IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4092 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAGHAVALAL.R., S/O. A.P.RAGHAVAN AGED 31 YEARS, PALLIVATTAMEKKUMKARA PUTHE VEEDU KONNIYOOR, POVVACHAL P.O., 695 575. 2. SOUMYA.T.DAS, D/O. SAMALAL.D.B SOUMYA BHAVAN, KATTAYKKODU PO,KATTAKADA. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, POOVACHAL RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD NO.T 355, POOVACHAL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRESIDENT POOVACHAL RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD NO.T 355, POOVACHAL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 6/2/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 4092 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed today and moved as a today motion matter. 2. The petitioners applied for being considered for appointment as Peons in terms of Ext.P1. That notification is dated 29.11.2008, which is stated to have been published on 1.12.2008. The plea of the second petitioner, as projected by the learned counsel, is that she is being discriminated against on account of exclusion of the women from the field of choice. That exclusion rightly or wrongly was in Ext.P1 from the date of its publication. That was not challenged by the second petitioner till now. The interview which is stated to be listed for tomorrow is one that is listed after one adjournment. This is the submission of the petitioner. That apart, having applied for participation on the basis of Ext.P1, the petitioners cannot seek the aid of this court to stultify the selection. 3. The petitioners say that though they have applied in terms of Ext.P1 and P2, they were not issued any hall ticket and therefore petitioners should either be given hall ticket or WP(C) 4092/2009 2 selection process be stayed. This action is not within the purview of a writ petition for three reasons. Firstly, the impugned action is only of a co-operative society. This is not a selection where Co-operative Examination Board, PSC or any statutory body is involved. Secondly, the petitioners have the right to challenge the selection, if and when selection process is over. Thirdly, the petitioners do not demonstrate that they would be deprived of any opportunity to impeach the selection and therefore are entitled to any order interfering with this selection process. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, preserving the right of the petitioners to challenge the selection, if any, in accordance with law, if aggrieved. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk