Suni Kumari vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9495 of 2009(F)


1. SUNI KUMARI, MANGALATHU ULA VEEDU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, PERUMPAZHATHOOR

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN,SC,CO-OP.SERVICE EXAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :26/03/2009

 O R D E R
              THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
                 ...........................................
                WP(C).NO. 9495                  OF 2009
                 ............................................
        DATED THIS THE          26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

Kerala State Co-operative Examination Board is impleaded.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing

counsel, Adv.P.U.Shylajan for second respondent. Notice to first

respondent dispensed with preserving the right to move for

review of this judgment, if aggrieved. The petitioner, going by

Exts.P1, P2 and P3, had different laps of temporary employment

on daily wages with the second respondent. With the passage of

time, the Co-operative Examination Board, invited applications

to the post of Junior Clerk in the second respondent, along with

other banks. Test was conducted by the Board and list has been

forwarded to the society to conduct interview. It is stated that

interview has also been conducted. After the introduction of

Section 80(B) in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the

recruitment of a regular entrant can be made only following the

procedure as noted above. The petitioner cannot therefore insist

on regularising her temporary appointments. It would also be

WP(C) 9495/2009 2

unfair to other competing candidates if this court were to issue

any direction as sought for, viz, that the experience earned by

the petitioner should also be considered. These are matters left

entirely with the realm of the Examination Board and the

employer of the second respondent to make selection in

accordance with the directions of Kerala Co-operative Societies

Act and Rules and binding directions issued under those statutory

provisions. Preserving the right of the petitioner to be appointed,

if offered, this writ petition is dismissed.

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

lgk/27/3