IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17053 of 2008(E)
1. N.J.THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. KUNJUMUHAMMED, GENERAL MANAGER,
3. ALUVA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.ESM.KABEER
For Respondent :SRI.V.G.ARUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
==================================
W.P.(C)No.17053 of 2008
==================================
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The second respondent now works as the General
Manager of the third respondent, a Co-operative
Bank. Petitioner is a member of that bank. He has
filed this writ petition contending that the second
respondent is incompetent and unqualified to be the
General Manager and that he is continuing even
after his resignation. It is also contended that
the second respondent tendered his application for
voluntary retirement and is shown to be continuing
in spite of that.
2. The second respondent and the first
respondent Joint Registrar have placed counter
affidavits and materials on record. It appears
that the second respondent was granted certain
exemptions from qualification in 1988 with effect
from sometime in 1984 on the basis of a resolution
WPC17053/08
-:2:-
drawn by the society in 1986. Nearly twenty years
have gone through thereafter. In the realm of
service law, the doctrine of “sit back” and other
attendant principles should stare at a rival
employee who will challenge the grant of exemption,
if it is challenged now. Petitioner is not even a
rival employee. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the service of the third respondent
does not include other persons who are literate and
who can take care of their own affairs. There
cannot, therefore, be any public spirited exercise
also. The quality of rights of a member of a co-
operative society to challenge the appointment or
matters relating to the service of a particular
employee of a co-operative society is extremely
minimal and would be relevant only in exceptional
circumstances of glaring injustice or abuse of
authority which may have an impact on the
establishment as a whole. Nothing of that sort is
made out in this writ petition. In so far as the
WPC17053/08
-:3:-
alleged resignation is concerned, there is nothing
on record to show that the resignation, if any,
tendered by the second respondent was accepted by
the committee of the bank. The voluntary
retirement application is also not shown to have
been accepted, though the petitioner contends that
the minutes book, if called for, would disclose it.
This is not so, particularly when the counter
affidavit of the first respondent also shows that
he is fairly appraised and is in control of the
fact situation relating to the third respondent.
Therefore, this writ petition is ordered directing
that if the petitioner moves the third respondent
for any information or copies of materials, that
would be released to enable the petitioner to place
any grievance, if he has, before the first
respondent. All other issues are closed.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
sl. Judge.