High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-11-27Writ petition allowed; petitioner to be appoint...

Leena Thankachi.N.T. v. Cheranalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).NO.25239/2011-D

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2013-11-27
Court Decision / Holding: This writ petition is allowed. No costs. The petitioner shall be appointed to the vacancy reserved as per the directions of this Court, within one month from today.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; petitioner to be appointed to the vacancy; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Leena Thankachi.N.T

Respondents

Cheranalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
The Co-Operative Service Examination Board
Savitha
State of Kerala (Addl. R6)
Shafi.K.M.
Preseela.V.J.
Viji.P.V.
Ambily.M.A.
Indu.P.R.
Smitha Paul.K.
Nisha Chandran
Linsa Micheal
Asha.P.S.
Shabana Aooobakker
Unnikrishnan.A.N
Reshmi.M.R.
Suma.P.R.
Mini.K.S.
Sreelatha.S.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.P. Jacob

Counsels for Respondents

• K.R. Michael
• Francis Joseph Kurisunkal
• Rashmi K.V.
• N. Subramaniam
• Noushad Thottathil
• Asok M. Cherian
• K. Sasikumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the denial of five marks for nativity in the recruitment for the post of Junior Clerk in the Cheranalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner, Leena Thankachi, resides in the locality due to marriage and contends she is a person belonging to the home district, and therefore entitled to the five grace marks provided under Rule 182(iv A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The rule states that candidates of the home district shall receive five marks in addition to interview marks, with an explanatory note that “home district” means the district or districts to which the society’s area of operation extends. The petitioner argues that birth in the district is not a condition; belonging to the home district suffices, and thus she should be eligible for the five marks, which would place her in a favourable rank for appointment. The bank’s position, and the reference to Suhara v. Kerala Public Service Commission, is acknowledged; however, the court clarifies that it will not decide constitutionality here, but rather whether the rule applies to the petitioner’s facts. The court finds that the petitioner does belong to the home district and directs that she be appointed to the vacancy reserved by the court’s interim orders if necessary, overruling the respondent’s objections. The petition is allowed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Rule 182(iv A)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that she is eligible to be treated as a locality person under Rule 182(iv A) and thus deserves the five marks; she asserts that the rule’s plain meaning does not require birth in the district, only belonging, which is satisfied since she resides there by marriage; the five marks would place her at a higher rank, justifying appointment to the vacancy; reliance is placed on the principle discussed in Suhara v. Kerala Public Service Commission, to extend the same reasoning to Rule 182(iv A, though the broader constitutionality is not attacked in this petition.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the five marks are strictly for candidates who belong to the home district and that the petitioner’s change of residence due to marriage should not confer eligibility; they emphasize the consistent interpretation of the rule and caution against shifting the policy’s scope; they also point to the interim orders and past rank-listing as limiting factors in changing positions. A reference to Suhara is made but not to be controlling on constitutionality; the core defense remains that the rule’s language restricts the benefit to those who clearly belong to the home district.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Suhara v. Kerala Public Service Commission	2012(1) KLT 402	Positive	The court cites Suhara to support the interpretation that belonging to the home district suffices under Rule 182(iv A; the constitutional issue in Suhara is not decided here, but the principle is applicable.

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 Leena Thankachi.N.T. v. Cheranalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and others 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 25239 of 2011 (D)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **LEENA THANKACHI.N.T, VELIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, KOCHI-34.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB.** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------------------** **1. THE CHERANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.62, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - ***3. SMITHA PAUL,JUNIOR CLERK,CHERANALLOORSERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.62, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 034. *(DELETED)** - ***4. NISHA CHANDRAN,JUNIOR CLERK,CHERANALLOORSERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.62, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 034. *(DELETED).** ***RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 01/12/2011 IN I.A. NO.19012/2011.** **5. SAVITHA,JUNIOR CLERK,CHERANALLOORSERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.62, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 034.** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.25239/2011-D:** ## ****ADDL. R.6. IMPLEADED:** **6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** ****IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 06/02/13 IN I.A. 608/13.** ## *****ADDL. RESPONDENTS 7 TO 21 IMPLEADED:** **7. SHAFI.K.M., PARIYARAPPALLIL, MADAVANA, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 506.** **8. PRESEELA.V.J., KALLUVEETTIL, KANNAMPILLY ROAD, PACHALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 102.** **9. VIJI.P.V., BHAGAVATHIPARAMBIL, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 034.** **10. AMBILY.M.A., MANGALAPPILLY, CHERUVIPU, AYYAMPILLY.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 501.** **11. INDU.P.R., NANDHANAM, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 024.** **12. SMITHA PAUL.K., C/O. S.N. JUNCTION, OLLARI ROAD, PANANGAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 506.** **13. NISHA CHANDRAN, PAITHRUKAM, ALUVA, MUPPATHADAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 110.** **14. LINSA MICHEAL, ANTHIKKATTU HOUSE, OLANAD, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 517.** **15. ASHA.P.S., C-11, WEST BLOCK QUARTERS, ALUPURAM, HINDALCO-INDUSTRIES LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, KUTTIKKATTUKARA.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 504.** **16. SHABANA ABOOBAKKER, MALETH HOUSE, ALANGAD, NEERICODE.P.O., PIN - 683 511.** ## **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.25239/2011-D:** **17. UNNIKRISHNAN.A.N., ATHIRAKANDATHIL VEEDU, TRIPUNITHURA, THEKKUMBHAGAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 301.** **18. RESHMI.M.R., AALTHIRA (MALIYAKKAL), TRIPUNITHURA, EROOR WEST.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 306.** **19. SUMA.P.R., KADAVITHARA, MARADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304.** **20. MINI.K.S., VALIYODIPARAMBIL, PONOTH LANE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 017.** **21. SREELATHA.S., THARAYILPARAMBIL, SHANMUGHAPURAM, PACHALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 012.** - *****ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R7. TO R21. AS PER ORDER DATED 25/09/13 IN I.A. NO.5005/13.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.MICHAEL,** **SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISUNKAL, R2 BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI. K.V., S.C, R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM, ADDL.R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL, ADDL.9,R15 & R16 BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, SRI.K.SASIKUMAR.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.25239/2011-D:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO ISSUED BY R.1. DTD. 23/12/2009.** - **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SPECIMEN FORM ISSUED BY R.1. FOR THE PRODUCTION OF NATIVITY CERTIFICATE DTD. NIL.** - **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR DTD. 07/09/2011.** - **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES, COVER PAGE PAGE 1,2,21 AND LAST PAGE OF THE RANK LIST.** - **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).12482/2011 DTD. 19/04/2011.** - **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE R.1.** - **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 28/03/2009.** - **EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DTD. NIL. PREPARED BY R.2. IN FAVOUR OF R.1.** - **EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE DETAILS OF RESPECTIVE MARKS OBTAINED TO FIRST 17 RANK HOLDERS COVERED BY EXT.P.8 . EXCLUDING THE GRACE MARKS PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE-I: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).205/83/RD DTD. 26/02/1983.** - **ANNEXURE-II: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1553/08/RD DTD. 06/05/08.** - **ANNEXURE-III: COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S S.S.L.C. BOOK SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION.** ## **ANNEXURE-IV:COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MARK SHEET.** - **ANNEXURE-V: COPY OF THE RANK LIST.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** --------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C)No.25239 of 2011** ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Junior Clerk in the first respondent Bank. The only issue is whether the 5 marks granted to residents of the locality as weightage, for their nativity is proper or not. The respondent Bank on the specific direction of this Court has produced the mark list and it is admitted that but for the petitioner herein, all others figuring in the rank list were granted the said marks. Though the petitioner also has her residence in the locality, she was declined the said marks, for the reason that she had moved to the locality only after and on account of her marriage. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raises two contentions. That the petitioner is eligible to be considered as a person of the locality and is eligible to be granted the 5 marks, which was granted to all the other candidates. It is also contended that the prescription of 5 marks on the basis of nativity, was considered by a learned W.P.(C)No.25239 of 2011 : 2 : Single Judge of this Court and the same was held to be unconstitutional in _**Suhara v. Kerala Public Service Commission**_ **[2012(1) KLT 402].** Though the same related to recruitment made by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the very same principle would be applicable insofar as Rule 182(iv A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). However, the constitutionality need not be decided in the present case in the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in the writ petition. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a person residing within the locality and who has come there, upon marriage, to a resident of the locality. The prescription of 5 marks is for the candidates of home district as is evident from the Rule, which is extracted hereunder: _182(iv A):- “Candidates of home district shall be awarded 5 marks over and above the marks for interview as grace marks._ _Explanation: For the purpose of this item, candidates of home district means the candidates belonging to the district or districts to which the area of operation of the society extends.”_ W.P.(C)No.25239 of 2011 : 3 : 4. On a plain reading of the above provision, there is no requirement that the candidate should have been born and brought up in the said District and the only requirement is that the candidate should belong to the home district. The petitioner having married a resident of the locality and having shifted her residence to her marital home can be considered as a person who belongs to the home district. In such circumstance, this Court is not dealing with the issue of constitutionality of the provision. 5. On a perusal of the marks of various candidates in the rank list, the petitioner is entitled to be given appointment in the one vacancy reserved by an interim order of this Court. The respondent Bank submits that 11 persons have been advised from the rank list and 4 persons have now been appointed and one vacancy reserved by orders of this Court would be filled up in accordance with the directions of this Court. Looking at the marks obtained by the various persons in the rank list, the petitioner's position, if she is granted the 5 marks, would be in the 6[th] place and the 6[th] rank holder would also have the very same marks of the petitioner. In the W.P.(C)No.25239 of 2011 : 4 : context of there being no other candidate who has obtained more marks than the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall be appointed to the vacancy reserved as per the directions of this Court. The appointment shall be made at any rate, within a period of one month from today. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** ln