High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Ext.P10 quashed; directi...

Suhana.T.T and Deepak Lal v Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Amit Rawal
Judgment Date
2021-09-07
Court Decision / Holding
Ext.P10, dated 25.08.2021, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, the Co-operative Society is not absolved from remaining obligated to comply with resolution No.VI of 24.08.2021; advance notice must be given to petitioners and materials supplied in accordance with law for a hearing. The court directs that the Society/Registrar proceed in a manner consistent with due process and the principles of natural justice, rather than summarily terminating employees. The decision should be revisited with proper notice, hearing, and material furnished, and in line with lawful procedures.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Ext.P10 quashed; directions to conduct further proceedings with due process and opportunity to be heard.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Suhana.T.T, D/o Sulaiman T.T. Thayyil Thodukayil House, Neeleeswaram P.O. Omassery, Kozhikode
  • Deepak Lal, S/o Padmanabhan Nair, Kodingoth House, Chathamangalam P.O., Nil Kozhikode

Respondents

  • The Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, No. F 1241, Manassery, Mukkom, Kozhikode-673 602 represented by its Secretary
  • The Administrative Committee, Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. F 1241, Mukkom, Kozhikode-673 602 represented by its Convener
  • The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kozhikode, Office of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puthiyara, Kozhikode-673 004

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.P. Jacob
  • • Mariya Jacob
  • • Mariya Titty

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri Jimmy George
  • • Sri M. Sasindran SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court writ petition under Article 226 challenging Ext.P10, an order by the Administrative Committee of Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd terminating the petitioners’ services as peons. The petitioners were appointed after a notification process pursuant to 12.08.2013 to fill posts including two peons; several earlier petitions had challenged irregularities in appointments and vacancies, with the Joint Registrar initially holding the appointments regular in 2014, and several petitions (W.P.(C) No.29093/2013, No.20518/2014, and others) arising out of competing challenges to posts and selection. In 2019, the bank invited fresh posts by notification dated 10.04.2019, and a series of petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 14424/19, 10284/2019, 978/2019, 29090/2013) culminated in a court judgment on 02.04.2019 directing notification of three new vacancies and allowing petitioners to apply, without addressing the validity of the underlying selection process. By 25.08.2021, the erstwhile committee issued Ext.P10 removing the petitioners with a note of irregularity, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court. The Court, observing that Ext.P10 was issued without certain materials and opportunity, invoked judicial review while acknowledging the possibility of backdoor appointments. It relied on Purushothaman v. Registrar to discuss natural justice and quashed Ext.P10, directing that the Society provide advance notice and materials for a hearing under law. The petition is thus allowed, with directions to proceed in compliance with due process rather than through summary termination.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies ActConstitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P10, the termination order, was passed by the Administrative Committee without prior notice or opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. They emphasize that the bank’s process has a history of litigation challenging postings and vacancies since 2013-2014, and that the 2018-2019 notification and the resulting selection were tainted by irregularities. They seek quashing of Ext.P10 and restoration or continuation of their service pending due process under the Co-operative Societies Act, arguing that due process and hearing are essential before punitive action is taken, especially given the unresolved questions about the legality of earlier appointments. The petitioners rely on prior court directions, insist on compliance with fair process, and urge this Court to exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction to ensure legality, transparency, and remedy through due procedure.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel acknowledge the termination order’s dependence on earlier Registrar orders and the court’s findings but contend that Ext.P10 was issued in the context of irregular appointments and in the wake of regulatory and administrative concerns. They argue that the bank’s actions ought to be synchronized with the Registrar’s orders and relevant statutory provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and that the petitioners, if aggrieved, should pursue appropriate remedies, including arbitration where applicable. They contend that natural justice was not strictly complied with in Ext.P10 and emphasize the need for a hearing, but also defend the bank’s right to rectify irregularities in accordance with law, subject to due process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Purushothaman v. Registrar(1996 KHC 261)PositiveUsed to support that non-compliance with natural justice can be negated in cases where appointments were via backdoor methods; the ratio is considered applicable to the facts, reinforcing a cautious approach to natural justice when backdoor appointments are involved.

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 Suhana.T.T and Deepak Lal v Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd & 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 AMIT RAWAL** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 SUHANA.T.T D/O SULAIMAN T.T.THAYYIL THODUKAYIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O.OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE 2 DEEPAK LAL, S/O PADMANABHAN NAIR, KODINGOTH HOUSE, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O.N.I.T.KOZIKODE BY ADVS. P.P.JACOB MARIYAM JACOB MARIYA TITTY ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BNK LTD.NO.F 1241 MANASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 602, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. F 1241, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 602, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER. 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673 004. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE, SRI M SASINDRAN SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners, 2 (two) in number, are the employees, after conducting the selection process, were appointed in the Mukkom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, as peon. . Respondent Society is registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Notification was issued on 12.8.2013 to fill up the posts of two attender, one salesman, three peons and one night watchman. Petitioners submitted the applications 2. One Roy Joseph filed a representation, dated 5.11.2013 , before the Joint Registrar stating that the said appointment was illegal. The Joint Registrar issued an order dated 3.7.2014 to the effect that the appointment effected was regular and no irregularity existed. W.P.(C) No.29093/2013 was filed by two persons alleging that they are working as peons in the bank appointed pursuant to the selection process and they are entitled to continue in the bank. Another writ petition W.P.(C) No.20518/2014 was filed by one member of **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **3** the bank challenging the appointment of additional vacancy in the bank in excess of the vacancies notified to be arbitrary and illegal. The first writ petition was dismissed, whereas, the second writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 3.7.2014 on the ground that the appointment made in excess of two notified vacancy of peon in the notification was legally unsustainable and were to be filled up by the bank after issuing fresh notification. Writ Appeal was filed which was also dismissed. A notification dated 18.4.2018 was published in the leading newspaper inviting application to fill up one post of typist, one post of salesman, one post of attender, two posts of peon and two posts of night watchman. The aforementioned notification was challenged by one Sreejith.A in W.P.(C) No.29090/2013 referred above by filing W.P.(C) No.14892/2018 which was dismissed as infructuous. 3. While selection process pursuant to the notification dated 18.4.2018 was underway, the petitioner in W.P.(C) **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **4** No.14892/2018 ie., Sreejith A. filed another writ petition W.P. (C) No.10284/2019 for issuance of directions to the bank not to proceed with the selection process and for getting opportunity to apply for the said post. Another writ petition W.P.(C) No.978/2019 was also filed by another candidate seeking similar relief. Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed as per judgment dated 2.4.2019, whereby this Court had directed the bank to notify the selection to the new three vacancies in the post of peon/attenders within a period of two weeks giving full liberty to the petitioners therein to apply and participate in the selection process. But the Court did not consider the validity of the process of selection pursuant to the said notification dated 18.4.2018 impugned in the writ petition. 4. On the basis of the judgment, bank caused a notification dated 10.4.2019 inviting application to fill up the post of peon. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14424/2019 alleged that they did not get hall tickets to the written test. **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **5** Hall ticket was issued to all the candidates including those two persons simultaneously and writ petition was closed on 29.5.2019, Ext.P5. There was spate of litigation as evidenced from Exts.P6, P6(a) and P7 and in the interregnum the term of the committee was over. Administrative committee assumed office pursuant to the election held on 11.11.2018. The order of appointment of Administrative committee has also challenged before this Court. Administrative committee decided to terminate the service of the petitioners appointed as peon. Ext.P10 order though was based upon the decision in resolution No.VI of 24.8.2021 to remove the petitioners from service, which as per submission has not been done in accordance with law even no opportunity has been given. 5. This Court on the last date of hearing on 6.9.2021 passed the following order: Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.P.Jacob expressed remorse that the prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of Exts.P10 and P9 which is inadvertently mentioned in the cover of the paper book and the prayer is with regard to quashing of Ext.P10. Request is accepted. The writ petition shall be construed to be seeking the prayer of quashing of Ext.P10. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that before passing the order Ext.P10 dated **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **6** 25.08.2021 principles of natural justice had not been complied with. Sri.S.Shyam kumar for the Bank Society raised the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition in view of the non-availment of efficacious remedy but seeks a day's time to enable him to obtain instructions with regard to the compliance of the principles of natural justice as the parameters for invoking the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of noncompliance is well known. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submitted that before passing the order Ext.P10 no opportunity was given but the fact remains the order had to be passed on the basis of the order of the Registrar, which was based upon the order of this Court in other writ petition. In support of the contention, relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in _**Purushothaman v. Registrar (1996 KHC 261)**_ where the plea of non compliance of the principle of natural justice was negated, as it was found that the appointment was through backdoor methods. Petitioners have also been appointed through backdoor, therefore, the ratio decidendi culled out in the judgment is directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **7** appraised the paper book. The relevant portion of the order Ext.P10 dated 25.8.2021 reads as under: It is informed that the appointment effected by the erstwhile committee of the bank is seen in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Registrar. The administrative committee took resolution No.6 dated 24.8.21 to remove you from service forthwith as the appointment is irregular. It is also decided to give wages on daily basis for the period you have worked. 8. It is based upon the resolution No.VI dated 24.8.2021 which was never enclosed to the petitioners to ascertain what weighed in the mind of the department to terminate the service of the petitioners, by holding appointment as irregular. Had they been supplied the copy of the resolution or given an opportunity of hearing would have assailed the order under the Co-operative Societies Act by going to the Arbitration court but have chosen to come to this Court. It is not yet clear whether the appointment of the petitioners is through backdoor method. All these matters are required to be looked into by the Society or the Registrar of the Society by providing opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the Ext.P10 dated 25.8.2021 is hereby quashed. However, **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **8** this will not entail the Co-operative Society to comply with the resolution No.VI of 24.8.2021 but the same has to be done by giving advance notice to the petitioners and supply the materials, in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- sab **AMIT RAWAL** **JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 18074 OF 2021** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18074/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2013 VIDE NO CRP 5781/13/L.DIS ISSUED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14892/2018 IN 978/2019 DATED 8.10.2018 Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 978/2019 DATED 2.4.2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.4.2019 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14424/19 DATED 29.5.2019 Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN JUDGMENT IN WPC 22066/2019 DATED 13.8.2019 WITH TYPED COPY Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN JUDGMENT IN WPC 29977/2019 DATED 7.11.2019 WITH TYPED COPY Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY DATED 29.5.2020 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.8.21 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE DATED 25.8.21 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION