IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the managing committee, not the administrative committee, has the authority to make appointments in co-operative societies under Rule 182(2) of the Societies Rules.

JUDGMENT :

BASANT BALAJI, J.

1. W.P. (C) Nos. 16943 of 2023 and 26590 of 2023 are filed by one and the same person. In W.P. (C) No. 16943 of 2023 the petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent Bank to appoint the petitioner to the vacancies notified as per Ext.P1 on the basis of Ext.P5 rank list and Ext.P7 advice memo. W.P. (C) No. 26590 of 2023 is filed to quash Ext.Nos.P10 and P11 and to direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the vacancies notified in Ext.P1 notification. W.P. (C) No. 38375 of 2023 is also filed to quash Ext.Nos.P10 and P11 and to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy pursuant to Ext.P5 rank list.

2. W.P. (C) No. 26590 of 2023 is taken as a leading case and the brief facts are narrated below:

The petitioner is the 1st rank holder to the post of Junior Clerk in the 3rd respondent bank. On the basis of Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner was called for a written examination. The written examination was conducted on 14.11.2021 and Ext.P3 short list was published by the 2nd respondent. While so, the 4th respondent committee of the 3rd respondent bank was superseded and an administrative committee was appointed as per Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Societies Act’). The administrative committee, who assumed office, on receipt of Ext.P3 list from the 2nd respondent, conducted the interview and Ext.P5 rank list was brought into force. Thereafter, Ext.P7 advice memo was issued to the petitioner to join the 3rd respondent Bank as Junior Clerk (General).

3. In the meanwhile, a candidate who secured 13th rank in the rank list approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 14096 of 2022 for a direction restraining the administrative committee from effecting appointments pursuant to the interview and for a declaration that the Administrative committee has no power or authority in law to make appointments of junior clerk/cashier to the 3rd respondent. By judgment dated 28.9.2022, a learned single Judge of this court directed the administrative committee not to make any substantive appointment in the service of 3rd respondent society. However, liberty was given to make temporary appointments till such time the managing committee comes to office to ensure that there is no administrative break down.

4. The 4th respondent approached this court through W.P. (C) No. 3897 of 2022 challenging the super-session of the managing committee and by Ext.P9 judgment, this court quashed the order of super-session reserving the right to proceed from the stage of Section 32(1) Notice and the elected committee was directed to assume the office forthwith. The 4th respondent committee assumed the office on the basis of Ext.P9 and thereafter, decided to cancel Ext.P5 rank list. The managing committee also reported 5 new vacancies to the 2nd respondent for initiating recruitment process. It is challenging the cancellation of the rank list and the decision to initiate recruitment process for 5 vacancies, this Writ Petition is filed.

5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The very maintainability of the Writ Petition was challenged stating that the appointment as Junior Clerk in the 3rd respondent bank is essentially a dispute arising in connection with employment of the society as defined under section 69(2)(d) of Societies Act and the remedy is to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court and not to invoke the extra jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent is a Primary Credit Co-operative society and is vested in the 4th respondent committee which was elected to the office on 21.7.2019. The committee resolved to make appointments to 6 vacancies of Junior Clerks through direct recruitment. Ext.P1 notification was issued and the 2nd respondent conducted a written test in terms of notification. After evaluation of answer scripts, a short list of the candidates who became success