IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27237 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JINI,AGED 34,W/O.ELDHO P.PAUL, PAMBAKOLILL,KADAKKUNADU (PO),VIA., KOLENJERRY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,COLLECTORATE,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 2. THE MAZHUVANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E-21 S,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH MZAHUVANNOOR P.O,ERNAKULAM- 686 669. 3. THE PRESIDENT,THE MAZHUVANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E-21 S,SOUTH MAZHUVANNOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM- 686 669. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27237/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 22/9/11 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11/99 DATED 23/3/1999. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/91 DATED 7/6/91. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/94 DATED 8/6/94. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT:- EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.79/11 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR DTD. 09/11/2011. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 27237 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P1 notification published by the 2nd respondent Bank inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against the 2 existing vacancies of 'Assistant' in the Bank. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had already decided to appoint 2 persons viz. Arun Vasu s/o. Vasu and Jeemol T.T, and that the notification is issued in a cryptic manner only as an eye wash to make belief that a process of appointment was conducted. It is pointed out that in Ext.P1 only 10 working days are provided for receiving application and that all the required details of qualification as envisaged in Ext.P2 circular were not included in Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner's apprehension is that the process of selection will be conducted by the 2nd respondent on their own whims and fancies and in violation of the procedure prescribed under Exts.P3 and P4 circular, in violation of Rule 182 (5) of the Kerala Co-Op. Societies Rules and also in violation of the WPC.27237/2011 2 guidelines issued by the Registrar. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it is contended that the committee of the 2nd respondent is the authority to conduct selection process by adopting procedure following the guidelines issued by the Registrar. The allegation made regarding corruption and favourtism etc. are denied stoutly. It is stated that all safeguards have taken to have a free selection process. However it is mentioned that, no decision has been taken with respect to any person to be selected. According to the 2nd respondent the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had issued in Circular No. 79/11, dt. 9.11.11, prescribing the procedure to be followed. It is assured that the selection process will be conducted strictly in accordance with the guidelines contained therein. It is also contended that Ext.P1 notification does not suffer from any infirmity and it satisfies all the requirements as contemplated under Ext.P2. However it is stated that, in the event of this court finding that any defficiency exists, the Society will issue an erratum notification. 3. Considering the rival submissions, I find that the process WPC.27237/2011 3 of selection has not been started. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge Ext.P1 notification since she is a candidate who had submitted application pursuant to Ext.P1 and since her application was not rejected due to want of any details or testimonial attached to it. However, I notice that strict compliance of the guidelines issued by the Registrar as contemplated under Rule 182(5) is mandatory. In that regard, I find merit in the contentions that Ext.P1 notification does not contain all the particulars as required under Ext.P2. I am of the view that before proceeding with the selection process it is necessary to publish a fresh notification (erratum notification) containing all the details as stipulated in Ext.P2 circular, which will facilitate more eligible applicants to apply for the posts and to compete the selection process in a fair manner. Needless to say that the 2nd respondent shall follow the guidelines prescribed through circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative societies including Ext.R2(a) circular in all respects in the selection process. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the WPC.27237/2011 4 2nd respondent to publish an erratum notification inviting applications within a stipulated date, for the posts notified under Ext.P1. Such notification should contain all the required details as stipulated in Ext.P2. The 2nd respondent shall consider the applications already received on the basis of Ext.P1 and those which will be received on the basis of the erratum notification which is to be published. The selection process shall continue thereafter strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 182(5) and the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co- Operative Societies, including those contained in Ext.R2(a) circular. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WPC.27237/2011 5 WPC.27237/2011 6