IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24554 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.SANDHYA, JUNIOR CLERK, MATTANCHERRY MAHAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.665, KOCHI 682 002. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MATTANCHERRY MAHAJANIK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.665, PALLIARAKKAVU ROAD, KOCHI 686 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOCHI -1. R1 BY ADV.SRI.N.HARIDAS, R2 BY ADV.SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, S.C. R3 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.24554 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, standing counsel for the second respondent, as also learned Government Pleader for the third respondent. 2. The petitioner applied for being considered to the post of Junior Co-operative Inspector in the Department of Co-operation in the Government of Kerala, against category No.6/06 as per Ext.P5 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. One of the conditions in terms of that notification as regards candidates coming from the primary co-operative societies etc. is service of not less than five years in the category of Clerk/Secretary/Manager etc. It is the case of the petitioner that as is evident from Ext.P4, she had been working as Junior Clerk in the service of the first respondent bank from 6.5.1999. But the materials on record shows that there are controversies WPC.24554/08 Page numbers between the petitioner and similarly placed persons on the one hand and the first respondent bank on the other, regarding the date from which they could be treated as in regular service of the first respondent. It appears that the first respondent took the stand that it was following the judgment in a writ appeal that the petitioners were regularly absorbed and therefore, any certificate regarding regular service could be granted only with effect from the date of that judgment. But the fact of the matter remains that it was the first respondent which had been carrying the litigation as against the decision of the statutory authorities regarding the quality of appointment, or the appointment itself, of the petitioner and similarly situated persons. But, as of now, the first respondent cannot be tied down to Ext.P8 since the same is issued only on 4.8.2008. Learned counsel for the first respondent stated that his client was not given appropriate opportunity of being heard in relation to those proceedings. 3. The urgency of the petitioner is that unless she produces the requisite certificate in terms of Ext.P9 within the time limit WPC.24554/08 Page numbers fixed by the PSC, she is likely to lose her chance of being considered. That entitlement would again depend upon the first respondent issuing the certificate, since it may not be appropriate to insist that the PSC should act on Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who would have been the administrator of the first respondent society, at that point of time. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is ordered issuing the following directions: (i) The first respondent will issue to the petitioner a certificate, which, according to it, reflects the service details of the petitioner within a period of one week from now. (ii) On production of the aforesaid certificate within a period of 10 days from its issue, along with a copy of Ext.P8 decision of the Joint Registrar, the PSC would provisionally act WPC.24554/08 Page numbers on those documents, as regards the petitioner, as a special case, in accordance with law. This judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent challenging Ext.P8 within a period of one month from now and in such event, any selection and appointment of the petitioner on the aforesaid basis will be provisional and dependent on the decision that would be rendered by the competent authority on such appeal or other proceedings by the first respondent against Ext.P8. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.13/8.