W.P.(C).Nos.12395 of 2011 (Y) and 12575 of 2011

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/15TH CHAITHRA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 12395 of 2011 (Y)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **1. PRATHEESH VAMAN,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), HEAD OFFICE, H.O BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **2. M. SITHEEK,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), IT HEAD OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. S. BIJU,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), OVERBRIDGE BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. D. UDAYA KUMAR,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), OVERBRIDGE BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. SHEEBA.P., (FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. LAKSHMI S. NAIR,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), HEAD OFFICE BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **7. RAKHI.U.S.,** - **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE),** **MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH,** **THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **8. SABEELA BEEVI,** - **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), P & E HEAD OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **9. K.S. SUDHEER,** - **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE),** **PEROORKADA BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **WP(C).No. 12395 of 2011 (Y)** ## **10. P.S. KRISHNALAL,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE),** **R.O. TRIVANDRUM, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **11. S. MANOJ,** **(FULL TIME CONTINGENT EMPLOYEE), OVER BRIDGE BRANCH, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADVS. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,** **TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.** **3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,** **TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CO-BANK TOWERS,** **VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 033.** **4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ORGANISATION,** **REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.S.E.B BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE, TRIVANDRUM -695 001.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.D. SOMASUNDARAM. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, KERALA STATE CO-OP BANK SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KERALA STATE CO-OP. BANK R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.12575 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **WP(C).No. 12395 of 2011 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.P & E/PD/II/1491/5390/2007-08 DATED 09/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.** **EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 05/05/2008 PASSED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.** **EXT.P2A COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO.180 DATED 11/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, TRIVANDRUM.** **EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES FRAMED BY THE BANK ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/12/2008 IN W.P.(C)NO. 37327 OF 2008(R) PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CB(1)51017/2008 DATED 30/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.8194/B2/09/CO-OP. DATED 18/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE SMT.S. KRISHNAKUMARI, ADVOCATE AND NOTARY.** - **EXT.P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/11/2009 IN W.P.(C)NO. 22401/2009(U) PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.** - **EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.274/2011/CO-OP. DATED 31/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** - **EXT.P9 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.180 DATED 11/01/2008.** - **EXT.P10 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.P&E/PD/II/1491/5086/2007-2008 DATED 25/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, TRIVANDRUM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------W.P(C).Nos.12395 and 12575 of 2011 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** A common question arose in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts are as follows:- 2. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12395 of 2011, 11 in number, were appointed as full time contingent employees in the third respondent bank as per Ext.P1 memorandum dated 9.2.2008 issued by the Managing Director-in-charge. The said appointments were ratified by the Board of Directors of the third respondent bank that met on 5.5.2008, as can be seen from item 29 of Ext.P2 minutes. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12575 of 2011, 26 in number, were appointed as part time contingent employees in the third respondent bank by the Managing Director-in-charge as per memorandum dated 4.4.2008. The appointment of petitioners 15 to 20 and 22 to 28 as part time contingent employees was ratified by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 5.5.2008 as can ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:2:- be seen from item No.30 of Ext.P2 minutes produced in W.P.(C) No.12395 of 2011. The petitioners have however, not stated that the appointments of the other petitioners, namely, petitioners 1 to 14 and 21 as part time contingent employees have been ratified by the Board of Directors. 4. After the appointments were made, the fourth respondent in the writ petitions, namely the Kerala State Cooperative Bank Employees Organization represented by its General Secretary, filed a representation dated 3.11.2008 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies objecting to the appointment of the petitioners. They thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.37327 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 18.12.2008 a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to take up the said representation for consideration and pass orders thereon within two months, after hearing all the parties including the establishment concerned. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies thereafter issued notice to and heard the petitioners in these writ petitions and respondents 3 and 4 and passed Ext.P5 order dated 30.4.2009. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies held that the appointment of the petitioners ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:3:- was not in order and that they were appointed without following the prescribed procedure. However, having regard to the fact that the termination of their services will affect the functioning of the bank, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies observed that the bank may consider their appointments as contract appointments/or on daily wages, till a fresh recruitment is made after observing all the formalities prescribed in the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed appeals before the State Government. They were rejected by Ext.P6 order on the ground that the appeals are barred by limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners in these writ petitions and others filed W.P.(C)Nos.22401 and 31784 of 2009 in this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 24.11.2009, a learned single Judge of this Court set aside Ext.P6 and directed the Government to dispose of the appeals on the merits. The Government thereafter heard the parties and passed Ext.P8 order dated 31.3.2011 upholding the order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Hence these writ petitions challenging the ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:4:- said orders (copies of which are marked as Exts.P7 and P12 in W.P.(C)No.12575 of 2011). 6. The main contention raised in the writ petitions is that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction to entertain the representation filed by the fourth respondent or to examine the validity of the appointment of the petitioners, which could have been done only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, the order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is liable to be set aside as an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction. It is contended that for the same reason, the order passed by the Government is also liable to be set aside. On the merits it is contended that as per the Staff Regulations of the bank appointments can be made after inviting applications by publishing the notice inviting applications on the notice board of the bank or by advertisement in newspapers and therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Government erred in holding that the bank ought to have invited applications by publishing the notification in newspaper dailees. 7. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit virtually supporting the petitioners and justifying the action taken by it. ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:5:- The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. 8. I heard Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.K.Ravikumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of this Court in _**Prakasini v. Joint Registrar**_ , 2006 (1) KLT 199 and the decision of the Division Bench in _**Raveendran v. State of Kerala**_ , 2007 (3) KLT 558 that in view of section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, on and with effect from 2.1.2003 any dispute arising in connection with the employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies can be resolved only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court established under section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and not by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or any authority and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that short ground. The learned counsel for the **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:6:- petitioner also contended that in view of regulation 18 of the Staff Regulations the authority can make appointments by direct recruitment of full time or part time contingent employees, after publishing the notice in the notice board of the bank and therefore, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not have invalidated the selection and appointment on the ground that the procedure prescribed in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time were not followed. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 contended relying on sub-rule (5) of rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules that in respect of posts not covered by section 80(3)(A) and section 80D of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, appointments can be made by the Committee of a co-operative society only after conducting a written examination and interview as per the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, that in the instant case such a procedure was admittedly not followed, that the provisions in the Staff Regulations must yield to the provisions in rule 182 (5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore, the finding entered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:7:- affirmed by the Government, that appointment of the petitioners is illegal, does not merit interference. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also contended that the petitioners did not raise the question regarding lack of jurisdiction in the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before him or before the Government in appeal or in the earlier writ petition filed by them and therefore, they cannot be heard to put forward such a plea at this stage. Alternatively, the learned counsel contended relying on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in _**Commissioner of Police v. Abida Beevi**_ , 2006 (2) KLT 112, that even assuming that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction, as the order passed by him renders justice and this Court would have passed the same order, if the fourth respondent had moved this Court complaining against the illegal appointments, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not bound to interfere with the impugned orders merely for the reason that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and consequently the Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the fourth respondent. 10. Exts.P1 and P2 produced in W.P.(C)No.12395 of 2011 ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:8:- disclose that pursuant to resolution No.180 adopted by the Board of Directors of the third respondent bank at its meeting held on 11.1.2008, a notification was published in the notice board of the bank (its head office) on 25.1.2008 inviting applications for appointment to the post of full time contingent staff. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12395 of 2011 and others applied. An interview was held on 9.2.2008 and on the same day the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12395 of 2011 were appointed by the Managing Director. That appointment was ratified by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 5.5.2008. The said resolution reads as follows:- ## _“_ _**29. Appointment of Full Time Contingent**_ ## _**Staff** ._ _Considered the memorandum on the subject and noted the contents. Resolved to ratify the actions of the President and the Managing Director of the Bank in terms of Board Resolution No.180 dated 11.01.2008 as regards appointment of eleven Full Time Contingent Staff, as detailed below, after inviting application through publication in Notice Board and conducting interview._ |**_Sl.No._**|**_Name_**| |---|---| |_1_|_D.Udayakumar_| |_2_|_P.Sheeba_| |_3_|_P.S.Krishnalal_| |_4_|_S.Sabeela Beevi_| -:9:- ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** |**_Sl.No._**|**_Name_**| |---|---| |_5_|_Pratheesh Vaman_| |_6_|_U.S.Rakhi_| |_7_|_Lekshmy S.Nair_| |_8_|_S.Biju_| |_9_|_K.S.Sudheer_| |_10_|_S.Manoj_| |_11_|_M.Sitheek_| It is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 and the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on 5.5.2008, that the decision to fill up the vacancies of full time contingent employees was taken on 11.1.2008, the notification inviting application was published on the notice board on 25.1.2008, an interview was conducted on 9.2.2008 and appointments were made on the same day. It is evident from the materials on record that before the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12395 of 2011 were appointed, the the notification inviting applications was not published in leading dailies having wide circulation in the area as stipulated in Circular No.18/1991 dated 7.6.1991 and that no written test was conducted by an outside agency. 11. The materials on record also disclose that part time contingent employees, 39 in number, were appointed on various dates in April and May, 2008. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12575 of 2011 are 28 out of the 39 part time contingent employees thus ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:10:- appointed in April and May 2008. However, the Board of Directors that met on 5.5.2008 ratified the appointment of only 13 out of the 39 employees. The relevant resolution adopted in that regard is extracted below:- ## _**“30. Appointment of Part-time Contingent Staff.**_ _Considered the memorandum on the subject and noted the contents. Also noted the following aspects specifically._ _1. The post of Part-time Contingent Staff did not fall within the purview of Staff Recruitment Rules as approved by Kerala Public Service Commission._ _2. The President/Board of the Bank is the appointing authority for the said posts in the Bank which include Sweepers, Cleaners, Watcher/Night Watcher etc._ _After discussion in the matter the Board noted_ _and resolved as follows:-_ _1. Noted and ratified the following 13 appointments made by the Bank in the post of Part Time Contingent Staff as per instructions of the President of the Bank._ |**_Sl.No._**|**_Name_**| |---|---| |1|V.S.Renuka| |2|U.S.Dhanya| |3|Heldamma| |4|Kumari Usha L.| |5|V.Gopalakrishnan| **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** -:11:- |**_Sl.No._**|**_Name_**| |---|---| |6|Mettle Bai| |7|N.B.Sheena| |8|A.Sobhanakumari| |9|P.Kalakumari| |10|P.Sailajakumari| |11|V.Mini| |12|K.K.Babu| |13|N.Anitha Kumari| _2. The arrangement of posting security staff as night watchmen was reported by the President. The matter of increasing bank robberies and the issues there against in the matter were reviewed at the meeting convened by the Thiruvananthapuram City Police Commissioner on 5.1.2008 in the backdrop of robbery occurred at South Malabar Gramin Bank, Chelambra. Accordingly the subject was placed as an agenda item (No.6) in the Central Banks Conference held on 16.1.2008. The consensus arrived then was that the concerned Board of Management of the Bank shall take necessary action for providing night watchmen in Branches and explore the possibility of implanting modern security devices depending on cost effectiveness and requirement. In accordance with the above President made appointment of Watchmen in Thiruvananthapuram City Branches. The President presented the list of 9 watchmen_ ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:12:- _appointed as Night Watcher in the Part-time Contingent scale in the Thiruvanathapuram City Branches of the Bank. He further suggested that the Local Directors in other Districts excepting Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Kasaragod be authorized to suggest the names of suitable candidates with credibility to be appointed as Watcher/Night Watcher/Part-time Contingent Staff in the District Headquarter Branches of the Bank concerned._ _Resolved to ratify the action of the President in having appointed 9 persons as Watcher/Night Watcher/Part-time Contingent Staff in all the City Branches of the Bank of Thiruvananthapuram. Also resolved to authorize the Local Directors of the Bank in the District concerned, excepting Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Kasaragod to suggest the name of a suitable male candidate to be considered for appointment as Watcher/Night Watcher in the scale of Part-time Contingent Staff in the respective District Head Quarter Branch of the Bank._ _Resolved to authorize the Managing Director of the Bank to finalise the list of persons to be appointed in the District Head Quarter Branch concerned based on the proposals submitted by the Local Directors of the Bank and to issue appointment orders.”_ 12. The Board of Directors also resolved to ratify the action ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:13:- of the President in having appointed 9 persons as Watcher/Night Watcher/Part-time Contingent Staff in all the City Branches of the Bank of Thiruvananthapuram. The Board of Directors also resolved to authorize the Local Directors of the Bank in the District concerned, excepting Thiruvananthapuram, Kottayam and Kasaragod to suggest the name of a suitable male candidate to be considered for appointment as Watcher/Night Watcher in the scale of Part-time Contingent Staff in the respective District Head Quarter Branch of the Bank. It was pursuant to the said resolution that many among the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12575 of 2011 were appointed. Before the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.12575 of 2011 were appointed, no notification inviting applications were published in leading dailees and a written test was not conducted by an outside agency as stipulated in Circular No.18/1991 dated 7.6.1991. It is in the background of these admitted facts that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies held in the impugned order that the appointments in question were made without following the procedure prescribed for effecting appointments. ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:14:- 13. As stated earlier, it is relying on Regulation 18 of the Staff Regulations that the petitioners justify their appointment. Regulation 18 of the Staff Regulations of the third respondent bank is extracted below:- _“18. Applications for direct appointment shall be invited by notice on the Notice Board of the Bank or by advertisement in Papers.”_ Sub-rule (5) of rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows:- _“182(5) In respect of societies and posts not covered by section 80(3)(A) and section 80B of the Act, the appointments shall be made by the committee after conducting the written examination and interview as per the guideline issued by the Registrar.”_ Sub-rule (5) of rule 182 extracted above, stipulates that except in cases of societies and posts covered by section 80(3)(A) and section 80B of the Act, appointments shall be made by the Managing Committee after conducting a written examination and interview as per the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies at the relevant time were those contained in Circular No.18/1991 dated 7.6.1991, especially paragraph 4 thereof which reads as follows:- **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:15:- _“4. The following procedure shall be strictly followed while making direct recruitments for appointment of employees._ _(a) Applications for the posts shall be invited through advertisement in leading dailies having wide circulation in the area._ _(b) Selection shall be made only after conducting written test and interview, allotting 100 marks for written test and 20 marks for interview._ _(c) The written test shall be conducted by an outside agency._ _(d) False numbers should be assigned to the answer scripts._ _(e) The conditions with regard to age-limit, qualifications mode of appointment etc., as laid down in the rules framed under Section 80 viz., rules 183, 186, 187 of the KCS Rules shall be strictly followed._ _(f) Ten per cent of the vacancies should be reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes/tribes.”_ Further in Circular No.11/99 dated 23.3.1999 the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had stipulated that the notification inviting applications should contain the following details:- - _“1. Full name and address of the society._ _2. a) Name of the post vacant._ - _b) Number of vacancies. c) Scale of Pay._ _3. Age limit._ _4. a) Educational qualifications._ ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:16:- - _b) Experience (If necessary)_ _5. Details regarding reservation._ _6. The last date of receipt of application in the society showing the name of the candidate, caste, address, age, educational qualification, experience, if the candidate is eligible to get the benefit of reservation the documents to prove the same, photo, if necessary._ _7. If there is written test and interview, the details thereof._ _8. Application fee._ _9. The address to which applications are to be sent.”_ It is not in dispute that none of these stipulations were adhered to before the petitioners were selected and appointed. In the light of the statutory provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of rule 182 and the stipulations in the Circulars issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies it cannot but be held that the appointments of the petitioners were patently illegal and were liable to be set aside. 14. Then the only is whether in view of the provisions contained in section 69(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could have entertained the complaint regarding selection and appointment of the petitioners and issued the impugned order. In my opinion, on the ## **W.P(C).Nos.12395 & 12575 of 2011** ## -:17:- admitted facts, the petitioners cannot assail the impugned orders on the ground that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not have entertained the dispute raised by the fourth respondent union. As stated earlier, the petitioners were appointed without following the procedure prescribed in the rules and the circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. A learned single Judge of this Court has in _**Commissioner of Police v. Abida Beevi**_ , held that though the Lok Ayukta, which passed the order impugned in that writ petition, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint before it, as the order passed by the Lok Ayukta renders justice, this Court need not interfere with it. It was held that if the complainant had approached this Court, this Court would have passed an order directing grant of the reliefs prayed for and that in such situations, this Court need not be too astute to interfere with the impugned orders. For the reasons stated above I hold that there is no merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** ## **ahg.** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------W.P(C).Nos.12395 and 12575 of 2011 ----------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **4[th] April, 2012**