IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20116 of 2009(H)
1. SURESH K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE MARUTHONKARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE
3. K.P.SINDHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :20/05/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are the following:
i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
the respondents 1 and 2 to implement to the
direction in Exhibit P3 order which has been
confirmed by Exhibit P6 Judgment and
terminate the service of the 3rd respondent as
Peon in the 2nd respondent;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
the 1st respondent to direct 2nd respondent to
appoint the petitioner herein as Peon in the 2nd
respondent forthwith;
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing
the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner
herein as Peon in the 2nd respondent forthwith;
iv. to declare that the petitioner is legally entitled
to be appointed as Peon the 2nd respondent and
that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to be
appointed as a Peon in the 2nd respondent, that
her continuance services as Peon is highly
illegal, violative of the directions in Exhibit P3
confirmed vide Exhibit P6 and that she is to be
removed from service forthwith;
v. issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate order or direction calling for the
records leading to Exhibit P2 and quash the
same;
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
2
vi. issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
the 1st respondent to produce the copy of the
review petition filed by the 3rd respondent
pending before him before this Hon’ble court,
declare that the 1st respondent has no
jurisdiction to entertain a review petition against
Exhibit P3 as per the Act and Rules and
especially when Exhibit P3 order has been
upheld by this Hon’ble Court vide Exhibit P6 and
issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
order or direction to quash the same;
vii. issue such other writ, order or direction, as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the fact and
circumstance of the case.
2. The second respondent, the Maruthonkara Panchayath
Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. invited applications for
appointment to the post of Peon as per the notification issued in
2005. The petitioner had applied for the post. She was called for
the written test. According to the petitioner, five persons
appeared for the written test. Thereafter, on 21/1/2006, an
interview was conducted and four persons appeared for the
interview. They were (1) Rakhi P.T. (2) Jyothiprasad Jayan K.P.
(3) Suresh K (4) Sunila K.C.. According to the petitioner, she
was assigned rank No.3 among four persons who attended
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
3
interview. Rakhi P.T. was appointed. It is stated that Jyothiprasad
Jayan went abroad. According to the petitioner, he was entitled
to be appointed in the vacancy which arose. Instead, Sindhu K.P
was appointed as per Exhibit P2 dated 10/7/2007. The petitioner
filed W.P.(C)No.813/2008 challenging the appointment of
Sindhu. It was contended that Sindhu was appointed overlooking
the claim of the petitioner. That Writ Petition was disposed of
directing the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kozhikode
to dispose of the complaint raised by the petitioner within one
month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. After
hearing all the parties, the Joint Registrar passed Exhibit P3
order dated 17/7/2008 holding that the appointment of Sindhu
was illegal. The Joint Registrar arrived at the following findings:
1. In the document showing the names of the persons to
whom the hall ticket was issued under certificate of
posting, the name of Haris was scored off and the
name of K.P. Sindhu was included.
2. In the demand draft appended to the application
submitted by the candidate, in the demand draft
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
4
obtained in the name of Haris, the name of Sindhu
was interpolated.
3. In the minutes dated 21/1/2006 of the Sub-
committee, interpolations were made and the name
of Sindhu was included as rank No.2. Number (2) was
Jyothiprasad Jayan and his number was changed as
No.3. The rank of the petitioner shown as No.3 was
changed as No.4 and the rank of Sunila K.C., who
was No. 4 was changed as No. 5.
4. There were interpolations in the entries and
manipulations in the minutes book.
5. The manipulations of records were made in order to
give illegal appointment to Sindhu.
6. Sindhu was illegally appointed and therefore, she is
liable to be removed from the post.
3. It would appear that Sindhu filed a review petition
before the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar dismissed the
review petition as per Exhibit R3(a) order dated 30/7/2009. It is
submitted that Sindhu has filed Exhibit R3(b) appeal dated
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
5
17/8/2009 before the Government and that appeal is pending.
Exhibit R3(c) Stay Petition was also filed by Sindhu in Exhibit R3
(b) appeal. It is submitted that no stay was granted by the
Government in Exhibit R3(c) Stay Petition. Before Exhibit R3(b)
appeal was filed, Sindhu had approached this Court in W.P(C)
No.23681 of 2008 challenging Exhibit P3 order dated 17/7/2008
passed by the Joint Registrar. The Writ Petition was disposed of
as per Exhibit P6 judgment. For the sake of convenience, the
judgment is extracted below:
“The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the
second respondent co-operative bank. The third
respondent complained against it. Following an
enquiry, it was found by the Joint Registrar that there
were interpolations in the minutes book. Severe
criticism is levelled against the sub committee
members and also even regarding the manner of
despatch of notices for the interview. Certain postal
articles are also alleged as interpolated. These
allegations led to a consideration and decision on
17/7/2008. That is the impugned Ext.P9.
2. To exclude the controversies, I required the
second respondent to make available its records. A
perusal of that will show that the findings in Ext. P9,
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
6
on merits, are not those which could be criticized as
wholly unavailable on the records. Under such
circumstances, this Court is not to extend its
jurisdiction and interfere with the situation on grounds
of injustice.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed without
prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to seek
other reliefs in accordance with law before competent
statutory authority.”
4. Since no stay was granted in the appeal filed by
Sindhu before the Government, naturally Exhibit P3 order passed
by the Joint Registrar should have been implemented. But, it was
not implemented by the second respondent and there is no
explanation for the same. Had there been no appeal filed by
Sindhu, naturally most of the reliefs prayed for in the Writ
Petition would have been allowed. But, since the appeal is
pending against the decision of the Joint Registrar, I think it is
proper and just to direct the Government to dispose of the
appeal, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the
affected parties, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate,
within a period of two months.
W.P.(C).No. 20116 of 2009
7
5. Since, the State of kerala is not a party in the Writ
Petition, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Co-operation, Thiruvananthapuram is suo moto
impleaded as additional 4th respondent. The learned Government
Pleader takes notice for the 4th respondent.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition
is disposed of directing the additional 4th respondent to dispose of
Exhibit R3(b) appeal dated 17/8/2009 filed by Sindhu K.P., as
expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within two months,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the affected
parties. The petitioner shall forward a copy of the writ petition
along with exhibits, counter affidavit and reply affidavit to the
additional 4th respondent within a period of two weeks from today
along with a copy of the judgment.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm