IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 3913 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF THE MELUKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 3183, MELUKAVUMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SUNNY MATHEW. BY ADVS. MR.P.V.BABY, MR.R.KIRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. EAPEN DOMINIC, THEKKEKANDATHIL HOUSE, MELUKAVUMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. K.S. RAJEEV, KUNNEL HOUSE, MELUKAVUMATTOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KURIAN, MR.MATHEW B. KURIAN, MR.K.T.THOMAS, R2 BY ADV. MR.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3913/2009-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROGRESS STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER BANK PUBLISHED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT 2006-07. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LOAN AMOUNT DUES COMMITTED BY THE R.1. ALONG WITH HIS WIFE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 05/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 09/12/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.35500/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE STAFF PATTERN OF THE PETITIONER BANK ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 529 DTD. 23/12/2008 OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 565 DTD. 05/01/2009 OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 08/01/2009. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 22/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO ADV. TOMS GEORGE, ERATTUPETTA. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/01/2009 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE CONTAINING CLAUSE 67 OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 65 DTD. 26/04/2002 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING IN ITEM NO. 9 DTD. 16/11/2008 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. K.876, PALA. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/04/1996 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 28/06/1995 MADE BY THE TRAVANCORE RUBBER MARKETING & PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.K.876, PALA TO THE R.3. ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE R3. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.8 DTD. 16/11/2008 OF THE GENERAL BODY OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION DTD. 25/11/2008 OF THE PETITIONER BANK. W.P.(C). NO.3913/2009-N: RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 08/09/2008 SUBMITTED JOINTLY BY THE 4 MEMBERS AND A COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 24/07/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TO THE R3. EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 08/09/08 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT AND THREE OTHERS BEFORE THE R.4. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE BANK. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE BANK FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 16/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.3 HEREIN AND 11 OTHERS BEFORE THE R.3. IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 17/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 4 HEREIN AND 14 OTHERS BEFORE THE R.3. IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 884 OF THE MELUKAVU SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK DTD. 29/12/1998. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3913 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The Board of management of the Melukavu Service Co- operative Bank represented by its President is the petitioner in this writ petition. 2. Bereft of the details, the facts of the case are that Ext.P3 is a notice issued by the 3rd respondent calling upon the Bank to offer its explanation to the allegations mentioned therein. Ext.P4 is the reply. At that stage, apprehending that the Society is likely to be superseded, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.35500/08 before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing that the 3rd respondent will hear the petitioner and take a final decision on the proceedings commenced as per Ext.P3 referred to above. 3. Subsequent to the judgment and while the matter was pending, by Exts.P7 and P8, the petitioner resolved to fill up three posts of junior clerks and one post of peon. Accordingly the vacancy of Junior Clerks was reported to the Selection Board for conducting written test and Ext.P9 notification was issued inviting WPC 3913/09 :2 : applications to the post of Peon. Petitioner submits that in response to Ext.P9, various applications were received and an external expert was appointed to conduct the written test, which was held on 27/1/2009. Meantime, it is stated that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 3rd respondent, on which the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on 28/1/2009. Making reference to the complaint and the report, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P11 order directing that pending final orders on Ext.P3 pursuant to Ext.P5, appointment in pursuance to Rxt.P9 shall not be made by the petitioner. 4. As is evident from Ext.P11 itself, hearing pursuant to Ext.P5 was also scheduled on 12/2/2009. While so, on receipt of Ext.P11 order, this writ petition was filed on 4/2/2009 and an interim order of stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 was obtained. Therefore, as at present, proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice and Ext.P5 judgment still remain inconclusive and further proceedings for appointment in pursuance to Ext.P9 vacancy notification also remains sustained. It is in these circumstances the Managing Committee is seeking to WPC 3913/09 :3 : quash Exts.P3 and P11. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 5. I heard the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 6. In so far as the prayer to quash Ext.P3 is concerned, as already stated, after filing Ext.P4 reply, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.35500/08 resulting in Ext.P5 judgment. In that judgment, the 3rd respondent was directed to hear the petitioner and pass final orders on Ext.P3 adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 reply. Admittedly, final orders in pursuance to Ext.P5 has not been passed due to the interim order passed in this writ petition and the proceedings remain inconclusive. If that be so, the prayer made at this stage to quash Ext.P3 cannot be considered and the petitioner will have to await final orders which are to be passed by the Joint Registrar. Therefore, the prayer to quash Ext.P3 is only to be rejected and I do so. However, it is directed that the Joint Registrar shall conclude the proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P5 in the manner as directed in Ext.P5 judgment and pass orders, as expeditiously as WPC 3913/09 :4 : possible. 7. The other grievance highlighted in this writ petition is against the injunction passed by the Joint Registrar restraining the Bank from filling up the post of Peon in pursuance to Ext.P9 notification. The reason stated for passing such an order are reflected in Ext.P11 order. It is stated that the attempt is to provide back door entry to the existing temporary employees and that the written test held is not impartial. 8. In my view, these are absolutely vague allegations and at any rate do not justify a prohibitory order restraining the Bank from making appointments. Further, if at all anybody is aggrieved, it is for the aggrieved party to raise a dispute as provided under Section 69 of the Act if the appointment that is made by the Bank finally is irregular for any reason. 9. Therefore, I do not find any reason to restrain the Bank from filling up the vacancy in pursuance to Ext.P9. Ext.P11 to that extent will stand set aside. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: WPC 3913/09 :5 : (1) That the 3rd respondent shall conclude the proceedings initiated by Ext.P3 as directed in Ext.P5 judgment with notice to the parties and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them. This shall be expedited and concluded without any further delay. (2) It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to fill up the one post of peon notified by it as per Ext.P9 vacancy notification in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp