IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 1238 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31802/2005 Dated 22/06/2006 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- SANILKUMAR K.G., KUNNUMPURATH, TADIYAMPAD P.O., PEPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU) RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, STATE CO-OPERATIVE REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CO-OPERATIVE BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, IDUKKI COLONY POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. *4. JENNATHIL FIROUSE, W/O. RAJAN, MAMBARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMALY P.O. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.A. NO.1238 OF 2006 AS PER ORDER DATED 18.10.2007 IN I.A NO.844 OF 2007 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. A.G. ANEETHA FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE FOR R2 SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,IDUKKI DIST.CO.OP FOR R.2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON 08/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ========================================= W.A.No.1238 of 2006 =============================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P3 notification issued by the 2nd respondent - Bank inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Part Time Sweeper under it. According to him, Ext.P3 has been issued in violation of Exts.P1 and P2 circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Ext.P1, inter alia, says as follows: “Applications for the posts shall be invited through advertisement in leading dailies having wide circulation in the area”. 2. Appellant submits that the said direction has been violated in this case. Advertisement was published only in Mangalam Daily. It is not a leading daily. At any rate advertisement should have published in at least two such dailies. Ext.P2 circular issued by the Registrar contains the details of what should be included in the notification. According to the appellant, Ext.P3 notification does not contain the details specified in Ext.P2. So the appellant challenged Ext.P3 on the W.A.No.1238 of 2006 2 ground that it was not issued in conformity with Exts.P1 and P2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and along with that it produced Ext.R2(a) Government Order issued on 31.7.1989. The service regulations of part time contingent employees of apex banks and co-operative banks of the state are annexed to that Government Order. The said regulation provides the method of appointment by direct recruitment. This specific regulation concerning appointment to the post of part time contingent employees in the District Co-operative Banks, governs the field, it is submitted. Therefore, Exts.P1 and P2 have no application. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the writ petition upholding the contention of the 2nd respondent that in view of Ext.R2(a), Exts.P1 and P2 have no application. 3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.N.Sugathan submitted that Ext.R2(a) contains the service conditions of part time contingent employees. Method of employment provided is direct recruitment. It does not contain the procedure to be followed in making direct recruitment. The same is governed by Exts.P1 and P2. W.A.No.1238 of 2006 3 4. We heard the counsel for the respondents. They supported the judgment under appeal. 5. We find that Exts.P1 and P2 relied on by one side and Ext.R2(a) relied on by the other side occupy different fields. The regulations in Ext.R2(a) do not contain any provision regarding the procedure to be followed in making direct recruitment. Therefore, Exts.P1 and P2 will apply to the selection to the post of part time contingent employees in the District Co-operative Banks. 6. But we notice that none of the appointed candidates is impleaded in the writ appeal. Relief could be granted if only all the selected and appointed candidates are in the party array. Therefore, the writ petition was bad for non-jointer of the necessary parties. Therefore, we sustain the dismissal of the writ petition, though on a different ground. In the result, the writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. bkn/-