition is filed. In my view, the petitioners have a statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and it is for the petitioners to raise a dispute and prove their contention adducing evidence. Writ Petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/