Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46763
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T. R. Ravi, J
THE PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40214 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Arun Chandran, Sri. Harimohan, Smt. Anjaly T.A, Aswathy S Menon
For the Respondents: Sri. B. Ashok Shenoy, Sri. P.S. Gireesh, Sri. Salih P.A, Sri. Arjun R Naik, Smt. Thejalakshmi R.S, Sri. Umasanker U.U, Sri. Premchand R. Nair, Sr. GP.
The Tribunal's failure to adequately consider previous court directives necessitated the setting aside of its decision regarding appointment notifications within the cooperative bank.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Sections 69 - Appeal concerning appointment notifications in a cooperative bank; validity of rank list influencing appointment decisions considered. (Paras 7-9)
(B) Challenges to Tribunal decisions - The Tribunal must consider observations from higher courts and assess the context of earlier notifications in appointment processes thoroughly. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a co-operative bank's appointment procedure, earlier litigations surrounding notifications for staffing, and the interactions with a rank list set to expire. Key appointments had been made while disputes over notification validity arose, culminating in multiple judicial reviews and directives. The Tribunal's omission to address necessary considerations from previous judgments prompted the current petition's filing.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's failure to deliberate on elements mandated by higher court directives led to the writ being allowed, indicating further evaluation required. The orders challenging prior decisions were set aside, and explicit directions for reconsideration were laid out.
Issues: The principal issue revolves around the validity of the notification process concerning the expired rank list, and whether the appropriate parties were accounted for and involved in the selection challenges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds the Tribunal's decisions flawed due to a lack of consideration of mandated directives from higher court judgments, necessitating a new review that adequately considers relevant past proceedings and notifications raised.
Result: The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P18 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration.
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is to Ext.P18 order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in R.P.No.98 of 2018. The short facts required are as follows:
The petitioners are a Co-operative Bank and its Managing Committee, and they had issued Ext.P1 notification on 10.04.2010 for appointment to the post of peon. There were 5 vacancies notified. Ext.P1 also says that further vacancies which may arise during the currency of the rank list will also be filled up from the list to be prepared. Ext.P2 is the rank list and its period was to expire on 27.05.2012. The 3rd respondent was the 6th rank holder in the list. Persons who secured ranks 1 to 5 were appointed to the existing 5 vacancies. The last appointment was made on 16.05.2011. It so happened that by Ext.P3 dated 04.11.2011 two additional posts were sanctioned for the Bank. The Bank after taking legal advice notified the said two posts and applications were called for on 21.11.2011. Ext.P5 is the notification which was published in the news paper. The 3rd respondent challenged the second notification by filing W.P.(C) No.32361 of 2011, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A.No.71 of 2013 which was disposed of by Ext.P9 Judgment dated 17.01.2013 permitting the 3rd respondent to approach the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act untrammeled by the observations in the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the merits of the claim. Before the judgment was rendered by the Division Bench the petitioners had issued Ext.P8 notification on 29.12.2012 calling for applications for the posts, since by then the period of the rank list had also expired. This fact has not been noted in Ext.P9 Judgment . Ext.P10 is the copy of the ARC No.7 of 2013 which was preferred by the 3rd respondent before the Arbitration Court on 29.01.2013. The Arbitration Court passed Ext.P11 award on 15.05.2018 finding that the second notification dated 21.11.2011 was bad in law and directing the appointment of the 3rd respondent. The order of the Arbitrator was challenged before the Tribunal. On 02.03.2021 by Ext.P13 order the Tribunal allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Arbitration Court. The 3rd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.13126 of 2021 before this Court which was disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment setting aside the order of the Tribunal and directing a reconsideration. A review petition filed against the judgment was allowed by Ext.P15 judgment dated 12.01.2023. The writ petition was heard over again and disposed of by Ext.P16 Judgment setting aside the order of the Tribunal and directing reconsideration. This Court while directing reconsideration, noted that the Tribunal had proceeded on an assumption that the rank list had expired on 27.05.2011 which ought not to have been done. It was noted that the contention of the petitioners was that all the vacancies which were notified had been filled up pursuant to Ext.P1 and the rank list had been exhausted. The Court also took note of the fact that the 3rd respondent had participated in the selection process which was initiated as per Ext.P8 and had failed to succeed and observed that the contention whether the 3rd respondent still had the locus to challenge the notification in the above circumstances also have to be gone into by the Tribunal. Even though a writ appeal was filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the same was dismissed. It is thereafter that by Ext.P18 the Tribunal has passed fresh orders. In paragraph Nos.1 to 5 of Ext.P18 the facts have been narrated. The consideration of the case is available in paragraph Nos.6 to 8. A reading of paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the judgment would show that the Tribunal has not considered the aspects which were directed to be considered by this Court in Ext.P16 Judgment . The Tribunal has merely taken note of the notification dated 21.11.2011 and held that
