IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21845 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAISHA RAJAN, AGED 33, D/O.RAJASEKHARAN, AMBALATHUM VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PARAVUR S.N.V.R.C. BANK LTD.NO.1685, PARAVUR, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 301. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. BY SR.G.P.SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21845 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for selection and appointment to the post of Peon that was notified by the first respondent. As per Ext.P4 Notification, the first respondent had invited applications for appointment to the posts of 4 peons. The petitioner had submitted her application supported by copies of all her qualifying certificates. Her application was accepted as per Ext.P5 receipt. However, by the issue of Ext.P6, her application was subsequently rejected on the ground that she had not produced attested copies of her qualifying certificates. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P6, the petitioner has forwarded attested copies of all her certificates to the first respondent. She has also submitted Ext.P7 before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Kollam challenging the rejection of her application. However, she complains that no orders have been passed thereon till date. Since the written examinations are scheduled to be conducted on 17.7.2010, the petitioner has approached this court for appropriate reliefs. W.P.(C) No.21845 OF 2010 2 2. I notice that, the grievance of the petitioner is engaging the attention of the second respondent before whom Ext.P7 is pending. Therefore, at this stage I do not think it necessary to consider the right of the petitioner to be considered for selection. However, since the written test is scheduled to be conducted on 17.7.2010 the petitioner can also be permitted to appear for the said test provisionally, subject to the decision that the second respondent may take on Ext.P7. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to this writ petition being disposed of with such a direction. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to appear for the written test that is scheduled to be conducted on 17.7.2010 provisionally and subject to the decision that may be taken by the second respondent on Ext.P7 that is pending before the said authority. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE cms W.P.(C) No.21845 OF 2010 2