IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4906 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJITHA K , W/O. MURALEEDHARAN AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SOORYA" P.O. PERUMUKHAM, FEROKE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FEROKE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERUVANNUR, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1, ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.4906 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner and certain others competed for being considered for appointment to the category of Junior Clerks in Co-operative Banks. By Ext.P3, the competent authority published the ranked list. The second respondent Co-operative Bank, going by its counter affidavit, filled the two posts, which were identified and notified in the advertisement inviting applications. Since the list continues to be live, they issued further appointment orders from that list. Persons at Rank Nos. 3 and 4 were issued appointment orders; one of them has joined, the other did not. On 8-12-2007, Ext.P5 was issued to Smt.Prabhitha C., requiring her to join within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of that order. She did not report for duty. Petitioner is the sixth rank holder. She filed WPC4906/08 -:2:- this writ petition on 8-2-2008 stating that she ought to have been appointed. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that, after issuing Ext.P5 appointment order to Smt.Prabhitha C., it decided to make no further appointment since, according to it, the Feroke Chungam branch of the Bank was not improving to its expectations. The said decision is stated to have been taken on 15-1-2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner very seriously criticized the stand taken by the bank and contended that the bank is more concerned about appointing a person of its choice rather than make an appointment from the chosen persons and it is therefore that the counter affidavit has been filed taking such stand. 2. While it may be in the realm of the employer to decide as to whether it would not make an appointment at all, the exercise of such wisdom; though could be even after making the WPC4906/08 -:3:- selection; reasonableness and execution of arbitrariness, are of the crucial touchstones on which public authority functions. Public authority for the purpose of such consideration and violation of its administrative conduct does not require to be “State” for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution because reasonableness is not a solemn quality called for only from authorities which fall under that provision. It would be an anathema to proper employer-employee relationship to let reasonableness erode administrative action even in other quarters, including authorities which deal with public funds, particularly in the banking sector. Viewed in that angle, it may be well within the bounds of judicial review to consider whether an incident of refusal to make an appointment is an exercise of arbitrariness. However, such an exercise need not be undertaken by this Court in this case, as of now, because, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, with the power WPC4906/08 -:4:- under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 and the general supervisory jurisdiction, is duty bound to ensure that co- operative establishments work within the format of the Act, Rules and bye-laws. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid, it needs to be noticed that the petitioner's complaint to the Joint Registrar was sent down to the Assistant Registrar, who considered the complaint and issued certain directions to the bank requiring it to appoint only the petitioner, if it makes appointment during the currency of the list. But the question is whether the petitioner is to be granted an order containing a direction in her favour, compelling the bank to act in terms of reasonableness, rationality, principles of co- operation and by enjoining that the spirit of the relevant laws prevails. This, essentially, is a matter within the power of the Joint Registrar. WPC4906/08 -:5:- For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing the petitioner and the second respondent to appear before the first respondent on 16-9-2008 to mark their appearance so that the first respondent can list the matter appropriately to have the issue resolved. To enable final decision, the interim order issued on 26-2-2008 will continue to govern the parties until a final decision is issued by the Registrar at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month of their appearance. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.1.9.