Krishnaraaja H. and Others v. North Malabar Gramin Bank

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 33487 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONERS:** |1|KRISHNARAJA H.| |---|---| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MADHOOR BRANCH,| ||KASARAGOD.| |2|SUNITHA.A| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MEEYAPADAVE BRANCH,| ||KASARAGOD DISTRICT.| |3|SHAJIKUMAR.O.| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, TRIKADARIPOIL BRANCH,| ||KANNUR.| |4|BINU.R| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KATTANAM BRANCH,| ||ALAPPUZHA.| |5|ACHUTHA BHAT.V.R| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, CHERTHALA BRANCH,| ||ALAPPUZHA.| |6|JOHNSON.P.| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR.| |7|MANOJ.T.M| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH,| ||ALAPPUZHA.| |8|REEJA.M.P| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, CHAMPAD BRANCH, KANNUR.| |9|RAJEESH.K.V| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KARETTA BRANCH, KANNUR.| |10|SHEEBA.B.S| WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 2 ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, PARAL BRANCH, KANNUR.| |---|---| |11|BEENA.P| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KUNHIMANGALAM BRANCH.| |12|CHARLE THOMAS| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM.| |13|SARAFULLA.T| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH,| ||KOLLAM.| |14|SHAJU J.VARGHESE| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.| |15|K.P.RENNY| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, PALA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM.| |16|BINDHU RAJEEVAN| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, RAMAPURAM BRANCH,| ||KOTTAYAM.| |17|JEGAN.P.DAS| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, MANNAR BRANCH,| ||ALAPPUZHA.| |18|SURESHKUMAR.A.S| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, ANCHAL, KOLLAM.| |19|REMA.V| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, EDANEER BRANCH,| ||KASARAGOD.| |20|K.SARITHA| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KANNUR MAIN BRANCH,| ||KANNUR.| |21|ABHIJITH.M| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM.| |22|MANOJ KUMAR.M| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, THILLANKERRI, KANNUR.| |23|SANATH KUMAR| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, WEST PONNIAM, KANNUR.| |24|MAHILA.P.R| ||NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KADAVANTHRA BRANCH,| ||ERNAKULAM.| WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 3 25 SUDEEPAN.V NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, KANNADIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS,, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004. 2 THE CHAIRMAN NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004. 3 ADDLR3: KERALA GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, CENTRAL OFFICE, DILEEP MUKHERJI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BIGESH UNNIYAN ,AGED 37 YEARS S/O LATEBHASKARAN MULLOLI, MULLOLI HOUSE, AZHIKKAL P.O, KANNUR 670009 WORKING AS OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, G-A WING, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM - 676 505 (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17-11-2022 IN IA 2/2022) BY ADVS. JAYASREE K.P. SRI.K.M.ANEESH JOHN JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).34526/2010 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 22.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 34526 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 ELDHOSE M.P. KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2 BEENA.P, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK AREA OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3 GEETHA.E.V., NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK CHERUKUNNUR EXTENSION COUNTER. 4 RAJANI.K.P., NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK PARAPPA. 5 ANITHA, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK KANHANGAD BRANCH, KASARAGOD. 6 NISHA.C.N., NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK ULIKKAL BRANCH. BY ADV SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004. 2 THE CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU,KANNUR DISTRICT-670 004. BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.ANEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33487/2010 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 22.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 35722 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONER:** RANJITH.K, MESSENGER(TEMPORARY), NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK,PADIYUR KALLIAD BRANCH, PIN-670 703. BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS,POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 004. 2 THE CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, N.M.G.TOWERS, POST PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT670004. BY ADVS. K.M.ANEESH SUMESH KUMAR N.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).33487/2010 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 22.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 6 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.33487, 34526 & 35722 of 2010 -------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd ] day of December, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** These three writ petitions are connected, therefore, I am disposing of these three writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. I will narrate the facts in W.P(C) No. 33487/2010 at first. The petitioners were working as temporary messengers in the various branches of North Malabar Gramin Bank at the time of filing this writ petition. The North Malabar Gramin Bank was a Regional Rural Bank. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 29 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, r/w Section 17 thereof, and the supersession of the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees Rules) 1998, the Ministry of Finance framed the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 7 of Officers and Employees Rules) 2010, (hereinafter referred as 'Rules'). As per the Rules post of Messenger cum Sweeper in the service of the Bank is a Group-C post. The method of appointment to Group-C posts are by direct recruitment. The age limit for the appointment to Group-C post is above 18 years but below 28 years, with certain relaxation in case of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Candidate or candidates belong to other special categories in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government of India in this regard from time to time. It is also stated in Rules that the post of Group-C employees shall be filled in by the Regional Rural Bank after making a reference to the Employment Exchange, Sainik Board or other agencies catering to the welfare of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Physically Challenges Persons or other special category of persons as recognized by the Central Government or State Government having jurisdiction over the Regional Rural Bank, filling the posts, provided that preference shall be given to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 8 Tribes, in accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued by the Central Government in this regard from time to time. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners are persons appointed on temporary basis in the service of the Bank and continuing in service for years together. Since, the petitioners were continuing for several years, there was a proposal to regularize the service of the petitioners. The issue was discussed in various levels and the Management of the Bank on principle has accepted the request as evident by Ext.P1, is the case of the petitioners. It is submitted that the matter was taken up at various levels and the final decision in the matter was yet to be taken. At that stage, apprehending that the grievance will not be considered favourably, the employees approached this Court and as per Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the Bank to consider the grievance of the petitioners. Based on Ext.P3, the Bank considered the representation submitted by the petitioners and rejected the same as per Ext.P4. Similar communications were issued to other writ WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 9 petitioners also. It is also submitted by the petitioners that the previous selection for the same post was conducted in the year 2006 as evident by Ext.P5. In the notification, it was stated that the age relaxation will be provided in the case of candidates who have work experience in the Bank. Ext.P6 is the select list in which several temporary messengers, who will not come within the age limit considered for selection is the submission of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners were called for an interview based on the provisional service by granting age relaxation in the previous selection held in 2006 and a call letter issued in favour of Sri.Shajikumar O., is produced in the writ petition as Ext.P7. It is the submission of the petitioners that the internal notification enabling the candidates who are working in Bank to apply for the post is an accepted principle and it was the practice hitherto followed. It is also submitted that Ext.P4 is a non speaking order. It is also contented that out of 80 candidates who were petitioners in W.P.(C) No.26742/2010, even though, they were not Employment Exchange sponsored candidates, they were called WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 10 for interview. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners applications were not considered solely on the ground of over age, though, they were entitled to get relaxation in the light of the fact that they were internal candidates. The petitioners also relies the judgment of the Apex Court in **Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others** v. **Umadevi and Others [2006 (4) SCC 1]** and submitted that a one time regularization of employees, who have continued work for more than ten years is possible. It is also submitted that the Bank itself issued circulars directing the Branch Managers to submit details of the persons in respective Banks for the consideration of their case in selection as evident by Ext.P8. After the submission of Ext.P8, Ext.P4 order is passed, is the grievance of the petitioners. It is submitted by the petitioners that, their case may be favourably considered by making direct recruitment to the post because they are continuing in the Bank on temporary basis for years together. But without considering their claim, the bank initiated fresh recruitment proceedings for the post of Messenger. WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 11 ## 4. When two phases of interview for the recruitment to the post of Messenger was scheduled, the petitioners approached this Court with following prayers: i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P4 and similar communications issued to the petitioners; ii) declare that since the petitioners are working on temporary basis they are entitled for age relaxation as one granted in the previous selection held in the year2006 and that the non extension of age relaxation is highly unjust and illegal; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners also while making direct recruitment to the post of Messenger without insisting the age qualification as insisted in the present selection; iv) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. [SIC] ## 5. Prayers in the other two writ petitions W.P. (C)No.34526/2010 and W.P.(C)No.35722/2010 is also extracted here: ## **Prayers of W.P.(C)No. 34526/2010** i) declare that since the petitioners are working on temporary basis they are entitled for age relaxation for consider to the post of Messenger as one granted in the previous selection held in the year 2006 and that the non extension of age relaxation is highly unjust and illegal; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 12 or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners also while making direct recruitment to the post of Messenger without insisting the age qualification as insisted in the present selection; iii) declare that the non consideration of the claim of the petitioners for permanent absorption in the service of the bank is highly unjust and illegal; iv) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. [SIC] ## **Prayers of W.P.(C)No.35722/2010** i) “declare that since the petitioners is working on temporary basis and being an OBC candidate entitled for age relaxation for consider to the post of Messenger as one granted in the previous selection held in the year 2006 and that the non extension of age relaxation is highly unjust and illegal; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner also while making direct recruitment to the post of Messenger without insisting the age qualification or additional academic qualification as insisted in the present selection; iii) declare that the non consideration of the claim of the petitioners for permanent absorption in the service of the bank is highly unjust and illegal; iv) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” [SIC] 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent-Bank. WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 13 7. When these writ petitions came up for consideration, this Court passed an order directing the respondents to interview the petitioners also provisionally subject to the result of the writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioners participated in the interview. Thereafter, W.P.(C.) Nos. 34526 of 2010 and 33487 of 2010 came up for consideration on 6.5.2011 and on that day, this Court passed the following order : “These writ petitions are brought up before the vacation court at the instance of the petitioners, who are persons who have been permitted to take part in the interview conducted by the 1[st] respondent Bank for selection and appointment to the post of Full Time Messengers. As per the interim order of this Court, though they have been permitted to take part in the interview, their results have been directed to be withheld. They complain that since their results are withheld, without considering them, the Bank is proceeding to make appointments from among the persons, who have been found to be eligible for such appointment in the selection process. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent Bank points out that unless the results of the petitioners are announced, those among them, who are eligible for appointment also, would not be considered for appointment. In view of the above, the interim orders granted in these cases are modified. The 1[st] respondent Bank shall declare the results of the petitioners and shall consider them also for WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 14 appointment as 'Messengers'. After identifying those among them who are found eligible to be so appointed, sufficient number of posts as are necessary to accommodate them shall be kept vacant until further orders.” 8. Thereafter, the above writ petitions again came up for consideration on 29.9.2011 and on that day, this Court passed the following order : “As per interim order dated 8.12.2010, the petitioners were also permitted to be provisionally interviewed for appointment to the post of Full Time Messenger to the North Malabar Gramin Bank. Accordingly, they were interviewed. 3. As per interim order dated 6.5.2011, the first respondent Bank was directed to declare the results of the petitioners and to consider them also for appointment as 'Messengers'. Sufficient number of posts as are required to accommodate such persons were also directed to be kept vacant until further orders. 4. Accordingly, on declaration of the results, 29 persons were found eligible to be appointed as Messengers in the service of the Bank. Since the vacancies reserved for appointment of such persons are remaining unfilled, there shall be a further direction to the first respondent Bank to provisionally appoint them to the posts kept vacant as per the interim order dated 6.5.2011. It is made clear that such appointments shall be provisional and subject to the result of these writ petitions.” WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 15 9. Based on the above order, all the petitioners except the petitioner Nos. 12 and 20 in W.P.(C.) No. 33487/2010 were appointed provisionally subject to the result of this writ petition. As far as W.P.(C.) No. 34526/2010 is concerned, all the petitioners except petitioner Nos. 4 and 6 were appointed based on the interim order passed by this Court. Similarly, the sole petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 35722/2010 was also appointed. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are only restricting their claim to all the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No. 33487/2010 except petitioner Nos. 12 and 20, all the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No. 34526/2010 except petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 and the petitioner in W.P.(C.) No. 35722/2010. The list of the candidates who were selected is produced as a chart in Ext.P11. One of the appointment order of the petitioners is produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C.) No. 33487/2010. The other petitioners mentioned in Ext.P11 list also received similar appointment orders. All the petitioners mentioned in Ext.P11 chart are continuing based on the interim order passed by this WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 16 Court. These writ petitions are pending before this Court from 2012 onwards and for the last 12 years, the petitioners are continuing based on the interim order passed by this Court. 10. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that as on the date of filing the writ petition itself, the petitioners were in service of the Bank for more than 10 years. Thereafter, the petitioners are continuing based on interim order for the last 12 years. The counsel for the petitioners relied paragraph No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Umadevi's** case (supra) and submitted that a one time regularisation is possible. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent-Bank took three main contentions. The Standing Counsel submitted that as per the Rules, the petitioners are age barred and they cannot be considered for selection. The 2[nd] ground mentioned by the Standing Counsel is about the qualification mentioned in the Rules. The counsel submitted that the petitioners are not qualified as per the Rules. It is also submitted by the Standing Counsel that the post of Group – C employees shall be filled in by the Regional WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 17 Rural Bank only through the Employment Exchange and the petitioners are not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 11. Additional 3[rd] respondent is the Kerala Gramin Bank Employees' Union represented by the General Secretary. The counsel submitted that the 3[rd] respondent is agitating the claim of the petitioners and the other similarly situated persons and therefore, they have got a right to implead in these cases. This Court as per order dated 17.11.2022 allowed the impleading petition even though the same is seriously opposed by the petitioners and the 1[st] respondent-Bank. The 3[rd] respondent filed the impleading petition in 2022 and that also when the matter was heard in part by this Court on 1.11.2022. The case of the petitioners is that the Union is trying to get the credit by impleading in these writ petitions and they have no right to agitate the claim of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the impleading petition was filed belatedly. Since this is a writ petition filed by the petitioners in 2010 and since the petitioners were agitating their claim from 2010 onwards, I think the contentions of the 3[rd] respondent who is impleaded in WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 18 this case in the year 2022 need not be considered, even though they are supporting the contentions of the petitioners. 12. The main contention of the 1[st] respondent-Bank against the regularisation is that the petitioners are over-aged, unqualified and are not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As far as the sponsoring of the Employment Exchange is concerned, this Court in **Hameshdas K H.** v. **State of Kerala and others** [2021 (KHC) 295] observed like this in paragraph No. 19. 19. “That said, there is no doubt that the Government Orders, that stood at that relevant time, maintained that only candidates from the Employment Exchange could have been invited for being so appointed. But if, as a matter of fact, the Authorities had not followed the same, but still conducted a proper selection procedure, after inviting applications through a valid notification, then certainly, I find no reason why those candidates should be denied the benefit merely because they have crossed the age of fifty.” 13. Admittedly, the petitioners participated in the selection process. They were interviewed and based on their performance, they were included in the selection list. WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 19 Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed provisionally based on the interim order passed by this Court in the above writ petitions. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that simply because the petitioners are not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, their claim for regularisation cannot be rejected. 14. As far as the age and qualification of the petitioners are concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were working on daily wages for more than 10 years before filing the writ petitions. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed based on the interim order passed by this Court and they were continuing for more than 10 years based on the interim order passed by this Court. Some of them already retired from service. At this distance of time, it will be an injustice to terminate the service of the petitioners stating that they were over aged or unqualified as per the Rules. As I observed earlier, the petitioners participated in the selection process and the petitioners were interviewed by the Bank. In such circumstances, it will be an injustice to terminate the WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 20 petitioners at this distance of time. Almost all the petitioners are continuing for more than 20 years as on now. Some of them are continuing for a quarter century. I am of the considered opinion that at this distance of time, the petitioners cannot be terminated from the service by the 1[st] respondent and they are entitled for regularisation. 15. The counsel for the 1[st] respondent also relied a judgment of this Court dated 17.8.2020 in W.P.(C.) No. 32912/2010. That was a case in which the petitioner in that case was working as a sweeper cum messenger. It is also clear from the judgment that the petitioner in that case was merely engaged temporarily for carrying on sweeping work at one of the Bank and he is neither engaged as messenger nor messenger cum sweeper or in the post of officer. In such circumstances, this Court rejected the claim of that petitioner. I think that judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. Therefore, the petitioners mentioned in Ext.P11 chart produced in W.P.(C.) No.33487/2010 are entitled regularisation WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 21 and all consequential benefits. The main apprehension of the 1[st] respondent-Bank is that if the regularisation is ordered by this Court, the others will take advantage of the same. I make it clear that this judgment is applicable only to the petitioners mentioned in Ext.P11 chart and this need not be taken as a precedent by the 1[st] respondent-Bank. Therefore, these writ petitions are allowed in the following manner : - 1) W.P.(C.) No. 33487/2010 is allowed and Ext.P4 and similar communications issued to the petitioners are quashed. There will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to regularise the service of all the petitioners except petitioner Nos. 12 and 20 as messengers and disburse all consequential benefits forthwith. - 2) W.P.(C.) No. 34526/2010 is allowed and there will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent -Bank to regularise all the petitioners except petitioner Nos. 4 and 6 as messengers and disburse all the consequential benefits forthwith. - 3) W.P.(C.) No. 35722/2010 is allowed and there will be a WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 22 direction to the 1[st] respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner as messenger and disburse all the consequential benefits forthwith. **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** TR SKS WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 23 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35722/2010** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE| ||CONCILIATION MEETING HELD ON 18.03.2009.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE CO-ORDINATE| ||COMMITTEE DATED 02.04.2009.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)| ||NO.26742 OF 2010.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||20.10.2010.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ALONG WITH THE| ||COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY| ||THE BANK.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C)| ||NO. 33487 OF 2010.| |EXT P8|COPY OF LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK| |EXT P9|COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE| ||BANK.| WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 24 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33487/2010** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT P1 COPY OF MINUTES OF THE CONCILIATION MEETING HELD ON 18.3.2009 COPY OF NOTICE OF THE COORDINATE COMMITTEE EXT P2 DTD 2.4.2009 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26742 OF 2010 EXT P3 COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF EXT P4 SRI.SHAJI KUMAR BY THE BANK DTD 20.10.2010 EXT P5 COPY OF CIRCULAR ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION COPY OF SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK EXT P6 COPY OF CALL LETTER ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF EXT P7 SRI.SHAJIKUMAR.O DTD 5.8.2006 EXT P8 COPY OF DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 27.12.2011 EXT P10 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BANK DTD 18.1.2013 Exhibit P11 A LIST OF CANDIDATES FOUND SUITABLE AND APPOINTED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS 33487 OF 2010, 34526 OF 2010, 35722 OF 2010 AND 36619 OF 2010 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO 15/2015 DATED 09.03.2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE BANK WHICH CONTAINS VARIOUS ISSUED RAISED BY THE EMPLOYEES UNION OF THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK BEFORE THE MANAGEMENT 25 WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 Exhibit R3(b) . A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO KGBUOU 32/2020/HR DATED 10.09.2020 ISSUED BYTHE CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF KERALA GRAMIN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION AND OFFICERS UNION ENCLOSING THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION IN THE JOINT CONFERENCE WP(C) NO. 33487, 34526 & 35722 OF 2010 26 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34526/2010** ## **PETITIONERS EXTS** : EXT P1: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE CONCILIATION MEETING HELD ON 18.3.2009 EXT P2: COPY OF NOTICE OF THE COORDINATE COMMITTEE DTD 2.4.2009 EXT P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26742 OF 2010 EXT P4: COPY OF CIRCULAR ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION EXT P5: COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK EXT P6: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.33487 OF 2010 EXT P7: COPY OF THE CALL LETTER EXT P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 27.12.2011 ISSUED BY R1 BANK EXT P9: COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BANK DTD 18.1.2013