IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 759 of 2008(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.4266, POONJAR THEKEKARA P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, POONJAR THEKEKAR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.2.6.2006 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE BANK. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.17.6.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.9.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ELTTER NO.CSEB/EXAM/2/2006 DTD. 29.11.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 TRUE SPECIMEN COPY OF THE CALL LETTER FOR INTERVIEW SENT BY THE BANK TO THE CANDIDATES EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRB/9192/07/DTD.24.12.2007 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION PETITION DTD.17.11.2007 PENDING BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT AS ARC NO.131/2007. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRB 5775/2000 DTD.18.8.2000 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD.16.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE SERVICES EXAMINATION BOARD EXT.P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RANK LSIT OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR CLERK IN THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CSEB/RANKLIST/2008 DTD. 12.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.759 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 'CR' JUDGMENT Petitioner, a special grade urban Co-operative bank decided on 2.6.2006 to fill up four vacancies of junior clerks in its service. In 17.6.2006, it requested the second respondent Examination Board to conduct the selection, which, in turn, issued Ext.P3 notification on 9.10.2006 and conducted written test on 9.9.2007. 2. Election to the Managing Committee of the petitioner was held on 21.10.2007, results declared and the new committee took charge. Two members of the society who were successful as candidates in the election, filed Ext.P7 petition dated 17.11.2007 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, challenging the election. WPC 759/2008 2 3. Thereafter, on 29.11.2007, the Examination Board sent a list of 378 candidates to the petitioner, for being interviewed. The interview was scheduled to be held from 26.12.2007 to 28.12.2007. 4. On 24.12.2007, the first respondent Joint Registrar issued Ext.P6 temporarily interdicting the interview, acting on a petition dated 21.12.2007, submitted by one among the petitioners in Ext.P7 election petition. This is under challenge. 5. One reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the election of the committee in office is under challenge. The second is that the complaint made to the first respondent contains an allegation that the recruitment is not against sanctioned posts. 6. On the basis of the interim orders in this case, interview was held and rank list prepared. Going by the materials on record, the Examination Board has approved the select list. WPC 759/2008 3 7. Pendency of an arbitration case before the arbitrator on a dispute relating to election does not provide the jurisdictional fact for the Registrar to exercise any power under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to interdict the functioning of a society, which, obviously, includes the power to make appointments. Even when elections are under challenge in various jurisdictions including the Election Tribunals under the Representation of the People Act and in appeals therefrom, there is no sustained precedent providing any legal support to pass interdicting orders against the administration of the establishment by the elected member or the committee. In the aforesaid context, nothing stands in the way of the duly elected committee to exercise its authority in relation to the society, merely on account of the institution of a petition challenging the election. 8. Ext.P6 does not disclose any particular ground to state that appointments are being made in excess of the approved staff strength. That again is an issue for consideration by the statutory authorities only as and when such appointments WPC 759/2008 4 are made. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Ext.P6 order is unsustainable and is hence quashed. The petitioner will be at liberty to make appointments forthwith. The writ petition is allowed as above. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE csl