Remanded

Yousaf C.T. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2023WP(C)/85/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions alleging corruption in the recruitment process of Vallappuzha Service Co-operative Bank, the High Court refused to adjudicate factual claims. It directed petitioners to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for an investigation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies with a representation detailing allegations within two weeks for investigation.

Yousaf C.T. Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 18TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 39752 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRATHEUSH, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE,
POTTACHIRA, NELLAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679335.

¶8

BY ADV A.HAROON RASHEED

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, D.P.I.JUNCTION, THYCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695014.

¶11

2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, PALAKKAD – 678012.

¶12

3 VALLAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F1207, NELLAYA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 679335.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY, VALLAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F1207, NELLAYA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679335.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SC,
SRI.S.GOPINADHAN, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).85/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶17

-2-

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 18TH MAGHA, 1944

¶21

WP(C) NO. 85 OF 2023

¶22

PETITIONER:

¶23

YOUSAF C.T, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. HASSAN, CHETTIYARTHODI HOUSE,
KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPPUZHA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679336.

¶24

BY ADVS.
C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
P.ABDUL NISHAD
RAIHANATH T.H.
ISTINAF ABDULLAH
MUHAMMED AMEEN

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶27

2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, D.P.I.JUNCTION, THYCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.

¶28

3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678012.

¶29

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶30

-3-

¶31

4 VALLAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F1207, NELLAYA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN – 679335.

¶32

5 THE SECRETARY, VALLAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F1207, NELLAYA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679335.

¶33

6 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MANAGING COMMITTEE, VALLAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F1207, NELLAYA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT., PIN – 679335.

¶34

7 MUSHHAR, S/O. VEERAN, MANJALINGAL HOUSE, CHERUKODE P.O., VALLAPPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679336.

¶35

8 JISHNU, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, VALAVATHU HOUSE, MANNEMKODE P.O., VANDUMTHARA, KULUKALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679336.

¶36

9 GIREESH, S/O. GOPALAN, VATTAPARAMBIL VEEDU, KAIPURAM, THIRUVEGAPURA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 679304.

¶37

BY ADV P.N.MOHANAN
SRI.S.GOPINADHAN, SR.GP

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.02.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).39752/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶40

-4-

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

[WP(C) Nos.39752/2022, 85/2023]

¶43

The petitioners, who participated in the

¶44

process of selection for appointment to the post

¶45

of Peon by “Vallappuzha Service Co-operative

¶46

Bank Limited” (‘Society’, for short), allege
that the selection processes undertaken, the
Rank List prepared and the appointments made are
mired in corruption, and have been done only to
allow persons of their choice to be appointed.

¶47

2.In fact, the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.85/2023 had approached this Court

¶48

earlier, by filing W.P.(C)No.38645/2022, in
which this Court had considered the afore

¶49

allegations; but noticing that the selection
process had not been completed, permitted the
Society to do so, but with an order that to make

¶50

the appointments only seven days after the
Rank List is published.

¶51

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶52

3.The petitioners assert that the afore

¶53

direction of this Court has been violated; and
that the persons whose names had been earlier
cited by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.85/2023 -

¶54

while he filed the aforementioned W.P.
(C)No.38645/2022 - had now been appointed. They,
therefore, assert that their allegations have
now been fortified; and thus pray that the

¶55

appointments of the party respondents in these
cases be set aside.

¶56

4.I have heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal –

¶57

learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.
85/2023; Sri.Haroon Rasheed – learned counsel
for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.39752/2022;
Sri.P.N.Mohanan – learned Standing Counsel for

¶58

the Society and Sri.S.Gopinadhan – learned
Senior Government Pleader.

¶59

5.As I have said above, the petitioners in

¶60

these two cases have made very serious

¶61

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶62

allegations against the recruitment process

¶63

adopted by the Society. Since the allegations
are common and the factual circumstances pleaded
are analogous, I deem it appropriate to dispose
of these writ petitions together.

¶64

6.At the bedrock of all the allegations is
that the Society had already identified the

¶65

party respondents and had obtained illegal
gratification from them, so as to offer
appointments. They say that the factum of the
said respondents alone having appointed through
the process, after this Court permitted them to
complete the selection process in the judgment
inW.P.(C)No.38645/2022,provestheir

¶66

allegations without doubt.

¶67

7.Certain corollary allegations are also
made, including that the petitioner in W.P.

¶68

(C)No.39752/2022 was denied an opportunity to

¶69

participate in the interview; and that the party

¶70

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶71

respondents were given additional opportunities

¶72

of writing the written examination illegally,
while being denied to others.

¶73

8.As expected, the Society denies all the

¶74

afore allegations and says that the selection

¶75

process was done properly. In fact, their

¶76

learned Standing Counsel – Sri.P.N.Mohanan,

¶77

argued that the allegations of the petitioners

¶78

areself serving and is intended only to tarnish

¶79

his client’s reputation for questionable
motives. He added that once the petitioners had
taken part in the proceedings, it would not be
possible for them to turn around and challenge
it, when they found that they were not selected.

¶80

9.The afore rival contentions of the

¶81

parties make it indubitable that the allegations
made by the petitioners against the Society are
in the factual realm, which cannot be considered
by this Court while acting under Article 226 of

¶82

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶83

-8-

¶84

the Constitution of India, on account of the

¶85

constraints of evaluation of facts and
documents.

¶86

10.I am, therefore, of the firm view that

¶87

petitioners must be given an opportunity to
approach the competent Authority - which I feel
is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies -
with an apposite representation, so that all the
allegations can be properly investigated and
concluded upon, without any avoidable delay.

¶88

11.The appointment of the party respondents
would not per se impede this, because the
allegations of the petitioners had been made
much earlier than their appointments; and which

¶89

have been concluded by this Court in the

¶90

judgment in W.P.(C)No.38645/2022 - a copy of
which is on record as Ext.P7 along with W.P.
(C)No.85/2023.

¶91

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of

¶92

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶93

-9-

¶94

these writ petitions, leaving liberty to the

¶95

petitioners to approach the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies with an appropriate
representation, detailing all their allegations

¶96

and claims against the appointments made by the
Society; and if this is done within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, same shall be considered by the
said Authority, after affording necessary
opportunities to both sides and after causing
all requisite enquiries, including with the
assistance of the Police and such other
Investigating Agencies, as the case may be; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and

¶97

necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than four months from
the date on which said representations are
received.

¶98

Needless to say, until such time as the

¶99

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶100

afore exercise is completed and the resultant
order communicated to all sides, appointment of
the party respondents in these cases shall be
construed to be provisional and will be
modulated depending upon the decision to be
taken by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies.

¶101

Sd/-

¶102

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶103

JUDGE

¶104

akv

¶105

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶106

-11-

¶107

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 85/2023

¶108

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶109

`EXHIBIT P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED` `IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED` `24.9.2022`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET` `ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 17.10.2022`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW NOTICE` `ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BANK TO` `THE PETITIONER DATED 16.11.2022`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2022`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2022`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN` `W.P.(C).NO.38645/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE` `COURT DATED 30.11.2022`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.` `(C).NO. 38645/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE` `COURT DATED 7.12.2022`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PEON RANK LIST` `PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK` `DATED 14.12.2022`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT DATED 27.12.2022`

¶110

¶111

-12-

¶112

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶113

EXHIBIT R4 (A)A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TO
THE BRANCH MANAGER DATED 14.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
PUBLISH THE RANK LISTIN THE NOTICE
BOARD
EXHIBIT R4 (B)A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED
14.12.2022 ALONG WITH ENDORSEMENT OF
PUBLICATION DONE BY THE BRANCH
MANAGERS
EXHIBIT R4 (C)A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DATED 23.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE
PRESIDENT
EXHIBIT R4 (D)A TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATION OF MARKS
OF WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND INTERVIEW
DONE

¶114

WP(C)NO.39752/2022 & 85/2023]

¶115

-13-

¶116

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39752/2022

¶117

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶118

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED
IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED
24.9.2022
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET
ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 17.10.2022
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 16/2018
DATED 13/3/2018 OF CO OPERATIVE
REGISTRAR
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS IN MATHRUBHUMI
DAILY DATED 7/12/2022

Yousaf C.T. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yousaf C.T. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeba Vs K.S. Souda

Lalu C.M Vs v. Vigneshwari I.A.S

K. Sajeevan Vs Mr. Dinesan Cheruvat

Yousaf C.T. Vs Mr. Asharaf Ali

Jotun India Private Limited Vs Mv Penna Suraksha (Imo No. 9310599)

Naveena P.K. Vs Biju Prabhakar IAS