IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 29861 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HUSKER ALI, KOTTAYIL, P.O.NADUVATTOM, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 2. KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.M. 729, KUTTIPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. K.HUSSAIN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, KOLAKKAD EAST, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. P.FARISA, D/O. MAMMALI, POTTARATH, SOUTH BAZAR, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. MUNEERA, W/O. T.P.ABDULLAKKUTTY, THEKKE PEEDIYEKKAL, PANDIKASALA, PAINKANNUR, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN FOR R3 TO 5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2.6.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 29861/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE HALL TICKET DTD.7.8.07. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.18.9.07 TO R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29861 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner participated in the selection process conducted by the 2nd respondent co-operative bank for appointment to the post of Peon in that bank. The petitioner alleges that the entire selection process was a farce and was riddled with corrupt practices. It is submitted that the examination was held in a school in a remote area to facilitate malpractices. The specific allegation is that the question papers were given in advance to respondents 3 to 5 to facilitate their selection and appointment. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) issue an order to call for the records leading to the appointment of the respondents 3 to 5 as Peons in the service of the 2nd respondent Bank and quash the same by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction: b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation and initiate appropriate actions in the matter.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein it is submitted that the Assistant Registrar (General) Tirur, has conducted an enquiry into the allegations of malpractices in the conduct of the selection and found that some of the allegations are true. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of the enquiry report, the president of the 2nd respondent bank by letter dated 11.1.2008, was asked to furnish his report regarding 2 the same. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that the bank president has requested for time upto 20.2.2008 to submit report and further steps on the enquiry report are still continuing. That counter affidavit was filed on 25.7.2008. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the bank. 4. The learned counsel for the bank points out that what is prayed for in the writ petition is a writ of certiorari to quash the appointments made by a co-operative bank, which cannot be done in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 5. I am of opinion that insofar as the 1st respondent is seized of the matter, the 1st respondent should take the matter to its logical conclusion in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to see that the action referred to in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition on the basis of the enquiry report of the Assistant Registrar (General) is taken to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3