SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Alexander Thomas, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ.
Sumitha Mathew and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Kanjirappally Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
WA No. 1895 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: D.Sreekumar
For the Respondent: Sri. Sunil Cyriac,Standing Counsel (B/O), Sri.Shaji Thomas, Sri.Jen Jaison, Sunil Cyriac, Sri Saigi Jacob Palatty-Sr. GP

Point of Law : There could be cases where allegations of malpractices, corruption, fraud etc are made in the selection process and the same would require some amount of proper enquiry and a mere summary enquiry may not suffice.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Kerala High Court Act - Section 5(i) - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Section 66, 69, 69(1) - Kerala Co-operative Society Rules - Rule 176 - Rule 182(5) – Rule 185 - Writ Appeal – Selecting and appointing - Power of High court to issue writs - Whether any other remedy is provided in terms of KCS Act or the KCS Rules for meeting with such an eventuality - It clear that the dispute therein was in relation to inter se seniority of in-service employees and that therefore it has been rightly held that the jurisdiction that is available is the one in terms of Section 69 of the KCS Act (Para 17).

Findings of the Court :

Government Pleader had filed memo, at writ petition stage, furnishing instructions given by respondent Joint Registrar, and that, after ascertaining records of 1st respondent Co-operative Society, as a matter of fact, R6 had not participated in Managing Committee meeting of Co-operative Society, which had taken the decision to appoint appellants, as per Exts.P3 & P4. That apart, it is to be noted that R6 had only sent Ext.P7 letter, intimating 3rd respondent Joint Registrar, that he has now proceeded further in matter. The intervention, said to have been made by R6, cannot be basis to challenge legality and correctness of decision of the 3rd respondent Joint Registrar, as per Ext.P15. The contesting respondent No.6 was a member of Managing Committee of Society and he certainly has the locus to make such a request. At any rate, the request made by him, as per Ext.P11, cannot be basis to interfere with Ext.P15 decision of 3rd respondent Joint Registrar, as the legality of same has to be determined independent of that. Hence, Court is constrained to overrule the abovesaid contention of appellants as well.

Result : Writ Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The subject matter of challenge in this intra-court appeal, instituted under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, is the judgment rendered on 08.07.2019 by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the instant Writ Petition Civil, WP(C) No.6166/2018. The appellants herein are the petitioners in the WP(C) and the respondents herein are the respondents in the WP(C).

2. Heard Sri.D.Sreekumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in the WA/petitioners in the WP(C), Sri.Sunil Cyriac, learned Counsel appearing for R1 & R2 (Co-operative Society concerned), Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 3 to 5 herein and Sri.Shaji Thomas, learned Advocate appearing for contesting respondent No.6 herein.

3. The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil), WP(C) No.6166/2018 are as follows:

    “i) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exts-P14 and P15 and quash the same;

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioners to continue as Attenders in the 1st respondent society.;

iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.”

4. The proceedings under challenge in the above writ proceedings is Ext.P15 dated 14.02.2018, issued by the 3rd respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, whereby the resolutions of the 1st respondent Co-operative Society, selecting and appointing the appellants/petitioners to the post of attender, in the said respondent Cooperative Society, have been rescinded, by invoking the powers under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Society Rules (KCS Rules), on the ground that the said appointments of the appellants, as per Exts.P3 and P4, have been made as against non-sanctioned posts and also have been made beyond the vacancies notified in Ext.P9 selection notification and also beyond the validity period of the ranked list, stipulated in Ext.P9 selection notification.

5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, have rendered the impugned judgment in the above WP(C), and held that, after consideration of facts and circumstances of this case, the abovesaid impugned proceedings, as per Ext.P15, is not liable for interference and that the 3rd respondent Joint Registrar has jurisdictional competence to issue proceedings under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules, to rescind resolutions of the Co-operative Society concerned, where the decision of the selection process is vitiated by grave irregularities and illegalities. It is the abovesaid verdict of the learned Single Judge that is under challenge in the instant intra-court appeal. A reference to the facts of this case would be necessary.

6. The 1st respondent Co-operative Society had published Ext.R-3(a) selection notification dated 09.05.2013 in certain newspapers, whereby applications were invited for selection and appointment to certain posts mentioned therein, including to the post of Attender/Record Keeper, in the scale of pay of Rs.7350-19,600/-and it was specifically stipulated that the vacancies in that post, notified to be filled up, as per the said selection notification, is limited to 2 posts. Clause 5 of Ext.R-3(a) selection notification also clearly stipulated that the validity of the rank list, for the abovesaid selection, will be limited to the period of 2 years from the date of its publication. Further, it is seen that, after conduct of selection process, Ext.P1 rank list dated 29.06.2013 was published for the abovesaid post of Attender / Record Keeper, in which the two appellants herein have been included therein, as rank numbers 4 & 6 respectively, out of the 6 candidates included in the said rank list. Further, it appears that candidates having Rank nos.1 & 2, at Ext.P1 ranklist, were selected and appointed as per resolution dated 29.06.2013, issued with effect from 01.07.2013, as per

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top