IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19594 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. BINU N., ANANDA BHAVAN, MATTAKKARA KARA, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. THANAKAMMA MANOJ, MOONGAMAKKAL, MANJAMATTAM KARA, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 3. ROOPESH M.S., MUKKALI KUZHIYIL, PAADUVA, MATTAKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.3857, MANJAMATTOM, MOOZHOOR P.O., ANIKKADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.3857, MANJAMATTOM, MOOZHOOR P.O., ANIKKADU, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. ADDL. R5 TO R8 IMPLEADED 5. KISHORE, ERUMATHANATHU, KARIMBANI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. W.P.(C) NO.19594/2009 6. JOMON K.J., KAITHANIYIL, KARIMBANI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. 7. ARCHANA BINOY, KANNUMKUZHIYIL, MATTAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. 8. ABHILASH, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MATTAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. ADDL. R5 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.29/09/2009 IN IA. NO.10572/2009. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM R3 & R4 BY ADVS.MR.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL, MR.T.V.VINU. R5 TO R8 BY MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19594/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING THE APPLICATION PUBLISHED IN DESABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 6.6.06. P2:- COPY OF THE CALL LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE BANK DTD. 5.7.09. P3:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.28/86. P4:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.66/89. P5:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/91. P6:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11/99. P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM ON 9.7.09. P8:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 9.7.09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R6(a):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 18.7.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19594 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 13th January, 2010 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 notification dated 5.6.2009 published in the Kottayam edition of the Desabhimani daily dated 6.6.2009, the third respondent bank invited applications for appointment to the post of Attender/Peon. The last date stipulated for submission of applications was 22.6.2009. Pursuant to Ext.P1 application, petitioners 1 and 3 and many others applied. A written test was held on 15.7.2009 in which the first petitioner alone participated. An interview was also conducted in the afternoon of that day. The petitioners thereafter submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 9.7.2009 pointing out that the selection is vitiated on various counts. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 13.7.2009 contending that steps are afoot to appoint four persons namely Sri.Kishore, Sri.Jomon K.J, Smt.Archana Binoy and Sri.Abilash. The petitioners contend that Ext.P1 notification is not in terms of Ext.P6 circular and that many of the particulars required to be set out in the notification inviting applications are singularly lacking in Ext.P1. The petitioners also contend that the selection was not conducted by an outside agency thereby violating the stipulations in Ext.P5 circular. Later, the petitioners filed I.A.No.10572 of 2009 to implead the four WP(C).No.19594/2009 2 persons who were named in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The said application was allowed and they were impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 8. The petitioners contend that the selection and appointment of candidates pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, is illegal for the reason that the procedure prescribed by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies in Exts.P5 and P6 circulars has not been followed. 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that after Ext.P1 notification was issued, the Managing Committee that met on 27.6.2009 decided to conduct a written test on 15.7.2009 between 10 a.m. and 12 noon in the Panchayat Community Hall, Akalakunnam and to conduct interview in the Head Office of the bank after 2 p.m. on 15.7.2009 itself. It is also stated that the Managing Committee authorised the President of the society to find out an experienced person to prepare the question papers and to conduct the written examination. It is stated that accordingly Sri.Joy Joseph, the Principal of a private aided Higher Secondary School was entrusted with the preparation of question papers and valuation of answer sheets, that Sri.George K.A., retired Regional Manager of Canara Bank was entrusted with the task of supervision of the examination and that Sri.Joseph.K.A., retired Sales Tax Officer was deputed to assist Sri.George K.A. in the conduct of WP(C).No.19594/2009 3 written examination. It is also stated that shortly after the written test was held and before the marks secured by the candidates who appeared for the examination were made known, an interview was conducted by 10 out of the 11 board members and a rank list was prepared thereafter and published on 18.7.2009. It is contended that the selection is in no way vitiated. Respondents 5 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit, contending that they have been selected after written test and interview. It is also contended that the second petitioner was not eligible to apply and that though the third petitioner had applied he did not participate in the selection. Respondents 5 to 8 also contend that their selection and appointment are in order. 3. I heard Sri.T.R.Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.S.Mohammed Hashim, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 5 to 8. By circular No.52/80 dated 22.7.1980 the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had inter alia directed that when additional posts are sanctioned in co-operative societies, it should be ensured that the posts are filled up by inviting applications through advertisements in leading newspaper dailies, that the selection WP(C).No.19594/2009 4 should be made after conducting written test and interview, that the examination should be conducted by an outside agency and that false numbers should be assigned to answer scripts. Later, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Circular No.66/1989 dated 29.11.1989 wherein it was directed that while making recruitment for appointment of employees in co-operative societies, applications shall be invited through advertisement in leading dailies, that the selection shall be made after written test and interview, that the examination should be conducted by an outside agency and that false numbers should be assigned to answer scripts. Still later, Circular No.18/91 dated 7.6.1991 (Ext.P5) was issued with a view to consolidate the specific instructions issued earlier. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P5 circular it is stipulated as follows: “4. The following procedure shall be strictly followed while making direct recruitments for appointment to employees. (a) Applications for the posts shall be invited through advertisement in leading dailies having wide circulation in the area. (b) Selection shall be made only after conducting written test and interview, allowing 100 marks for written test and 20 marks for interview. (c) The written test shall be conducted by an outside agency. (emphasis supplied) (d) False numbers should be assigned to the answer scripts. (e) The conditions with regard to age-limit, qualifications mode of appointment etc. as laid WP(C).No.19594/2009 5 down in the rules framed under Section 80 viz.. rules 183, 186, 187 of the KCS Rules shall be strictly followed. (f) Ten per cent of the vacancies should be reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes/tribes.” The Registrar of Co-operative Societies thereafter issued Circular No.11/99 dated 23.3.1999 (Ext.P6) wherein, the details to be furnished in the notification inviting applications were prescribed. 4. It is evident from the various circulars referred to above, including Ext.P5, that appointment of employees in co-operative societies including the third respondent society, except in cases where the selection is to be conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission or by the Co-operative Service Examination Board in terms of Rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, should be made only after written test and interview are conducted. Rule 182 (5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules stipulates that in respect of societies and posts not covered by section 80(3)(a) and section 80B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the appointments shall be made by the committee after conducting a written examination and interview as per the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The guidelines are those contained in the circulars referred above including Ext.P5 wherein the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has in categorical terms stipulated WP(C).No.19594/2009 6 that the written test shall be conducted by an outside agency and false numbers should be assigned to the answer scripts. By Ext.P6, the Registrar also directed that the notification inviting applications should disclose the various aspects referred to in that circular. 5. In the instant case, a mere look at Ext.P1 notification makes it evident that many of the details required to be furnished in terms of Ext P6 circular had not been set out therein. Further, it is admitted that the written test was not conducted by an outside agency. Instead of appointing an outside agency to conduct the written test, the managing committee of the society passed a resolution on 27.6.2009 authorising the President of the society to find out an experienced person to prepare the question papers and to conduct the written test. The President of the society accordingly appointed Sri.Joy Joseph, the Principal of a private aided Higher Secondary School to prepare the question papers and to value the answer scripts. Two other persons were entrusted with the task of supervising the examination. The written test and interview were held on 15.7.2009 and the rank list was published on 18.7.2009, within three days from the date on which the written test and interview were conducted. In my opinion, the procedure adopted by the third respondent society in the matter of conducting the written test, is not WP(C).No.19594/2009 7 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. The Principal of a private aided Higher Secondary School, chosen by the President of the society cannot be said to be an outside agency. The managing committee ought to have in my opinion entrusted the holding of the written test with an agency and not an individual. By Circular No.12/90 dated 22.3.1990 the Registrar of Co- operative Societies has directed that no officer of the Co-operative Department should be associated with the selection process. If that be so, I fail to understand how the President of the society can be entrusted with the task of selecting an individual to prepare the question papers and to value the answer scripts. Since only an outside agency as stipulated in the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies could have been entrusted with the task of conducting the written test, I am constrained to hold that the written test conducted by the Principal of a private aided Higher Secondary School and the valuation conducted by him cannot be said to be legal or proper. Further, a mere look at Ext.P1 establishes that it does not conform to the stipulations in Ext.P6 circular. On the admitted facts it has to be necessarily held that Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Attender/Peon and the written test conducted on 15.7.2009 are not legal or proper. Therefore, the WP(C).No.19594/2009 8 notification and the appointments pursuant thereto will have to be invalidated. In the result, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext. P1 notification and the selection and appointment of respondents 5 to 8. The third respondent shall conduct a fresh selection in the manner directed in Ext.P5 circular after inviting applications in accordance with Ext.P6 circular. Fresh steps in that regard shall be taken and completed within six months from today. Till such time, respondents 5 to 8 shall be allowed to work on daily wage basis subject to the condition that their initial appointment or such continuance will not confer on them any preference for appointment. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS