The court upheld the validity of the selection process for a co-operative society post, affirming adherence to legal provisions and rejecting claims of procedural violations.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 15.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 38385 of 2025, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed.

2. The appellant/petitioner had filed the writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext P11 from the respondents 5 and 6 and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext P11 notification for selection and appointment to the post of Lab Assistant in violation of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 and to desist the Respondents 5 and 6 from conducting selection and appointment to the post of Lab Assistant in the 5th respondent Milk Society pursuant to Ext P11 in violation of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

(iii) To declare that the Ext P11 notification of Respondents 5 and 6 for selection and appointment to the post of Lab Assistant in the 5th respondent Milk Society is illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

(iv) To dispense with filing of English translation of Vernacular Documents.

(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a member of the fifth respondent Dairy Co-operative Society. She was elected as the President of the Society, and, owing to a no-confidence motion being moved against her, she resigned from the post of President on 22.02.2025. The appellant approached this Court with a complaint that the present Managing Committee of the fifth respondent Society is proceeding to fill the post of Laboratory Assistant by publishing a notice on the notice board of the Society, without obtaining prior permission from the third respondent. The appellant contended that the failure on the part of the Society to publish the employment notification in a newspaper violates the provisions of law and has been done with a view to appoint persons of their own choice. According to the Circulars issued by the Registrar, it is mandatory for the Society to publish a notification inviting applications for the post in a newspaper.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 15.01.2026, issuing the following directions:

“3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent society, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for granting the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Firstly, it must be noted that the writ petition attempts to impugn the selection process for filling up the post of Laboratory Assistant in a co-operative society. It is, at the least, doubtful whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed seeking interference with the proceedings taken by a primary co-operative society to fill up the post of Laboratory Assistant. Even if this petition is considered to be maintainable, the contentions taken by the petitioner appear to have no merit. It is clear from Ext.R6(a) that the fifth respondent proceeded to fill up the post of Laboratory Assistant only after obtaining the necessary permission from the third respondent. The petitioner’s contention that the notification was published only on the notice board of the society is also incorrect, as Ext.R6(b) clearly