Allowed

Thomas Karakkavayalil v. the Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Kerala HC7 Mar 2011WP(C)/548/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a recruitment notification for non-compliance with co-operative society circulars, the court set aside the notification due to missing particulars, directed fresh notice issuance, and mandated a written test conducted by a reputed outside agency.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 notification set aside; directions to issue fresh notification complying with Circular No.11/1999 and conduct written test engaging a reputed outside agency.

Thomas Karakkavayalil Vs the Registrar of Co-Op.Societies — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 548 of 2011(P)

¶6

-----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ------------------------

¶8

THOMAS KARAKKAVAYALIL, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 60 YEARS,RESIDING AT KARAKKAVAYALIL HOUSE, PERINCHANKUTTY.P.O,CHEMPAKAPPARA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 604.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (KERALA), OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),IDUKKI,OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PAINAVU.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603.

¶14

3. THE MURIKKASSERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LIMITED NO.K-355,MURIKKASSERI.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685 604.

¶15

4. THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),UDUMBANCHOLA,OFFICE OF THE ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NEDUMKANDAM.P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685 553.

¶16

R1 & R2, R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.T.K. MOHANAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

WP(C)NO.548/2011

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP.5055/10/KDIS DATED 27/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P2 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01/12/2010 APPEARED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 03/12/2010.

¶24

P3 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SUB COMMITTEE MEETING CONVENED ON 30/12/2010.

¶25

P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3/1/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P5 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/91 (EM (2) 25846/90) DATED 07/06/1991.

¶27

P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/07/2010 IN WP(C) NO.2592 OF 2010.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

R3(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING DATED 18/11/2010.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶34

W.P (C) No.548 of 2011

¶35

Dated this the 7th March, 2011

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent, a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. In this writ petition, he seeks to challenge Ext.P2, a notification issued by the respondent Bank for making appointments to two posts of Peons and one post of Salesman. The grounds on which the notification is challenged are that the financial position of the Society does not justify the proposed appointments that Ext.P2 notification is against the provisions contained in Circular 11/1999 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that the test is proposed to be held in violation of Ext.P5 circular which has interpreted by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment.

¶38

Third respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit, in which, it has highlighted the necessity to make appointments to the vacant posts notified in Ext.P2. Third respondent further says that the petitioner himself was a party to Ext.R3 (a), minutes of the Board meeting

¶39

W.P (C) No.548 of 2011

¶40

¶41

resolving to fill up these posts but has chosen to challenge Ext.P2 for oblique motives consequent on his shifting of political loyalties.

¶42

Irrespective of the allegations raised by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the fact that the respondent bank has the competence to fill up the vacancies depending upon its minutes, has to be accepted. In this case, Ext.R3(a) minutes shows that the Director Board of the Bank, in which the petitioner is also a member have considered the entire matter and decided to fill up the vacant posts. Apart from the averments in the writ petition, there is no other material to conclude that the decision taken by the Bank to full up the posts is not a bona fide one. Therefore, I am not prepared to think that the Bank should not be permitted to proceed with the recruitment to the vacancies in question, particularly since the petitioner himself is a party to that decision.

¶43

As far as the case of the petitioner that Ext.P2 is in violation of Circular No.11/1999 is concerned,

¶44

W.P (C) No.548 of 2011

¶45

¶46

Circular No.11/1999, mentions the particulars to be included in a notification issued by the Bank. It cannot be disputed that Ext.P2 does not contain many of the essential particulars which are required to be included in the notification. Therefore, Ext.P2 notification, does not satisfy the requirements laid down in Circular No.11/1999 and any recruitment based on Ext.P2 will be illegal and cannot be permitted.

¶47

As far as Ext.P5 circular, which has been interpreted by this Court in Ext.P6 is concerned, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that written test is required to be conducted by an outside agency. It is also pointed out that in Ext.P6 judgment where the scope of the said circular was considered and this Court has held that the expression 'outside agency' occurring in Ext.P5 must be an agency of repute. This Court having laid down the manner in which the expression "outside agency" is to be understood, it is necessary that the 3rd respondent Bank should follow the same. True, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent

¶48

W.P (C) No.548 of 2011

¶49

¶50

has pointed out that W.A No.1881/2010 filed before this Court against Ext.P6 was heard and judgment is awaited.

¶51

Now that Ext.P2 notification is invalid, necessarily fresh notification will have to be issued and for those applicants who respond to such notification, the Bank should conduct a written test engaging an outside agency as stated in Ext.P5 circular and as understood in Ext.P6 judgment.

¶52

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶53

(i) Ext.P2 notification will stand set aside. However, it will be open to the bank to issue a fresh notification, complying with the requirements of Circular No.11/1999 referred to above.

¶54

(ii) Once the applications are received in pursuance to such notification, the Bank will conduct written test in the manner laid down in Ext.P5 circular engaging a reputed agency which expression has been considered in in Ext.P6. It is clarified that in case the findings in Ext.P6 are in any manner modified in the writ

¶55

W.P (C) No.548 of 2011

¶56

¶57

appeal, the Bank will comply with the modified directions in that regard.

¶58

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶59

¶60

/True copy/

¶61

P.A to Judge