Allowed

K.Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jun 2016OP/23304/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order by the Joint Registrar that canceled bank employees' appointments. The Court held the cancellation violated natural justice principles as the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before their livelihood was affected.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P17 order canceling the petitioners' appointments is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed.

K.Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

OP.No. 23304 of 2001 (Y) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K. OMANAKUTTAN, SALESMAN, THE EZHUKONE SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK, LTD. NO. 2935, EZHUKONE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PADINJATTEMUKALIL, EZHUKONE, EZHUYKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. D.MOHANAN, NIGHT WATCHMAN, THE EZHUKONE SERVICE CO-OPERATICVE BANK LTD. NO. 2935, EZHUKONE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOTHETHU VILA VEEDU EZHUKONE, EZHUYKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶9

3. B.BIJU, FIELD MAN, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2935, EZHUKONE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POIKAVILA VEEDU, IRUMPANANGAD, IRUMPANANGAD P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4. K. VIJAYAN, BILL COLLECTOR, THE EZHUKONE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2935,EZHUKONE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ATHIRTHI VILA VEEDU, PARUTHANPARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

OP.NO. 23304 OF 2001 (Y)

¶15

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM.

¶17

4. K.S. VINODIAL, UMMANKALA VEEDU, KOLANNUR, EZHUKONE, EZHUKONE P.O.,

¶18

KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

5. P.S. ADVANI, LEKSHMI SADANAM, IRUMPANANGAD, IRUMPANANGAD P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶20

6. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SERVICE, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2935, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, C.S. HARIKUMAR.

¶21

7. THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2935, EZHUKONE, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

BY GOVERNEMNT PLEADER SRI.REJI JOSEPH

¶23

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

OP.NO. 23304 OF 2001 (Y)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITION P1:	ER'S EXHIBITS : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP BY RE TO THE R7.	10265/85 DT 21/12/85 ISSUED
P2:	COPY OF ORDER NO CRP-102 ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE	63/85/K DIS. DT 1/1/1986 R7.
P3:	COPY OF LETTER NO.R.8522 BY THE R3 TO THE R7.	/88 L.DIS. DT 13/12/88 SENT
P4:	COPY OF ORDER NO. 930/80 THE R3 TO THE R7.	K.DIS. DT 4/3/80 ISSUED BY
P5:	COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION BANK.	NO. 86 DT 8/2/99 OF THE R7
P6:	COPY OF RELEVANT PAPER N MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.	OTIFICATION DT 10/2/99 IN
P6(A):	COPY OF RELEVANT PAPER N DESABHIMANI DAILY.	OTIFICATION DT 12/2/99 IN
P7:	COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION	NOS. 277 DT 16/12/99.
P8:	COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION	NO. 278 DT 16/12/99.
P9:	COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION	NO. 279 DT 16/12/99.
P10:	COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION	NO. 280 DT 16/12/99.
P11:	COPY OF POSTING ORDER DT PETITIONER.	17/12/99 ISSUED TO THE 1ST
P12:	COPY OF POSTING ORDER DT PETITIONER.	17/12/99 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
P13:	COPY F POSTING ORDER DT PETITIONER.	17/12/99 ISSUED TO THE 3RD
P14:	COPY OF POSTING ORDER DT PETITIONER.	17/12/99 ISSUED TO THE 4TH
P15:	COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 2	83 DT 23/12/2000.
P16:	COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 2	93 DT 13/1/2001.
P17:	COPY OF ORDER NO. R.1267	6/99 DT 21/7/2001.
RESPONDE	NT'S EXHIBITS :	NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶28

¶29

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶30

O.P. No.23304 of 2001

¶31

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners are challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by which the resolution of the Bank-Exts.P7 to P10 by which it was decided to appoint the petitioners as Salesman, Night Watchman, Field Man and Bill Collector, were canceled.

¶34

The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent had accorded sanction as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.12.1985 to change its classification from class III to Class II. Consequent to the change in classification, the 3^rd respondent issued order dated 1.1.1986 approving the staff pattern of the bank consisting of 13 employees in various categories including that of Watchman, Field Man, Sales Man etc. and appointments were being made in those posts since the year 1980, 1961 and 1969. The petitioners submitted that there was no reason for any prior sanction for appointment to be made against the vacancies which arose in the post of Watchman, Field Man and Bill Collector. Therefore when vacancies arose in such posts Bank had issued Exts.P6 and P6(a) notification dated 5.2.1999 in Malayala Manorama and Deshabhimani dailies inviting applications for

¶35

O.P.No.23304 of 2001

¶36

:2:

¶37

appointment to the post of Bill Collector, Field Man, Night Watchman and Salesman. The petitioners submitted their applications and since they were successful in the written test and interview conducted on 25.2.1999, the Bank in its meeting held on 16.12.1999 decided to appoint the petitioners as per the resolutions- Exts.P7 to P10 dated 16.12.1999. Based on these resolutions the petitioners were appointed in the respective posts as per Exts.P11 to P14 orders dated 17.12.1999. Their probation was declared thereafter on completion of one year as per Ext.P15 order.

¶38

It is while so, the Joint Registrar, issued an order under rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 canceling such appointments. The petitioners' case is that they were not given any notice before canceling the resolution which affected their livelihood.

¶39

From Ext.P17 it is seen that M/s.K.S.Vinodlal and P.S.Advani, who are respondents 4 and 5 in this writ petition had filed O.P.No.1665 of 2000 before this Court and on the basis of the judgment dated 5.2.2001 in O.P.No.1665 of 2000, the Joint Registrar considered their complaint and thereafter issued Ext.P17 order canceling the appointments made as per resolution Exts.P11 to P14. From Ext.P17 it is further seen that the Joint Registrar took the decision after notice to the President and concerned parties. It is the case of the petitioners

¶40

:3:

¶41

O.P.No.23304 of 2001

¶42

that the petitioners were not included among the “concerned parties” referred to in Ext.P17. In Ext.P17, there is no reference to the hearing of the petitioners. It is seen that complaints were preferred as against the appointments made by the Bank against the posts of Bill Collector, Field Man, Night Watchman and Salesman. It is also seen that the bank had filed a statement before the Joint Registrar stating that the appointments were made against sanctioned posts, though it had requested to treat two of the sub staff as supernumerary. After considering the complaint as well as the statement of the Bank, the Joint Registrar found that there were no sanctioned posts, for two Salesman, one Field Man and one Bill Collector as per the classification of the Bank. It was further found that the test in which petitioners were selected was not conducted by an outside agency and that the appointments were made contrary to the circular issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 7.6.1991 insisting prior permission for creation of any post. It was stated that in the absence of permission from the Registrar, the appointments were liable to be canceled. It was further stated that the appointments were made in violation of the stay order also issued by the Government.

¶43

The case of the petitioners is that the Joint Registrar has issued the order without referring to the orders sanctioning the post as

¶44

:4:

¶45

O.P.No.23304 of 2001

¶46

well as the classification and staff pattern admissible for the Bank as provided under appendix III of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is their case that it is only because of the personal vendetta of respondents 4 and 5, who are closely related to a previous Secretary of the bank and one of whom was the person who had contested the election to the Board of Directors, in the opposition panel that they filed complaints and the undue influence of the 4^th respondent over a senior Cooperative Inspector in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Kottarakkara who was the brother in law of 4^th respondent, all these proceedings were issued contrary to the rules.

¶47

Even though notice was issued to the respondents none of the respondents have entered appearance. Official respondents (respondents 1 to 3) though represented by the learned Government Pleader, also have not filed any counter affidavit in the original petition which was filed as early as in August 2001. It is seen that this Court issued an interim order on 9.8.2001 directing to maintain status quo and that interim order continues to in force. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners have since been promoted to higher posts.

¶48

As there is no counter affidavit refuting the contentions in the O.P, I will examine the contents of Ext P17. From Ext.P17 it is evident

¶49

O.P.No.23304 of 2001

¶50

:5:

¶51

that it is a decision taken without notice to the petitioners. Before taking a decision to cancel the appointments which were made in the year 1999 by issuing the order Ext.P17 on 21.07.2001, cancelling the appointment of petitioners, the Joint Registrar ought to have seen that the minimum principles of natural justice were observed. The respondents cannot evade the principles of natural justice, saying that the order was passed on directions of this Court. This Court had only directed to consider the complaint of respondents 4 and 5 with notice to the affected parties. That cannot be a license to take any decision and to cancel the appointment. The affected parties are not confined to those who submitted complaints. In fact the parties affected were those who were appointed and were working on the basis of the resolution of the bank after a process of selection. Before they were deprived of their employment and right to livelihood, that too years after their appointments, they should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing. In the above circumstances, I set aside Ext.P17 and allow the writ petition.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

K.Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala

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

Thezhekkad Service Co.Op.Society Vs the Joint Registrar of CO.OP.1

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs Chevayur Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.F.1245

C.P.Hussain Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Marykutty Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Dr.M.Baba Vs State of Kerala

Abdulkhader Vs K.S.E.B