Disposed

Latheesh G Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012WP(C)/16445/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged appointments in a cooperative bank alleging selection irregularities. The Court held the Joint Registrar has supervisory jurisdiction under Section 66 to act on the Inspector's enquiry report regarding third-party complaints. This matter was remanded to the Registrar for further proceedings as it involved disputed facts involving an outside agency.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Joint Registrar (3rd Respondent) to conduct the enquiry as envisaged on the basis of the Inspector's report and intimate the petitioner of the outcome within three months.

Latheesh G Panicker and Another Vs State of Kerala and… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 16445 of 2006 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. LATHEESH G PANICKER, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUNAVELIL, KANGAZHA P.O., PATHANAD.

¶8

2. MUHAMMED FISAL V.K., S/O. KASIM RAWTHER V.M., AGED 20 YEARS RESIDING AT VALOOR HOUSE, KANGAZHA P.O.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR SMT.G.R.LEKSHMI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

2. THE REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SERVICES, O/O.REGISTRAR, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

3. JOINT REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SERVICES, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

4. KANGAZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1145, KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

5. INDHU. M., D/O. MURALIDHARAN PILLAI, PEON, KANGAZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1145, KANGAAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶16

6. GIRISH.V. PANICKER, PEON, KANGAZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1145, KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

MJL

¶18

WP(C).No. 16445 of 2006 (G)

¶19

7. SUDHA, COMPUTER OPERATOR/PEON, KANGAZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1145 KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶20

ADDL.RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 IMPLEADED

¶21

R8. MR.JUSTIN - CORRECTED AS 'GENTLE'

¶22

PEON, KANGAZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1145, KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM

¶23

(NAME CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 2/7/2010 IN IA 8217/10)

¶24

R9. RENUE K.JOSEPH

¶25

PEON, KANGAZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1145, KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM

¶26

ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.RESPONDENTS 8 & 9 AS PER ORDER DATED 11/09/06 IN I.A.11277/06

¶27

*** ADDL.RESPONDENT 10 IMPLEADED**

¶28

R10. P.V.JOSEPH,

¶29

S/O VARGHESE, AGED 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEDIACKEL HOUSE, KALAPPURACKAL, KANJIRAMPARA P.O., KOTTAYAM

¶30

IS IMPLEADED AS ADD.R10, AS PER ORDER DATED 2/7/10 IN I.A.8497/10

¶31

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSE ADIYODI, R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN ADDL.R10 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

MJL

¶34

WP(C).No. 16445 of 2006 (G)

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.P1	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 7-2-2006 IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY.
EXT.P2	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET DATED 16-3-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXT.P3	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-3-2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER DATED NIL
EXT.P5	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER DATED 3-5-2006 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXT.P6	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTAION DATED 20-5-2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXT.P7	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.P.(4)20168/2006 DATED 27-5-2006 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR
EXT.P8	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 21/5/2006 IN DESHABIMANI DAILY
EXT.P9	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 25-5-2006 IN MANGALAM DAILY
EXT.P10	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23-6-2006 PUBLISHED BY ANSARI AND SHAHUL HAMEED
EXT.P11	:	A TRUE COPY THE LETTER DATED 21/4/2007 ISSUED BY THE ASST.REGISTRAR TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12	:	A TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 15/12/2009 BY THE CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR/INQUIRY OFFICER, MADAPALLY

¶38

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXT.R4 (a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MANAGING DATED 25/2/06.

/TRUE COPY/

P A TO JUDGE

MJL

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶44

W.P.(C).NO.16445 OF 2006

¶45

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2012

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

Petitioners are persons who applied for getting the appointment to post of peons on the basis of notification issued by the 4^th respondent bank. It is their contention that though as per the circulars issued by the Co-operative department, the test for the said post is to be conducted through an outside agency, the hall ticket and other documents would indicate that the entire procedure have been conducted by the society itself and that there were serious irregularities in the selection process by which respondents 5 to 9 happened to be appointed to the said post.

¶48

According to the petitioners they had taken up the matter with the Joint Registrar by issuing a representation Ext.P3 after having received the hall ticket dated

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C).NO.16445 OF 2006

¶51

16/03/2006 for the examination proposed to be conducted on 02/04/2006. But the Joint Registrar did not take any action in the matter. Petitioners have also participated in the selection process but still they are not selected and appointments were done as per the whims and fancies of the Managing Committee of the 4^th respondent bank. Ext.P6 is another representation sent by the petitioner to the Joint Registrar, requesting him to look into the matter and to take necessary action.

¶52

In the light of the above facts and circumstances petitioners seeks to Ext.P1 notice and all the proceedings pursuant to the same including the appointment of respondents 5 to 9.

¶53

The 4^th respondent bank has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the selection process had been done through an out side agency and since the petitioners had participated in the selection process they are not entitled to challenge the selection process in the writ

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C).NO.16445 OF 2006

¶56

petition.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition an enquiry report had been prepared by the Inspector concerned under Section 66(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which is now pending before the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and present report will indicate large scale irregularities being committed by the said Managing Committee. In that view of the matter the learned counsel requests for issuing necessary directions to the Joint Registrar to complete the procedure of enquiry as prescribed by the rules.

¶58

The Learned Counsel for the bank however opposes this prayer on the specific ground that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter in view of the bar of jurisdiction under Section 69 (1) of the CoOperative Societies Act and only the Arbitration Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the matter relates to

¶59

¶60

W.P.(C).NO.16445 OF 2006

¶61

employment of the respondents 5 to 9 in the society.

¶62

The learned Counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgments in Prakasini V. Joint Registrar 2006

¶63

(1) KLT 199 and a Division Bench decision in

¶64

Raveendran V. State of Kerala 2007 (3) KLT 558 to contend for the position that in regard to matters relating to employment only the Arbitration Court has jurisdiction in that matter. I do not think that the above judgments can be made applicable to the present case on hand and this is not a matter relating to seniority or promotion, which are the disputes forming subject matter of the above judgments.

¶65

But it is relevant to note that the Registrar has the supervisory jurisdiction for conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Section 66 of the Act and it is open for the Registrar to take necessary action in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 66 and various other provisions enumerated under Co-operative Societies Act.

¶66

¶67

W.P.(C).NO.16445 OF 2006

¶68

It is not disputed that the powers of Registrar had been delegated to the Joint Registrar concerned. Ext.P12 Produced by the petitioner is the enquiry report of the Inspector duly authorized by the Joint Registrar.

¶69

Though the respondent has contended that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction in the matter, I do not think that the bar under Section 69 will apply in respect of the complaint made by a third person in regard to the selection process adopted by the bank and especially in view of the fact that an enquiry had been conducted through the Inspector and enquiry report is available with the Joint Registrar. In that view of the matter it is open for the Joint Registrar to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules framed thereunder pursuant to Ext.P12.

¶70

Since the matter relates to disputed questions of facts as to whether the selection process had been conducted through an outside agency or not, I do not think

¶71

¶72

W.P.(C).NO.16445 OF 2006

¶73

that it is open for this court to adjudicate the said issue in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶74

Therefore taking into consideration the over all situation in the matter, I am of the view that a direction can be issued to the third respondent to conduct necessary enquiry as envisaged under law on the basis of Ext.P12 report and intimate the petitioner regarding the outcome of the said proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

¶75

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶76

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶77

MJL

Latheesh G Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latheesh G Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Vargese Vs Kerala Water Authority

Madana Mohanan.K Vs the Manager , Gopal Memorial Vocational

Dr.Gopu Sankar.M Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Vijayan & Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Lethika Devi Vs State of Kerala

Eliachan P.v.& Another Vs Raju & Others