Review petition challenging a在高法院 order directing the completion of a recruitment selection process. Court found delays and alleged collusion were based on documents filed much later than the judgment date, lacking error in the original order.
Review petition closed; left open for decision in the pending writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R.P.No.706/19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941
RP.No.706 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 14022/2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14022/2018(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 AKHIL T U AGED 22 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, RANDAR.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686673, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 DEEPU VIJAYAN AGED 32 YEARS S/O.LATE VIJAYAN, KARAKUNNATHU HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686670, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.M.MONAYE
RESPONDENTS:
1 ARJUN SAJEEV, AGED 22 YEARS APPLICANT FOR THE POST OF ATTENDER, S/O.SAJEEV K., AMBATTU HOUSE, KAPPU KARA, MANDAKKATHANAM.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686670.
2 EBIN JOSE, APPLICANT FOR THE POST OF DEPOT MANAGER, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, VELLAPPILLIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM, KAVANA KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686670.
R.P.No.706/19
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.706/19
3
O R D E R
Dated this the 9th day of October 2019
R.P.No.706/19
4
attend the interview. In the above circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of directing the completion of the recruitment process, without delay. The learned counsel for the review petitioners would contend that this Court was mislead into believing that there were no complaints against the selection and that the complaints raised by the petitioners as well as the objections raised by the members of the Committee before Statutory authorities had not been brought to the notice of this Court. It is contended that though a writ appeal has been filed against the judgment, the same had been withdrawn for the filing of this review petition. It is contended that the direction contained in the judgment to complete the selection procedure is vitiated and that the same is liable to be reviewed and recalled.
R.P.No.706/19
5
further date. The writ petition was therefore filed seeking expeditious completion of the selection. The respondent society appeared and filed a counter affidavit stating that the interview was postponed as some of the committee members had expressed inability to attend the interview and further that the selection would be completed without delay. This Court had recorded the undertaking and directed the bank to complete the selection procedure without delay. It is contended that no steps have been taken to complete the selection procedure even thereafter and a contempt of court case is pending against the respondents. It is contended that the petitioners in the review petition having admittedly filed a writ petition against the selection and having failed to get any orders of stay are making attempts to see that a due selection procedure is stalled and that the respondent society is forced to appoint the review petitioners who are not otherwise eligible for such appointment.
R.P.No.706/19
6
procedure which had admittedly being initiated by publishing of a notification as early as on 2.2.2018. The society had appeared and filed a counter affidavit specifically stating that the interview scheduled on 4.4.2018 could not be conducted, since some of the committee members could not participate in the same. It was also stated that due procedure for completion of the selection process would be taken by the society without delay. The petitioners along with their application for leave have produced a complaint allegedly filed by certain Directors of the society before the Joint Registrar. The said complaint is seen dated 6.2.2019, much later than the date of the judgment against which this review petition is filed, that is, 28.5.2018. The petitioners claim that they have filed a writ petition as W.P. (C).No.23948 of 2018 which is also later than the judgment against which review is sought.
R.P.No.706/19
7
petition as against the selection at the time when the judgment was rendered. None of the documents would show that any complaint had been raised against the selection before the judgment was rendered. I am of the definite opinion that there is absolutely no error vitiating the judgment under review and that there is no occasion to consider any review petition as against the same. The review petition is, therefore, closed, leaving open the contentions of the parties to be decided in the writ petition.
Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any error vitiating the underlying judgment in W.P.(C).No.14022 of 2018 on the basis of belated complaints regarding the recruitment selection process.
Akhil T U
Deepu Vijayan
Arjun Sajeev
Ebin Jose
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General)
The Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
