IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33534 of 2006(P)
1. T.A.USHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PERUMPILLY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
... Respondent
2. LALAN,
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JACOB
For Respondent :SRI.M.M.MONAYE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :06/02/2007
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
-------------------
W.P.(C). 33534/2006 (P)
--------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner had undergone the selection
process and topped the select list, prepared and
published by the first respondent, Perumpilly Co-operative
Society, Njarakkal, Eranakulam. Notification was issued
on 4.6.2003. Though the rank list was prepared on
14.11.2003, the writ petitioner had not so far been
appointed. The Joint Registrar (General), Ernakulam, had
directed the first respondent, Society, to cancel the rank
list, on the ground of alleged irregularities in conducting
the selection.
2. Writ Petition No.24821/2004 was filed before
this Court, challenging the non-appointment of the writ
petitioner. As an appeal would lie against the order of the
Joint Registrar, this Court did not interfere and directed
the writ petitioner to approach the Government.
Accordingly, an appeal had been preferred and the
W.P.(C).33534/2006
2
Government, after hearing all concerned, passed G.O.
(Rt)No.166/2006/Co-op dated 29.3.2006, allowed the
appeal and set aside the order of the Joint Registrar,
cancelling the rank list. The resolution, passed by the
first respondent, cancelling the rank list, consequent on
the order of the Joint Registrar, was also set aside. The
first respondent, Society, was also directed to make the
appointments from the rank list published on 14.11.2003.
Despite such an order, the appointment of the petitioner
had not been effected. Hence, this writ petition.
3. During the hearing, the learned counsel for
the first respondent, Society, relying on Chandran v.
State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT, Short Note.Case
No.26, Page 27) submitted that “even if the posts are
permanent, it is not obligatory for the board of directors
of a Society to fill up all the posts”. The counsel further
submits that the financial position of the Society is very
unstable and, therefore, no further appointments are
required to be made. The counsel further relied on
Jatinder Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab
W.P.(C).33534/2006
3
(AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1850), to emphasis the
point that the process of the selection and selection for
the purpose of recruitment against the anticipated
vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the
posts, for which the selection was held.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner,
on the other hand, submits that the Government had
already ordered to appoint the petitioner to the post of
attender and the order of the Government is still valid.
The said order had not so far been challenged. The writ
petitioner is a woman aged about 33. The stand of the
first respondent, Society, that the appointment shall be
only after the financial position of the Society increases,
may not be accepted, the counsel submit.
5. An examination of the facts in Chandran v.
State of Kerala, reveal that the learned single Judge was
dealing with the appointment of the persons from the
feeder category to the promotion post. It was laid down
after discussing the facts that “it is an absolute
prerogative right of the board of directors not to fill up
W.P.(C).33534/2006
4
any particular post even though the feeder category
rules had sanctioned the post of a Secretary and enable
the board of directors to effect appointment to that post.”
6. The facts available in the case of Chandran v.
State of Kerala cited supra, are on different context.
The same cannot be applied to the facts of the case at
hand. In Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, cited
supra, on the other hand, the Court observed that “if the
vacancy is to be filled up, the Government has to make
appointment strictly adhering to the order of merit as
recommended by the Public Service Commission. It
cannot disturb the order of merit according to its own
sweet will except for other good reasons viz., bad
conduct or character. The Government also cannot
appoint a person whose name does not appear in the list.
But it is open to the Government to decide how many
appointments will be made.” It was in the facts of that
case, the apex Court observed that the “process for
selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment
against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to
W.P.(C).33534/2006
5
be appointed to that post”. In the present circumstances,
the facts available in Jatinder Kumar’s case is entirely
different. Therefore, the authorities cited are
inapplicable to the facts that are under discussion.
7. After hearing both sides and considering the
law and facts that are placed before me, I direct the first
respondent, Society, to appoint the writ petitioner as an
attender, in the Society, in accordance with the G.O.
dated 29.3.2006, referred above. The appointments shall
be effected within 45 days from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
J.M.JAMES
JUDGE
mrcs