IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29028 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PREETHA.S., PART TIME SWEEPER, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ANANDAVALLESWARAM BRANCH, KOLLAM. (MULLAVILA VEEDU, CHITTAYAM, PERUMON, INCHAVILA.P.O., KOLLAM-691 601) BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691001. 2. THE PRESIDENT, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ANANDAVALLESWARAM, KOLLAM-691 601. 4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.29028 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner who had been engaged for the past two years as Part-time Sweeper in the Anandavalleswaram Branch of Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 not to terminate her service and to declare that so long as there is no other candidate from the Anandavalleswaram Branch is on queue having a better claim over the post, the services of the petitioner should not be terminated to accommodate a candidate of the choice of the President or the head office, from another branch of the head office. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, the circumstances under which the petitioner was engaged as Part -time Sweeper has been elaborately explained. It is stated thereunder that the mother of the petitioner viz., Smt.K.Saraswathy was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper under the first respondent-bank. She was posted in the Anandavalleswaram W.P.(C) NO.29028/2010 2 branch of the bank. Since Smt. Saraswathy possessed qualification for promotion to the cadre of Peon, she was promoted to the said post. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioner was engaged as Part-time Sweeper on daily wage basis in the first respondent-bank. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not engaged after following the formalities for effecting the regular appointment of Part- time Sweeper. That apart, it is stated thereunder that the termination of the petitioner was effected only taking into account Ext.R1(a) judgment. According to respondents 1 to 3, persons who are the beneficiaries of Ext.R1(a) judgment got the legal right to get appointment and therefore the petitioner was disengaged for the purpose of accommodating the beneficiaries of Ext.R1(a) judgment. In short, the contention of respondents 1 to 3 is that the petitioner is not having any legal right to claim engagement as Part- time Sweeper on regular basis or even for continuance of engagement. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that what is to be looked into is not the situation under which she was inducted into the service of the first respondent-bank. Having engaged the petitioner as Part- time Sweeper from 18.11.2008 onwards on daily wage basis, the respondents should not have terminated her service in terms of Ext.R1(a) judgment, it W.P.(C) NO.29028/2010 3 is submitted. Further, it is contended that a scanning of Ext.R1(a) judgment would reveal that it did not carry any such direction insisting the termination, rather, disengagement of the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.R1 (a) judgment would definitely go to show that in the case of 16 Part- time Sweepers who were found in excess, it was held that the bank should not throw them out for engaging the persons of their choice. True that in the light of the Division Bench judgment, it will not be open to the respondents to throw the said persons out of the service of the bank. But at the same time, it is evident from Ext.R1(a) that the petitioner herein was not a party to the said Writ Petition which culminated in W.A.768/2008. The right, if any, of the petitioner was not at all considered and in fact, there was no occasion to consider the claims of the appellants therein who among the petitioners and the other persons got a better claim for continuance especially in the Anandvalleswaram Branch of the first respondent- bank was never been a subject matter for consideration either in the W.P(C).No.335/2008. Therefore, the right, if any, of the petitioner has to be looked into by the authorities concerned especially when under similar circumstances, they have considered continuance of certain Part- time sweepers in the light of Ext.R1(a) judgment. However, the factual W.P.(C) NO.29028/2010 4 situation obtained in this case is that the petitioner was already been substituted by another Part- time sweeper who was a beneficiary of Ext.R1 (a) judgment. Considering the fact that the respondents have appointed the said person on the strength of Ext.R1(a) judgment, I do not propose to interfere with the said appointment. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a request to consider and decide her right of continuance in service especially in view of the fact that she had been engaged as Part -time Sweeper under the first respondent- bank with effect from 18.11.2008. The right of the petitioner to pursue with the said right is reserved. It will be open to the respondents to engage the petitioner in any other vacancy of Part-time Sweeper till such consideration. This Writ petition is disposed of with the said observation. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.29028/2010 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.29028/2010 6