IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7376 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE PALAKKAD PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.F 1029, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT V.SURENDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), PALAKKAD. 2. M.SUNIL KUMAR, SAROJINI NIVAS, CHERIYA P.O., KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7376/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ORDER NO.290/06/CRB/L DIS DT. 24.1.06 AND THE FEEDER CATEGORY RULES AS APPROVED BY THE IST RESPONDENT 8. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE ON 17.7.06. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE ON 20.9.06. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5397/06/CRB DT. 30.10.06. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DT. 8.11.06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7376 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 decision of the Joint Registrar interdicting, though temporarily, the proposal of the petitioner co-operative society to make certain selection and appointment, that too, of a Peon and a Driver. 2. The counter affidavit on record, particularly para (4) thereof, shows that the impugned action is on the basis of the report of the Assistant Registrar, after hearing the matter for quite some time in an earlier occasion. Report No.708/06 addressed by the Assistant Registrar (General), Palghat to the Joint Registrar (General), Palghat, produced by the learned Government Pleader, along with memo, does not disclose any reason other than the fact that the selection procedure was being held by a person retired from the Co-operative Department. It is specifically stated in the said report that WPC.7376/07 Page numbers there is no financial irregularity or apprehended financial indiscipline in relation to the selection process. The stand of the respondents appears to be that the selection has to be by an outside agency in terms of Circular 18/91 and that therefore, the selection ought to be withheld. The person who is to conduct the selection is a retired officer of the Co-operative Department. It is neither pleaded not shown that he has nothing to do with the petitioner co-operative society. It cannot be assumed that a person who has worked till his retirement in the Co-operative Department knows nothing about the co-operative sector. “Outside agency” only means an agency other than the appointing authority, the petitioner in the case in hand. Therefore, the objections of the respondents to the selection in question and the consequential issuance of the impugned Ext.P4 are without any legal foundation. The same has to go. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, quashing Ext.P4 and directing that the petitioner will be entitled to make WPC.7376/07 Page numbers selection and appointment which was interdicted as per Ext.P4. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.