W.P.(C) Nos. 11060 of 2017 (F) and 1497 of 2018; Alvin Scaria, Merlin Abraham, Ansia C. Thomas, Josmy Josen v. State of Kerala and others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 11060 of 2017(F)** **--------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** ## **-----------** ## **1 ALVIN SCARIA** **S/O. SCARIA, KARIMARUTHUMCHALLIL HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA PO., PALA, KOTTAYAM PIN-686574.** ## **2 MERLIN ABRAHAM** **D/O. ABRAHAM, ANDROTH HOUSE, POOVARANI PO., PALA, KOTTAYAM PIN-686574.** ## **3 ANSIA.C.THOMAS** **D/O. THOMAS, CHENGAZHASSERIL HOUSE, TEEKOY PO., MANGALAGIRI, KOTTAYAM PIN-686580** ## **4 JOSMY JOSEN** **D/O JOSEN, VARIKKANICKEL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686586** **BY ADVS.SRI.ROY CHACKO** **SRI.K.C.VINCENT** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE, GENERAL POST OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **4. THE MARANGATTUPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3556, MARANGATTUPALLY PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686635** **....(2)** **WP(C).No. 11060 of 2017(F)** **(2)** **5. THE UZHAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3810** - **UZHAVOOR PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686634.** **6. THE MOONNILAV SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.K 163, MOONNILAV P.O., KOTTAYAM PIN-686586** **7. THE MEENACHIL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.4266, POONJAR, POONJAR THEKKEKARA PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686582** **8. THE KOOROPPADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3965, KOOROPPADA PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686502** **9. THE KUMARAKOM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.315, KUMARAKOM PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686563** **10. THE RAMAPURAM REGIONAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.4111, RAMAPURAM BAZAR PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686576.** **11. THE MELAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE .BANK LTD NO.1662, MELAMPARA PO., KOTTAYAM PIN-686578** - **R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA,SC,CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAM.BOARD** - **R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY** - **R6 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA CHERIAN** - **R6 BY ADV. SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN** - **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN** - **R2 BY SMT.RASHMI. K.V., SC, CO.OP. SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD** - **R4 BY SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC SC, MARANGATTUPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE** - **BANK** **R10 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-04-2018,** **ALONG WITH WP(C).1497 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 11060 of 2017 (F)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPYOF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DT 19.01.2017 EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUE DTO THE 2ND PETITIONER DT 19.01.2017 EXHIBIT P1(B: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUE DTO THE 3RD PETITIONER DT 19.01.2017 EXHIBIT P1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DT 19.01.2017 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **OKB** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** ## **--------------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.11060 of 2017 and 1497 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------** Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** In W.P.(C) No.11060 of 2017, the challenge is against the selection conducted to the post of Junior Clerk in the respondents 4 to 11 Co-operative Societies. It is stated by the petitioners that they are qualified to be appointed to the post of Junior Clerk. It is stated by the petitioners that the notification was issued by the 2[nd] respondent inviting applications from qualified candidates for selection to different categories of posts in respondents 4 to 11. It is stated that though the notification was on 8-1-2016, the written test was conducted only on 08-42017, after 15 months of the notification. The contention of the petitioners is that Rule 182(4)(ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 mandates that the examination has to be conducted within a period of three months from the date of notification. There is a further prescription that the interview should be conducted within the specified period thereafter and the ranked list should be published. Thereafter the appointments are to be made from the ranked list within a ## _W.P.(C).11060/17 & 1497/18_ **:2:** period of one month. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have become qualified in the interregnum between the date of notification and the date of examination. They therefore contend that they should be considered for selection to the vacancies of Junior Clerks and a fresh notification should be issued enabling them also to participate in the selection process. There is a further argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that in case the condition with regard to conduct of the examination within three months as provided in Rule 182(4) (ii) found to be not mandatory the further contention that all vacancies arising during the validity of the ranked list are to be filled up from the ranked list shall also be taken as directory and the respondent Societies may be given the option to notify all the vacancies which arise after the vacancies notified are filled up. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 6[th] respondent. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P2 notification the examination had been conducted on 8-1-2016, the written test was conducted on 8-4-2017 and interview was conducted on 17-8-2017. It is stated that the ranked list was published in _W.P.(C).11060/17 & 1497/18_ **:3:** October 2017 and orders of appointment were issued to the candidates as well. It is further contended that a Division Bench of this Court in **Joint Registrar v. Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank Ltd.** reported in **[2009 (3) KLT 185]** had considered the provisions of Rule 182(4)(v) with regard to the time limit for conducting interview and had held that the time limit prescribed in Rule 182(4)(v) is directory in nature and that the failure to hold the interview within the time specified would not invalidate the selection procedure. It is therefore contended that since there are no contentions raised with regard to any illegality vitiating under the selection procedure conducted by the Examination Board, the contentions raised in the writ petition are untenable. 3. In W.P(C) No.1497 of 2018, the petitioners are three of the persons appointed in the 3[rd] respondent society from the ranked list prepared in pursuance of the notification which is under challenge in the W.P(C) No.11060 of 2017. It is stated that the petitioners had applied pursuant to the notification dated 08-01-2016 and they were successful in the written test held on 08-04-2017 and the interview held on 17-8-2017 and had been issued with Exts.P3 to P5 appointment orders dated _W.P.(C).11060/17 & 1497/18_ **:4:** 04-01-2018. It is stated that on the strength of the interim order issued in W.P.(C) Nos.153 of 2018 and 27 of 2018, directing the Part-time Administrator not to make any appointments, the petitioners were not appointed. It is contended that there was no allegation regarding any irregularity in the selection process and that the petitioners are undoubtedly fully qualified for appointment. It is stated that since the entire procedure with regard to the selection had already been completed, the interim order in W.P.(C) Nos.153 and 27 of 2018 would not stand in the way of appointment of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.1497 of 2018 would contend that the Part-time Administrator had issued appointment orders to the petitioners and five other persons from the ranked list in force without noticing the interim order in W.P(C) No.11060 of 2017. It is stated that 8 vacancies in the 3[rd] respondent society stood notified and the petitioners and 5 other persons were liable to be appointed in the 3[rd] respondent society. It is stated that the petitioners and the other persons appointed from the ranked list are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed and it was only ## _W.P.(C).11060/17 & 1497/18_ **:5:** on account of the dearth of employees necessary for the proper functioning of the Societies that the appointments had been made immediately on assuming charge as Part-time Administrator. The learned counsel also seeks a modification of the interim order in W.P(C)Nos.153 and 27 of 2018 to permit the appointment of the petitioners in W.P(C) No.1497 of 2018 and the others who have been selected pursuant to the interview and included in the list. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties. The contention raised by the petitioners in W.P. (C) No.11060 of 2017 is to the effect that they were disabled from applying pursuant to the notification and that the long delay vitiated the entire process of selection does not appear to be sustainable in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in **Joint Registrar v. Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank Ltd.** reported in **[2009 (3) KLT 185]** . It has been held that the time limit with regard to the conduct of interview is only directory in nature. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the selection conducted and the appointments made pursuant to the notification under challenge in W.P.(C) No.11060 of 2017 are legal and valid. ## _W.P.(C).11060/17 & 1497/18_ **:6:** Therefore, leaving open the question of the right of the Societies to notify the vacancies arising in future for fresh selection, W.P.(C) No.11060 of 2017 is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.1497 of 2018 is allowed. 6. It is made clear that the interim order in W.P.(C) Nos.27 and 153 of 2018 will not stand in the way of the appointment of the petitioners and the other persons liable to be appointed in the 3[rd] respondent society from the ranked list in force. The petitioners shall be permitted to join duty on the basis of the orders of appointment already issued to them. The five other persons who are eligible to be appointed against notified vacancies from ranked list will be intimated accordingly by the 3[rd] respondent society. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** okb/13.4.18 //True copy// P.A. to Judge