IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 18396 of 2005(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- GIRIJA DEVI M.S., SMRUTHI, SREENARAYANAPURAM, EZHUPUNNA (NORTH)P.O. 688 548, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 1. 2. THE ERAMALLOR SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD., NO.1175, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ERAMALLOOR P.O. 688 537, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, O/O.THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THATHAMPALLY P.O. THONDENKULANGARA, NEAR SAS BUILDING, ALAPPUZHA. 4. ABHILASH.S. KOLLAMMARATH, KANICHUKULANGARA, CHERTHALA 688 544. 5. ANOOP.V. ANUBHAVAN, ERAMALLOOR P.O. CHERTHALA, 688 537. 6. BINITHA UTHAMAN.P. PUTHENTHARA, VETTAKKAL P.O. CHERTHALA 688 587. 7. DILEEP KUMAR.R. RAJ BHAVAN, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O. CHERTHALA, 688 581. 8. GEETHA RESMI.P. GEETHANJALI, EZHUPUNNA (S) P.O. CHERTHALA 688 550. WP(C) NO: 18396/2005 9. JAYASREE SHAJI, SARAMGI, PATANAKKAD PO CHERTHALA 688 531. 10. JOLLY.B. VISWANADHA VILASAM, ERAMALLUR P.O. CHERTHALA 688 537. 11. LEENA K.NAIR, SREENILAYAM, THYCATTUSSERY P.O. CHERTHALA 688 528. 12. MINI K.A., KRISHNA VILASAM, S.N.PURAM PO, CHERTHALA, 688 582. 13. NAJISHA.M. THAKKEPPANACKAL, MANNANCHERRY P.O. ALAPPUZHA DIST. 688 588. 14. RANJINI PANICKER, PUTHEN VELIYIL, EZHUPUNNA P.O. CHERTHALA. 15. RAMKUMAR.N. KOCHUPULLALIL HOUSE, VAYALAR P.O. CHERTHALA, 688 536. 16. RESHMI N. MENON, KONAMVELLY, ERNAMALLOOR P.O. CHERTHALA 688 537. 17. SAJAN.R. KAPPALUNKAL HOSUE, PUTHANANGADI COLONY, AROOR P.O. CHERTHALA. 18. SINDHU.M., CHIRAYIL HOUSE, PATTANAKKAD P.O. CHERTHALA. 19. SHAJIMON.D. MECHERIL CMC VI, VARANAD P.O. CHEGNANDA P.O, CHERTHALA 688 543. 20. SUNNY.K.GREGORY, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, EZHUPUNNA(S) P.O. CHERTHALA. 21. SUSAN GEORGE, CHERUKATT HOUSE, NO.19/1141, PULLARDESOM, ERNAKULAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI 682 006. 22. VARGHESE M.K. MANNULLIL HOUSE, VRINDAVANAM, VYTTILA P.O. ERNAKULAM 682 019. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.B.VINOD R10 BY SRI.V.N.SWAMINATHAN SRI.K.J.FELIX GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 18396/2005 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NO. A. 04285A ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R1. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER DT. 17/4/2002. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R2 DT. 24/4/2002. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 8/6/2002 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3 DT. 15/6/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2A. COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES QUALIFIED FOR INTERVIEW. True copy tga THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.18396 of 2005-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner applied for being considered for appointment of the post of Clerk in the service of the second respondent bank. She competed with others in a written test conducted by the first respondent Co-operative Service Examination Board. Petitioner and other candidates cleared the written examination and a list was forwarded by the Examination Board to the second respondent. 2. Having regard to the controversy, I have perused the original minutes book of the bank. 3. On 7-4-2002, the committee resolved to conduct WP(C)18396/2005 -: 2 :- the interview on 28-4-2002. Rule 182(4)(v) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 obliges that the committee shall conduct the interview of the candidates on receipt of the list from the Examination Board and return the list to the Examination Board noting the marks secured by each candidates in the interview within a period of two weeks. Without deciding finally as to whether the committee could have delegated that power to hold the interview to the President, I may note that by the resolution of 7-4-2002, the committee had themselves decided to conduct the interview. By Ext.P3 dated 24-4-2002, the President of the second respondent bank addressed the candidates, including the petitioner, adjourning the interview from 28-4-2002 to 12- 5-2002. The minutes book does not contain any decision of the committee adjourning the interview as disclosed by Ext.P3. 4. On the strength of such adjournment, according WP(C)18396/2005 -: 3 :- to the petitioner, she was interviewed, however that, thereafter, nothing was heard and the petitioner hopefully waited till she obtained Ext.P4 dated 8-6-2005 fixing 21-6- 2005 as the date of interview. Going by that communication issued by the Secretary, the second respondent cannot dispute the fact that an interview was held on 12-5-2002, though it was stated that, that interview had to be cancelled, owing to certain technical reasons. 5. Petitioner rushed to this Court and an interim order was issued to ensure that she is not precluded from the interview and making the selection process subject to the result of this writ petition. Pursuant to that, interview was held and a select list prepared and kept in sealed cover under orders of this Court. 6. There is a stray sentence in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that “it is learned that the WP(C)18396/2005 -: 4 :- interview is cancelled and second interview is going to be held to appoint a person of their choice”, making reference to a managing committee which assumed office after the interview of 12-5-2002. But I may notice that the petitioner, who does not claim any preference by way of reservation in terms of the statutes, was aged 38 years while filing this writ petition, going by her affidavit filed in support of this matter. Having faced an interview on 12-5-2002, even if she would have expected an appointment, there is a clear undue delay for the petitioner to still insist that the interview held on 12-5-2002 should be the basis of selection. This is all the more so because, in terms of Rule 182(4)(v), the committee has to conduct the interview within two months from the date of receipt of the list from the Examination Board and has to return the list to the Examination Board after noting the marks secured by each candidates, within a period of two weeks from the WP(C)18396/2005 -: 5 :- interview. This is a statutory prescription. I may immediately recollect the legislative history, to note that the amendments by which the provisions, including Rule 182(4) in the Rules, came into being, as they now stand, were made to provide prescriptions meant for compliance and the object sought to be achieved is transparency of the proceedings. The written test is conducted by the Examination Board. It is a wholly Governmental institution. There is no challenge by the petitioner to the purity of that process, in the case in hand. 7. With the passage of time, the result of the written test cannot be ignored. If that be so, a second interview in terms of the mandate of Rule 182(4)(v) cannot be excluded. There is no sustainable case of malice, malafides or any other vitiating elements, surfacing from the records, either in the form of the minutes book, or from the selection procedure, which WP(C)18396/2005 -: 6 :- was also made available in sealed cover. 8. Without identifying the candidate, who has got selected, this litigation has to end leaving it to the first respondent to examine whether the procedure has been duly complied with in relation to the interview held on 21-6-2005 and issue appropriate decision to finalize the selection. The writ petition, hence, fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100408