IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4920 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- EDAMALAYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., EDAMALAYAR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN, ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 7092/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)Nos.4920 & 7092 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner, in the latter among the captioned matters, applied for being considered for selection in terms of a notification issued by the petitioner in the former among the matters. It is a Co- operative Bank. After applying for being considered for selection, he did not compete. He, thereafter, made certain complaints to the Joint Registrar alleging that the process for selection is mala fide and illegal. But, the Joint Registrar stayed the proceedings. The Bank, therefore, filed WPC No.4920 of 2008. This Court issued an interim order interfering with the stay order issued by the Joint Registrar thereby authorising the selection process to continue. It was also directed that the Joint Registrar will hear all objections to the advertisement for selection and take a final WPC4920&7092/2008 -:2:- decision in the matter. The Joint Registrar thereafter decided that the objections are unsustainable. Accordingly, all objections, including that of the petitioner in WPC No.7092 of 2008, were rejected by the Joint Registrar. WPC No.7092 of 2008 is filed challenging that decision. 2. As already noticed, the petitioner in WPC No.7092 of 2008, who is a member of the society, had applied for being considered to the post of Salesman in terms of the notification. Going by the plethora of decisions of the Apex Court, he is not entitled to challenge the notification, having attempted to participate in the selection process. The fact that he did not participate makes no difference. That apart, it is a matter of record (Ext.P1 in WPC 4920 of 2008 and Ext.P4 in WPC 7092 of 2008) that wayback in 2004, the Joint Registrar had approved the change in staff pattern, which includes two salesmen. Even going by the case of WPC4920&7092/2008 -:3:- the petitioner in WPC No.7092 of 2008, as of now, there is only one salesman. The Joint Registrar has concluded that the turnover in the Bank and other matters have created a situation where the Bank was justified in moving for the impugned selection. Petitioner in WPC No.7092 of 2008 cannot be heard to contend that the society is only one measure depot and therefore there can be only one salesman. It is the wisdom of the management which has to decide the same. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned notification or selection. In the result, WPC No.7092 of 2008 is dismissed and WPC No.4920 of 2008 is disposed of recording that the order impugned therein does not survive. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.