IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 17053 of 2008(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.J.THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, NEYYASSERY HOUSE, KADUMPAPALLY, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA-2. BY ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM. 2. KUNJUMUHAMMED, GENERAL MANAGER, ALUVA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MARKET ROAD, ALUVA. 3. ALUVA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MARKET ROAD, ALUVA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.G. ANITHA, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN, ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.17053 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The second respondent now works as the General Manager of the third respondent, a Co-operative Bank. Petitioner is a member of that bank. He has filed this writ petition contending that the second respondent is incompetent and unqualified to be the General Manager and that he is continuing even after his resignation. It is also contended that the second respondent tendered his application for voluntary retirement and is shown to be continuing in spite of that. 2. The second respondent and the first respondent Joint Registrar have placed counter affidavits and materials on record. It appears that the second respondent was granted certain exemptions from qualification in 1988 with effect from sometime in 1984 on the basis of a resolution WPC17053/08 -:2:- drawn by the society in 1986. Nearly twenty years have gone through thereafter. In the realm of service law, the doctrine of “sit back” and other attendant principles should stare at a rival employee who will challenge the grant of exemption, if it is challenged now. Petitioner is not even a rival employee. It is not the case of the petitioner that the service of the third respondent does not include other persons who are literate and who can take care of their own affairs. There cannot, therefore, be any public spirited exercise also. The quality of rights of a member of a co- operative society to challenge the appointment or matters relating to the service of a particular employee of a co-operative society is extremely minimal and would be relevant only in exceptional circumstances of glaring injustice or abuse of authority which may have an impact on the establishment as a whole. Nothing of that sort is made out in this writ petition. In so far as the WPC17053/08 -:3:- alleged resignation is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the resignation, if any, tendered by the second respondent was accepted by the committee of the bank. The voluntary retirement application is also not shown to have been accepted, though the petitioner contends that the minutes book, if called for, would disclose it. This is not so, particularly when the counter affidavit of the first respondent also shows that he is fairly appraised and is in control of the fact situation relating to the third respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is ordered directing that if the petitioner moves the third respondent for any information or copies of materials, that would be released to enable the petitioner to place any grievance, if he has, before the first respondent. All other issues are closed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, sl. Judge.