High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-09-28Writ petition allowed in part.

Aswathy C.S. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad; Administrative Committee, Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.; The Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.; Kerala State Co-operative Service Examination Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-09-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed in part. The Administrative Committee is directed not to make substantive appointments in the services of the 3rd respondent Society; however, they may make temporary appointments until the Society obtains a Managing Committee to ensure continuity of administration. Those temporary appointments must clearly state their temporary nature and that no vested right to permanent employment will accrue. The order emphasizes that substantive appointments cannot be made by the Administrative Committee absent statutory empowerment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aswathy C.S.

Respondents

Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad
Administrative Committee, Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Kerala State Co-operative Service Examination Board

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Raghuraj Sayujya

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader (for 1st respondent)
• P. D. Subramanian Nampoothiri
• Smt. S. H. Sylaja
• Sri Joshy Thannickamattam

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the selection process for the post of Junior Clerk in the Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Rank List was prepared by the Kerala State Co-operative Service Examination Board at the request of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Society. Before the Rank List could be acted upon, the Managing Committee was superseded under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, after which the Administrative Committee took over the process. The petitioner contends that the Administrative Committee has no power to make substantive appointments in the Society and asserts that the selection process was tainted by corruption and mala fides. The respondents claim authorization from the 1st respondent Joint Registrar to continue the process initiated by the superseded Committee, arguing there is no illegality since the Administrative Committee is only completing the process begun earlier. The court clarifies well-settled law that an Administrative Committee can manage day-to-day affairs but cannot take policy decisions or enroll members, citing earlier precedents and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan. Noting the Rank List has already been transmitted to the Society, the court directs that the Administrative Committee must not make substantive appointments but may authorize temporary appointments to prevent administrative breakdown, with explicit notice that such positions are temporary and do not confer vested rights to permanent employment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies ActSection 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Administrative Committee can act only in day-to-day management and cannot take policy decisions; temporary appointments do not confer vested rights to permanent employment; appointments must be in accordance with statutory empowerment.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the process of selection was initiated by the erstwhile Managing Committee and subsequently taken over by an Administrative Committee, which has no authority to finalize substantive appointments. They contend that the Administrative Committee’s actions are ultra vires since no statutory empowerment exists to appoint, and that the process was permeated by corruption and mala fides. They request quashing of any substantive appointment and stopping further steps inconsistent with the statutory framework, seeking protection of due process and compliance with the KCS Act provisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Administrative Committee was authorized by the Joint Registrar to complete the selection process begun before supersession. They argue that the Committee is only continuing with the pre-existing process and that the rank list was transmitted to the Society. They assert no illegality as long as the Committee acts within the scope of day-to-day management and while awaiting a new Managing Committee, implying a valid temporary continuation of the process to avoid disruption.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan and Others	[(2000) 2 KLT 480 (SC)]	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that an Administrative Committee’s powers are limited to day-to-day management and cannot undertake policy decisions.
WP(C) No. 16026 of 2013 (Judgment dated 23.2.2016; 2016 KHC 805)	WP(C) No. 16026 of 2013; 2016 KHC 805	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioner; referenced to illustrate related precedents but not relied upon for the final ruling.
O.P. No. 8141 of 1998 and connected cases	1998 KHC 508	Mentioned Only	Cited in Appendix Exhibits; used to reflect established precedents but not expressly applied in the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aswathy C.S. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Palakkad; Administrative Committee, Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.; The Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.; Kerala State Co-operative Service Examination Board and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 6TH ASWINA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **ASWATHY.C.S, CHENNAMOOLIKALAM, ATHIKKODE, POLPULLY, PANAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678552.** **BY ADVS.N.RAGHURAJ SAYUJYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD, O/O. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678002.** - **2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1193, ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678622, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMITTEE CONVENER.** - **3 THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1193, ELAPPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678622, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **4 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **BY ADVS.P.D.SUBRAMANIAN NAMPOOTHIRI** - **S.L.SYLAJA SRI.JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **28.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was included in the Rank List prepared by the 4[th] respondent – Kerala State Co-operative Service Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Examination Board', for short), for the purpose of being appointed to the post of Junior Clerk in the services of the 3[rd] respondent – 'Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.' ('Society', for short). 2. The aforesaid process began on the requisition of the erstwhile elected Managing Committee of the Society; but before the Rank List was prepared, the said Committee was superseded, under the provisions of Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('KCS Act', for short). 3. This has led to the controversy in this ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-3-** case, because the 2[nd] respondent – Administrative Committee of the Society, which was thereafter appointed, took over to themselves the burden of conducting the interview and is now proceeding to make appointments. 4. The petitioner asserts that the action of the Administrative Committee is illegal, since they have no power to make substantive appointments in the services of the Society; and further that the entire process of interview was mired with corruption and _mala fides_ . 5. The afore submissions of Sri.N.Raghuraj – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.P.D.Subramanian Nampoothiri – learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, saying that his clients have acted with the express permission of the 1[st] respondent – Joint Registrar, who authorized them to complete the process of selection, it having begun prior to ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-4-** the supersession of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the Society. 6. Sri.P.D.Subramanian Nampoothiri further explained that all which has been done by the Administrative Committee is to continue with the process begun by the erstwhile Managing Committee and hence that the apprehensions of the petitioner are without any basis. He concluded his submissions saying that the allegations of corruption and _mala fides_ impelled by the petitioner against the 2[nd] respondent – Administrative Committee, are without any basis and are far from truth. 7. Smt.S.H.Sylaja – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent – Examination Board, submitted that her client's role has come to end, since they have already sent the Rank List to the Society. She thus prayed that no further orders be issued against ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-5-** her client. 8. Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam – learned Government Pleader, interestingly, argued in favour of the Administrative Committee, affirming that the 1[st] respondent – Joint Registrar has permitted the Administrative Committee to continue with and complete the process of selection, as initiated and begun by the now superseded Managing Committee. He argued that since the Administrative Committee is only continuing with the processes begun by the erstwhile Managing Committee, there cannot be any forensic irregularity alleged against the same. 9. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader and Sri.P.D.Subramanian Nampoothiri on the afore lines, the fact remains that the law has now been well settled, through a series of judgments of this Court, that an Administrative ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-6-** Committee can act only in the management of the Society on a day-to-day basis. They cannot take policy decisions, nor can they enroll members to the Society; and the precedents covering the field are so well settled, that it does not require me to restate them. 10. Suffice to say, two of the judgments cited by and produced on record by the petitioner, namely Exts.P8 and P9 would clearly establish the afore factum. 11. That said, the stand of the 1[st] respondent – Joint Registrar, is that the Administrative Committee can continue the processes begun by the erstwhile Managing Committee. However this can only be approved if there is a specific statutory empowerment to the said Committee to do so; and in the admitted absence of the same, I cannot find any favour with the afore stand of the said Authority. ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-7-** 12. When I say so, I am fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam that, going by Section 33 of the 'KCS Act', an Administrative Committee can take every action as is permissible to be done by an elected Managing Committee. However, this assertion is fallacious because the restrictions on the exercise of powers by the Administrative Committee, except in the matter of day-to-day affairs of the Society, are rather well settled, including through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A.Kuttappan and Others**_ [(2000) 2 KLT 480 (SC)]. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the Administrative Committee not to make substantive appointments in the services of the 3[rd] respondent – Society; however, clarifying that they will be at full ## **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-8-** liberty to make temporary appointments until such time as the Society obtains a Managing Committee in office, so as to ensure that there is no administrative breakdown on account of lack of requisite personnel. Needless to say, all persons who are to be appointed on temporary basis as afore, shall be notified in their Appointment Orders itself that its nature is so; and that they will not obtain any vested right to seek permanent appointments on account of such temporary engagement. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **WP(C) NO. 14096 OF 2022** **-9-** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14096/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 3.8.2021 PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.1.2022. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ELIGIBILITY LIST OF JUNIOR CLERK/CASHIER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.1.2022. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.2.2022. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. JRGPKD/3817/2020/C.R.P.2 DATED 24.1.2022. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.1.2022. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.2.2016 IN WP(C) NO.16026 OF 2013 (REPORTED IN 2016 KHC 805). EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.1998 IN O.P.NO.8141 OF 1998 AND CONNECTED CASES, REPORTED IN 1998 KHC 508. ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the resolution Dated 27/02/2021. Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the list Exhibit R2(c) The true copy of the rank list showing the mark both external and internal.