IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35516 of 2007(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ RAJEEVAN.K.V., S/O.O.T.CHINDAN, BAKKALAM, KANUL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 564. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHERTHALA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., CHERTHALA. 3. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R2 ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).35516/2007-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 09/10/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CSEB 3/2007 DATED 18/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/08/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/10/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPOINTEMNT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.35516 of 2007-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner applied for being considered for the post of Junior Clerk in the second respondent Bank. Written test was conducted in November, 2002. Thereafter, the interview was delayed and was, ultimately, conducted only four years thereafter. The official respondents directed the employer Bank not to proceed with the appointment or approve the examination. The petitioner challenges it. 2.A very vivid affidavit has been placed on record by the second respondent, the employer Bank disclosing the reasons why the delay occurred. On 15-7-2002, the Board of the Bank resolved to WP(C)35516/2007 -: 2 :- conduct selection. A notification was issued thereafter by the third respondent - the Co- operative Service Examination Board on 2-11- 2002. In the meanwhile, one Parvathy M. Kurup staked claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. She, thereafter, moved the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on that count. She filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C).32255/2002. That was disposed of on 1-11-2002 directing the Joint Registrar to dispose of her application. The Joint Registrar issued an order staying appointment to the post of Junior Clerk. While so, the third respondent Examination Board forwarded a list of candidates on 17-12-2002 for interview. On 30-12-2002, the application of Parvathy M. Kurup was rejected by the Bank. The Joint Registrar, thereafter, interfered with that decision and directed on 6- 1-2003 to forward her application for sanction. The Bank's appeal was rejected by the Government on 26-6-2004. The Bank also lost WP(C). 23554/2004 against that decision. Following that WP(C)35516/2007 -: 3 :- judgment dated 27-3-2006, the Board of the Bank resolved to appoint Parvathy M. Kurup. In the meanwhile, another employee in the Bank died and his son one Sreekumar applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Following an order of the Registrar, the Bank resolved to make that appointment. It was on account of the aforesaid facts that the delay in conducting the interview occurred. The subsequent averments in the affidavit of the Bank show that by the appointment of Parvathy M. Kurup and Sreekumar, the general quota stood filled and what was required is recruitment of SC/ST candidates for furtherance of sub-section (4) of Section 80 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Bank accordingly interviewed the SC/ST candidates and concluded that the petitioner deserves to be appointed. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the delay in making the appointment was just and reasonable and in that context, Ext.P4 WP(C)35516/2007 -: 4 :- decision of the Government is unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and it is directed that the competent statutory authority will approve the appointment of the petitioner which has been given effect to pending the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160808