Rajesh P.R. v Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Co-Operatives Joint Registrar's (General) Office, Kollam-13; Sasthamcotta Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.; The Secretary, Sasthamcotta Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd; and Addl. Respondents

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013/25TH ASHADHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 30044 of 2011 (E)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **RAJESH P.R., S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, KUZHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.BINDU GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE'S JOINT REGISTRAR'S (GENERAL)OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-13.** ## **2. THE SASTHAMCOTTA CO-OPERATIVE** - **AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.Q373, SASHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY-690 521.** **3. THE SECRETARY, THE SASTHAMCOTTA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, Q 373, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM-690 521.** ## ***ADDL.RESPONDENTS:** **4. SHANAVAS.A., S/O.ABUBUCKER, AGED 40 YEARS, SHANAVAS MANZIL, BHARANIKKAVU, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 521.** **5. P.R.AJITHKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PANTHAMPLAVIL VEEDU, MUTHUVULAKKAD PADINJARU, POOROORVAZHI PO - 690 521.** **..2/-** **Kss** **..2.....** ## **WPC.NO.30044/2011 E** **6. JOHNSON J., S/O.JOHN, AGED 35 YEARS, VILAYIL PADINJATTETHIL, ERAVICHIRA, SOORANAD PO, CHAKKUPALLI, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 521.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.PADMARAJ R2 & R3 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN R4 & R6 BY ADVS. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.AJITH GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2013 ALONG WITH WPC. 30102/2011 AND WPC.6765/2012, THE COURT ON 16/07/2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.30044/2011 E** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1:THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5156/2006 DTD 29.5.2006. EXT.P2:THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.19058/2009 DTD 8/7/2009. EXT.P3:THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE(C)NO.1339/2009 DTD 30/11/2009. EXT.P4:THE COPY OF KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (3RD AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 2011. EXT.P5:THE COPY OF NEWS PAPER ADVERTISEMENT IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD 6/8/2011 INVINTING APPLICATIONS. EXT.P6:THE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.18/91 DTD 7/6/1991. EXT.P7:THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 1/11/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:THE COPY OF HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9:THE COPY OF QUERY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK DTD. 23/12/2011. EXT.P10:THE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK DTD. 21/01/2012. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SO(ORD)NO.789/2007/CO-OP. DTD. 5/12/2007 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF KERALA. R4(A): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/11/2011. R4(B): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.79/2011 DD. 09/11/2011.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6765 of 2012 - U ---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] July, 2013 **J U D G M E N T** These writ petitions are filed challenging the validity of notification dated 5.8.2011 issued by the 2[nd] respondent inviting applications to the post of four Peons/Watchman. Ext. P5 is the notification in W.P.(C) No. 30044/2011 which is the same as Exts.P1 and P5 in the other writ petitions. Hence the writ petitions are decided by a common judgment. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 30044/2011, the petitioner, who is an applicant challenges the validity of the notification by contending that the written test is not conducted by an outside agency as per the Circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative 2 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U Societies and that the Director Board cannot authorise the President to conduct the selection process which is against Rule 182(5) of the Cooperative Societies Rules. 3. It is further contended that, during the written test false numbers were not issued, that the hall tickets were issued by the Secretary of the Bank, that no officer of the “outside agency was present during examination” and the resolution delegating to the President the power to appoint outside agency is bad in law as held by this court in W.P.(C) No. 19594/2009. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the Bank, inter alia that when notice was contending initially published for selecting Peons/Watchman, the same came to be recalled on the ground that there was no sufficient notice. Thereafter, the 3 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U Government by Ext.R3(a) order permitted the Society to proceed with the selection process. Ext.R3(a) is the said Government Order. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P5 notification was issued on 6.8.2011, the selection was entrusted to an outside agency called the Travancore Service Consultancy which is managed by three retired Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies. It is stated in the counter affidavit that this agency has conducted several such selection in different Co-operative Societies and the outside agency had not submitted the mark list of the candidates who have participated in the written test held on 12.11.2011. It is stated that about 258 candidates participated in the test and that the agency will submit the mark list to the Bank only during the first half of December, 2011 and thereafter interview cards will 4 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U be sent to the candidates who have secured more than 50% marks in the written test. They have also stated that the members of the outside agency were present in the school where the written test was held and in order to assess the conduct of written test, the service of the school teachers were also availed. The Bank had issued the hall ticket to the respective applicants on account of the fact that the particulars of the applicants were available only with the Bank and it was not disclosed to the outside agency. They have also stated that false numbers were assigned to all the candidates who have participated in the examination. 5. In W.P.(C) No. 30102/2011, a member of the Bank, who is also a Panchayat Member, challenges the notification mainly on the ground that the selection process cannot be conducted 5 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U without demarcating the area of operation of the two Taluks. It is also contended that the notification violates the Rules prescribed for conducting the selection process and also the Circular issued by the Department in the matter relating to conduct of selection. 6. W.P.(C) No. 6765/2012 is filed by persons who could not apply on account of the age bar. According to them, when the applications were invited on 30.1.2006, they were qualified to apply but since the same came to be re-notified, they lost their chance for applying. Still further it is contended that in the notification when an opportunity was given to persons who had applied pursuant to notification on 23.8.2006 and 25.8.2006, the same opportunity ought to have been given to the persons who had applied pursuant to 6 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U notification dated 30.1.2006. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank and also the Government Pleader appearing for the Co-operative Department. 8. The first question to be considered is whether there is any illegality in issuing the notification. One ground taken is that when the bifurcation of the Societies in the two Taluks had not been completed, there is no reason to make the appointment. It is relevant to note that an attempt was made by the Bank to fill up certain vacancies as early as in 2006, which did not fructify, when it was found that the notice was not proper. A subsequent notification was published and the selection process got delayed due to the intervention by this Court. Thereafter when the 7 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U notification is again issued, those persons who had applied during August, 2006 could have attended the selection process. One of the complaints raised is that there was no reason to avoid other persons. But the notification issued in January, 2006 came to be rejected as it was not a proper notification. Therefore necessarily a fresh notification has to be issued which again got delayed due to intervention of the Department and it is by virtue of a direction issued by this Court that the process of selection was directed to be completed within a time frame. Such being the situation, I do not think that there is any illegality on the part of the Bank clearly indicating in the notification that those persons who had already applied as per notification of August, 2006 need not apply afresh. That apart if the petitioners 8 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U have not opted to apply when the second notification was published, they have no right to participate in the present selection. Moreover no age relaxation is given to any such candidate. 9. Another contention urged is relating to delegation of power by the Board of Directors to the President to conduct the selection process. No doubt, it is for the Board of Directors of the Society to consider and select the particular candidate. Here the Board had authorised the President only to appoint an outside agency in terms with the Circular. The outside agency has conducted the test. It is not an individual as stated by the petitioner. It is an agency comprising of three retired Joint Registrars. They have conducted the test by giving false numbers as well. Therefore the manner in which the test has been conducted W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U 9 cannot be disputed. The argument that the President had no authority to appoint an outside agency and the delegation of power to that extent is bad in law is unsustainable. The President is only authorised to engage an outside agency to conduct the written test. By doing so, the Board has not violated any of the Rules. Secondly, the President of the Society has not on his own appointed the outside agency. He was only asked to find out a suitable outside agency. The appointment is made by the Board of Directors. Therefore, I do not think that there is any violation of Rules as such. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation and the explanation offered by the Bank, especially regarding the contention that false numbers were indeed given in the answer papers and the written test marks were not W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** disclosed initially and only those persons who had more than 50% marks were called for interview, I do not think that any of the grounds raised to allege illegality are proved. 10. At any rate, there is no material to indicate that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 30044/2011 had already participated in the selection process which is applicable to all other candidates as well. 11. In the light of the aforesaid findings, I do not think that there is any reason to set aside the notification and the process by which the selection process was done. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied **Mohanan** v. upon the judgment of this Court in **State of Kerala** (2010 (3) KLT S.N. 89). An 11 W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U attempt is made to contend that the outside agency is not properly constituted, I do not think so. It is stated in the counter affidavit that an agency formed by three retired Joint Registrars were engaged for conducting the test. Their credentials are not in dispute. Persons who has experience in the Department after their retirement as well can be the competent officers for conducting a departmental test. 13. Another judgment relied upon is an unreported judgment in W.P.(C) No. 19594/2009. That was a case where there was non-compliance of the guidelines mentioned in the Circular and the President of the Society was entrusted with the task of selecting an individual to prepare the question papers and value the answer scripts. That is not the situation here. Admittedly, an agency was W.P.(C) Nos. 30044 and 30102 of 2011 and 6755 of 2012 - U **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** engaged by the Society for conducting the test. The President was only asked to identify such an agency. Hence the factual circumstances involved in those two judgments will have no application to the case on hand. In the result, there being no merits in the above writ petitions, the same are dismissed. Sd/- **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** rka /true copy/