Dismissed

Sunny Das & Another v. the Joint Registrar (G) Co-Op. Societies

Kerala HC29 Nov 2012WP(C)/18451/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to halt an interview process for Peon and Attender posts. The petitioners alleged that specific candidates would be awarded maximum marks without due process. The Court found the apprehension baseless due to a lack of evidence, holding the petition pre-mature.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was pre-mature and devoid of merit due to lack of evidence supporting the apprehension of unfair appointment.

Sunny Das & Another Vs the Joint Registrar (G)… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18451 of 2011 (F)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. SUNNY DAS, M.S.NIVAS, NJEKKAD, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2. BIJI R., AKKARAVILA VEEDU, NJEKKAD, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

¶10

SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶11

SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2. THE OTTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.976, CHENNANCODU, VADASSERIKONAM P.O. VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695143.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 18451 of 2011 (F) ---------------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

---------

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY SANJEEVAN.R. BEFORE THE RECRUITMENT BOARD DATED NIL

¶23

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD NO.1052 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD NO.1102 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.201.

¶26

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN VEENAKSHAM DAILY DATED 5.7.2011.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 18451 of 2011

¶33

Dated this the 29^th day of November 2012

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction commanding the 2^nd respondent not to conduct interview or effect appointments to the post of Peon and Attender for which written test as per Exts.P2 and P3 and for a direction commanding the first respondent to conduct the interview to the post of Peon and Attender for which written test was held as per Exts.P2 & P3.

¶36

The 2^nd respondent bank invited applications for appointment to the post of two attender and two post of peon. The first petitioner applied for the post of peon. He attended the written test on 2.7.2011. Ext.P2 is the copy of the admission card. The 2^nd petitioner applied for the post of attender and appeared for the test held on 2.7.2011. The writ petition is filed stating that the petitioners understand that with special interest shown by a leader of the C.P.I (M) certain persons are going to be appointed on the date of interview itself. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the first respondent. The allegation in the writ petition is that if the 2^nd respondent is allowed to conduct

¶37

w.p.(c) No.18451/2012

¶38

¶39

the interview, they will award maximum marks to those persons mentioned in Ext.P4 and appoint them. In the circumstance, the writ petition is filed for seeking the aforesaid reliefs. The apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis. No materials are produced before the Court to show that the 2^nd respondent will award maximum marks to those persons mentioned in Ext.P4. The writ petition is pre-mature. Without holding the interview and without completing the selection process, neither the petitioner nor anybody can seek reliefs apprehending certain appointments.

¶40

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶42

al/-

Sunny Das & Another v. the Joint Registrar (G) Co-Op. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Das & Another v. the Joint Registrar (G) Co-Op. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasekhara Nair @ Jayan Vs the Principal

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs E.P.Abraham

Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Padmanabhan

P.P.Padmini Vs Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank

P.S.Babu Raj Vs Alappey Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd.

Manjeri Municipality Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner