Ramadevi K v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Thrissur; Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Wadakkanchery; Kilimangalalam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (represented by Managing Director)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/6TH PHALGUNA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 14244 of 2011 (E)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **RAMADEVI K, W/O.MOHANAN, THOPPIL PULIYATH HOUSE, PANJAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRICHUR - 680002.** **2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), WADAKKANCHERY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.** **3. KILIMANGALAM FARMERS SERVICE** - **CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.25, KILIMANGALAM TRICHUR - 680591, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADERS SMT.ROSE MICHAEL R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 15369/2011, WPC. NO.16785/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **W.P.(C) NO.14244/2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 13.2.2011.** **P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 3.5.2011 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.D 17.56.2011 GIVEN TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **W.P. (C) NO. 14244, 15369 & 16785 OF 2011** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 25[th ] day of February, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** Though a judgment was dictated on 08.02.2013, before the judgment was signed, on the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the case was re-posted and heard on this date and the following judgment is passed:- 2. These three writ petitions arises out of common issue relating to notification calling for appointment to the two posts of Peon and one post of Watchman in the Kilimangalam Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Limited. 3. W.P.(C).No. 16785/2011 is filed by persons who are not even applicants to the said posts. They have filed the writ petition contending that the 1[st] respondent has violated the mandatory procedure prescribed under Ext. P2 Circular for the filling up of the said posts. According to them the granting of marks at 148[1] /2, 153 and 150 respectively to respondents 4 to 6 is violative of clause 4(b) of Ext. P2 Circular and therefore selection process is vitiated. ## W.P. (C) NO. 14244, 15369 & 16785 OF 2011 ## **2** 4. The 1[st] respondent Bank had filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the test was conducted by Smt. C.D. Chandrika, Retired Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies who is an outside agency and the maximum marks for the test is 100 and the assumption of the petitioners that the 1[st] respondent had given higher marks is not correct. According to the 1[st] respondent, respondents 4 and 5 alone appeared for the examination and they got 63 and 73 marks respectively. 5. This writ petition can be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the selection process as they are not applicants to the said posts. That apart there is no material to show that the procedure as prescribed under the Circular had been violated. That being the situation I do not think that there is any factual basis for this writ petition. 6. In respect of W.P.(C). No. 15369/2011 and W.P.(C). No. 14244/2011, the main contention urged by the petitioners is that the Bank has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules relating to the selection process and they also contend that there is violation of Circular No. 18/91. The Circular W.P. (C) NO. 14244, 15369 & 16785 OF 2011 **3** apparently is the procedure for conducting the test which inter alia includes appointing of an outside agency for the purpose of conducting the examination. Counter affidavit filed by the Bank would indicate that they have conducted the examination through an outside agency. The petitioners have with open eyes participated in the selection process and now they cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. 7. The learned counsel for petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of this Court in **Mohanan and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2010(3) KHC 634]** and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Mannady Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar and Another [2011(2) KHC 361]** . Based on the judgment of the learned Single Judge it is contended that the outside agency in terms of the circular has to be a corporate agency. I do not think that the said judgment lays down such a proposition. That was a case where the examination was conducted by an alleged corporate agency consisting of certain retired hands from Co-operative Department. The Court came to the conclusion that there is no material to show that they have conducted the test. It is in that W.P. (C) NO. 14244, 15369 & 16785 OF 2011 **4** background, the learned Single Judge came to such an opinion that there was no material to show that the outside agency had conducted the examination. On a reference made to the Mannady Service Co-op. Bank's case (supra) it could be seen that Division Bench had confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge as follows:- 7. The learned Single Judge considered in detail the appellant's claim that outside agency was engaged for the conduct of test. The findings are that the claim is absolutely bogus because there is no such agency as claimed by the appellant, existing as a Corporate Body and the persons brought by the appellant are only retired employees of Cooperative Departments who are not organised under any organisation. Further, the question cum answer papers contained only the seal of the appellant - Bank and not of the so - called agency which conducted the test. The more interesting finding of the learned single judge is that written examination and interview were fixed on the same date on after the other which is probably a unique feature of this case. In the normal course, answer books with false numbers are valued by the outside agency and on getting the rank list, the Bank constitute an Interview Board for conducting the interview. The fixation of written examination followed by interview on the same day clearly support the apprehension of the writ petitioners that selections probably would be already made and the test and interview are only a farce or apparent compliance of the Rules in regard to selection. We do not want to repeat the W.P. (C) NO. 14244, 15369 & 16785 OF 2011 ## **5** entire details and grounds based on which the learned single judge rejected the claim of engaging outside agency by the appellant because we completely endorse the detailed findings of the learned Single Judge in regard to irregularities committed in the selection process. The conclusion that the entire selection process is unfair and against the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is irresistible. We, therefore, confirm all the findings of the learned Single Judge and consequently dismiss the Writ Appeals. 8. It is therefore relevant to note that the Division Bench had concurred with the opinion of the learned Single Judge on the peculiar factual circumstances available in the said case and it cannot be proposition to hold that an outside agency should be a corporate agency. 9. Another contention is that the retired employees of the Co-operative Department cannot be an outside agency. There is no such restriction imposed in the Circular issued. The only aspect to be considered is whether a retired employee of the Cooperative Department or any other person as the case may be or any Corporate Body should have the necessary expertise. This is apparently a selection for the post of peon and definitely a retired employee of the Co-operative Department will necessarily ## W.P. (C) NO. 14244, 15369 & 16785 OF 2011 **6** have the expertise to conduct such a test. In so far as the test is not vitiated by other circumstances as mentioned in the judgments cited above, I do not think there will be any justification on the part of this Court to interfere with such selection process. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the records available in the case, I do not think that selection process was conducted in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the applicants. The selection process was declared much earlier and the petitioners in these cases did not opt to challenge the said selection procedure. After having participated in the written test they have approached this Court. The reason for challenge is not well founded. In the said circumstances they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, I do not think that these writ petitions deserves any consideration. Accordingly the same are dismissed. sd/- **A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** **DCS**