IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 4501 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THE THIDANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 3990,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CHEMMALAMATTOM. 2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE THIDANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 3990,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.THOMAS VADAKARA VADAKARA HOUSE, CHETTUTHODU PO KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THANKACHAN,S/O.GOPALAN THATTARICKAL HOUSE, THIDANADU.PO. ADDL. 3. SHAJI THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, THODUKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KALAKETTY, PINNAKKANADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.26.2.08 IN IA NO.2529/08) ADDL. 4. BAIJU V. THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, VARANATTU HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (IMPLEADEDAS PER ORDER DT.12.3.08IN IA NO.3367/08) WPC : 4501/08 ADDL. 5. SABU JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PLATHOTTOM HOUSE, P.O. THIDANADU, MEMBERNO.5414 OF THE THIDANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.39990. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.11.6.08 IN IA NO.6925/08) R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI ADDL.R3 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 4501/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF-PATTERN APPROVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ORDER NO.CRP.6287/91 DT.24.7.93. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP(1) 8328/07 DT.20.11.07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE BANK BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.18.01.08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.11.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. EXT.R3(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.24.12.07. EXT.R3(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.30.01.2000. EXT.R3(D) : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 16.8.07. EXT.R3(E) : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER CUTTING INVITING APPLICATION DT.01.09.07. EXT.R5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.12.07. EXT.R5(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 30.01.2000. EXT.R5(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 16.08.07 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 4501 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The 1st petitioner is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner Society. The working hours of the Society is from 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. Therefore the employees are working on shift basis. The society has a Head Office with three branches. There are 3 posts of attenders in the Society, out of which two posts became vacant. The managing committee invited application from eligible candidates for appointment to those vacancies , conducted a written test followed by an interview and a rank list was published. Two persons from the rank list were appointed as attenders. The rank list is valid till 30.09.09. The junior most attender working in the Society had qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. He was given promotion to the post of Junior Clerk in the vacancy which arose subsequently. Consequentially, there arose a vacancy in the category of Attender/Salesman. Since the earlier rank list had not yet expired at WPC : 4501/08 -:2:- the time of occurrence of vacancy. The Managing Committee decided to fill up the vacancy by appointing the next man from the rank list. However, by Ext.P2, the Joint Registrar directed the committee not to fill up the vacant post of attender. According to the petitioners, the said order was passed on a complaint stated to have been filed by one Thankachan. Subsequently, the said Thankachan himself appeared before the Assistant Registrar and submitted that he has not filed any complaint. The petitioner alleges that the Joint Registrar was also convinced about the bogus nature of the complaint. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P2 order in so far as it restrains the managing committee to fill up the vacancy of Salesman/Attender in the 1st petitioner Bank from the rank list which is valid till 30.09.2009; ii. a declaration to the effect that the Joint Registrar has no authority to interfere with the decision of the Managing committee to fill up the post of Salesman/Attender from the rank list so long as there is no change in the classification and staff pattern of the Society approved by the Registrar.” 2. The contention of the petitioners is that as is clear from Ext.P2, the only reason mentioned therein for interdicting the WPC : 4501/08 -:3:- appointment, is a complaint stated to have been received by the Joint Registrar. No other reason whatsoever is mentioned therein. When it is proved subsequently that the complaint itself was bogus, there is no reason for the Joint Registrar to continue the embargo put by Ext.P2, is the contention raised by the petitioners. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. Therein a totally different case from Ext.P2 has been put forward. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the staff pattern of the Society is not in accordance with the staff pattern prescribed in Rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. According to the 1st respondent, the promotion given to the senior most attender to the post of Junior Clerk is to a non-existent post, as per the staff pattern applicable to the 1st petitioner society. That being so, according to the 1st respondent, there is no resultant vacancy of attender to which any appointment could have been made by the petitioner society. It is further submitted that pursuant to Ext.P2 an enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was also obtained. However, proceedings pursuant to that report is kept pending because of the pendency of this writ petition is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. WPC : 4501/08 -:4:- 4. One Biju V. Thomas has got himself impleaded as additional 4th respondent in this writ petition. He is the person who was appointed to the vacant post by the Society. One Sri.Shaji Thomas and Sri.Sabu Joseph have got themselves impleaded, who would support the action taken pursuant to Ext.P2. Sri.Shaji Thomas would submit that he also has filed a complaint against the appointment, which complaint is referred to in the report obtained by the Joint Registrar subsequent to Ext.P2 proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the contention raised by the 1st respondent is clearly an afterthought and the complaint referred to by additional respondent was filed subsequent to Ext.P2 and therefore the proceedings under Ext.P2 is clearly unsustainable. The counsel for the petitioners would further submit that after filing of the writ petition, several other vacancies have also occurred. 6. In the writ petition the petitioners sought for an interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P2. This Court at the time of admission granted the interim order as prayed for, but observed that any appointment made on the strength of that order would be provisional and subject to further orders in the writ petition. Pursuant WPC : 4501/08 -:5:- thereto the 4th respondent has been appointed to the post and he is continuing in service. 7. After hearing all parties concerned, I am of opinion that, now that Ext.P2 has been issued, the same should be taken to its logical conclusion. It is submitted that the report has been obtained pursuant thereto. In the above circumstances the proceedings initiated by Ext.P2 shall be completed and orders passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 4th respondent shall be allowed to continue in the meanwhile. It would be open to the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent to challenge any orders passed as directed above, if the same is adverse to them. Continuance of the 4th respondent would be subject to those orders. Even if the decision pursuant to Ext.P2 is adverse to the petitioners and the additional 4th respondent, if any vacancy is available, it shall be considered whether he can be accommodated in that post. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC : 4501/08 -:6:-