IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 10733 of 2001(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.P.ANEESH, S/O.LATE BALAN, PALLIKKUNNI THAZHA, CHOMBALA P.O, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CHOMBAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1478, CHOMBALA P.O, KOZHIKODE DT. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN FOR R1 SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.10733/2001 ORDER IN CMP NO.17233 OF 2001 IN OP NO.10733 OF 2001 DISMISSED 15/6/2009 SD/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL, GOVT.VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MAAPPALLY DT 8.7.1998. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 16.2.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.1.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 20.2.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28.2.2001 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXTS.OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 29.8.84 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER ISSUED BY THE GOVT.HOSPITAL, MAHE. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD DT 26.12.2000. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): PROCEEDINGS NO.CRP/7521/84-LDS DT 29.9.84. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 10733 OF 2001 (C) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The claim in this original petition is for appointment under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. 2. Petitioner is the son of late Sri.P.Balan. The facts of this original petition show that the society appointed Sri.Balan on a daily wage basis from 1/7/80 to 31/8/83. He was appointed on a regular basis w.e.f. 1/9/83. Sri.Balan expired on 6/6/85. Petitioner, then a minor, attained majority on 23/1/98. Immediately thereafter on 16/2/98, petitioner represented to the society for appointment extending him the benefit of Rule 188A. That was not considered. While so, the Society took steps for making certain appointments. He again made Ext.P3 request followed by Ext.P4 addressed to the 2nd respondent. He was called for a written test as per Ext.P5 and it was at that stage this original petition was filed praying that he should be given employment extending him the benefit of Rule 188A. 3. Initially, there was an interim order of stay of appointment in this original petition. However, that was modified OP 10733/01 :2 : and the petitioner was also interviewed and yet another person was appointed, but however, subject to the result of this original petition. 4. Society disputes the entitlement of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. One is that Rule 188A was inserted in the rules only w.e.f. 6/12/88. It is stated that as on the date of the death of the deceased, the rule was not in the statute book and therefore the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said rule. 5. The other contention raised is that in terms of Rule 188A(a), the deceased should have rendered a minimum service of two years in the society for the legal heir to claim the benefit of appointment under the rule. It is stated that the deceased had rendered less than two years regular service counting the same from 1/9/83. 6. Although another contention has been raised that the application made by the petitioner was belated, I do not think it necessary to go into that controversy. 7. Admittedly, the death in question was on 6/6/85. The rule providing for compassionate appointment was introduced in the statute only w.e.f. 6/12/88. The petitioner could have claimed OP 10733/01 :3 : employment under dying in harness category provided the rule was in force as on the date when his father expired. Therefore, no right has accrued in his favour at the time of death of his father. For this reason, the petitioner's claim should be negatived and I do so. In view of this, I do not think it necessary to pronounce on the contention of the society that the deceased had only less than two years and therefore did not have the minimum prescribed period of service to claim employment. Original petition therefore fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp