IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17642 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PEETHAMBARAN,RARAMBATH HOUSE,KARAMUKKU, KANDASSANKADAVU,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,LTD.NO.R 312 REP; BY ITS PRESIDENT,H.O.IRINJALAKUDA,TRICHUR. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),THRISSUR. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.17642 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the 1st respondent declining the request made by the petitioner for appointment under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was married to one Ms.Valsalakumari and in that wedlock, she gave birth to a son, Mr.Vaisagh. Mrs.Valsalakumari expired on 22/06/1994, and thereafter the petitioner got married to one Ms.Bhagyalakshmi on 02/09/1995. She was employed under the 1st respondent Bank. She expired on 20/04/2008, and thereafter by Ext.P1, Mr.Vaisagh, the son in the first marriage, applied for employment under Rule 188A of the KCS Rules, that was rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P2. It is challenging this communication, this writ petition is filed. 3. Although, several contentions have been raised on the WP(C) No.17642/2009 -2- merits of the claim and to the invalidity of Ext.P2, I do not think it necessary for me to pronounce on any of the contentions. This is for the reason that Ext.P2 does not contain any reason why the claim raised by Mr.Vaisagh is inadmissible. 4. Thus, Ext.P2 having been passed without any application of mind, the said order will stand set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the light of the Rules, and if it is rejected, containing reasons thereon. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg