IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32240 of 2004(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. P.V. ASOKAN, ARUVIKODE KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, PANACODE P.O., ARYANADU-695 542. 2. A. RAJAN, KAVINPURAM ROADARIKATH VEEDU PANACODE P.O., ARYANADU-695 542. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PANACODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T.700, PANACODE P.O., VIA. ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. P. SAJITHAKUMARI, D/O. G. SASIDHARAN NAIR, PANNIKONATH VEEDU, PANACODE P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR - R3 SRI.R.S.KALKURA - R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).32240/2004-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.11624/84/K.DIS. CRP. DATED 19/01/85 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.CRP(1)11110/88. DATED 17/03/89 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 15/05/95 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK. EXT.P4: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.18/91 (EM(2)2584/90) DATED 07/06/1991 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES. EXT.P5: COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.18/94 (EM(3)20860/94) DATED 08/06/94 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES. EXT.P6: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.11/95-96 DATED 15/03/1996 CONTAINING THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24/06/1996 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/02/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE BANK. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/02/2002 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK. EXT.P10: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07/08/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P11: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 2002 IN O.P. NO.32142/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P12: COPY OF ORDER NO.C.R.P.(2)9211/02/K.DIS. DATED 10/01/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF ORDER DATED 12TH AUGUST 2003 IN I.A. NO.3127/2003 IN W.P.(C). NO.17627/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P14: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5TH NOVEMBER 2003 IN W.P.(C). NO.17627/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P15: COPY OF ORDER NO.C.R.P.(2)7506/03/K. DIS. DATED 22/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 25TH JANUARY 2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P17: COPY OF ORDER G.O.(Rt)NO.196/2004/CO-OP. DATED 30/03/2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNEMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ P.A. TO JUDGE Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.32240 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners are two members of the third respondent co-operative bank. They challenge the appointment of the fourth respondent as a Junior Clerk in the service of the bank. Though the petitioners are members of the Board of Directors of the bank, in my view, they are not entitled to agitate the issue in relation to individual cases of appointments because, any right to be appointed or any challenge to any appointment can be agitated only by persons who could be treated as aggrieved by any such appointment. Not only that, the petitioners, as members of the Board of Directors, are bound by the decision of the Board of which they are members. Leaving aside that aspect of the matter, it needs to be noticed that, in the impugned order of the Government passed on 30-3- WPC32240/08 -:2:- 2004 (Ext.P17), the Government have considered all the relevant aspects, including the question of availability of posts for being filled up and have appropriately concluded that the appointment of the fourth respondent does not deserve to be disturbed. In the realm of service law, I do not deem it appropriate to issue any orders at the instance of the petitioners, who are not even rivals to the fourth respondent in the matter of recruitment and thereby upset the employment of the fourth respondent. 2. Even a perusal of Ext.P16 appeal of the petitioners before the Government would show that the fact remains that from 7-4-1994, the fourth respondent had been discharging the duties and responsibilities either on temporary basis or otherwise in the establishment of the third respondent. This is also vouchsafed by the counter affidavit on record. WPC32240/08 -:3:- In the result, this writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sl/14.7.