Kalliyoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The challenge in the writ petition is to the order of the Joint Registrar, Ext.P5, holding up the selection notified as per Ext.P2. The contention of the petitioner/Bank is that by Ext.P1 as early as in 2011, posts of two Data Entry Operators and two Appraisers were sanctioned to the petitioner/Bank. However, when proceedings were initiated by making a notification, the Joint Registrar on a complaint produced as Ext.P6 interdicted the respondent/Bank from proceeding with the notification and making appointments to the said four posts. The grounds on which the interdiction has been made in Ext.P5 are as follows :

The notification does not specify the age or the reservation policy as is prescribed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Further, it is also stated that the educational qualifications for Data Entry Operators and Appraisers have been fixed by the Bank itself. The appointment of an individual as an educational Agency has also been projected as a ground in Ext.P5. Over and above these grounds, it has also been directed that the appointments can be proceeded with only after the daily wage employees have been terminated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Bank submits that as per the direction the daily wage employees have been terminated by a resolution dated 17.01.2013 and the said fact is already brought to the notice of the Joint Registrar also.

Even going by Ext.P5 it is clear that the Government has not prescribed any educational qualification for appointment of the posts of Data Entry Operators or Appraisers and hence, the prescription of the same by the Bank cannot be held to be improper. However, the Joint Registrar could verify as to whether the qualification so prescribed by the Bank would be normally the one prescribed for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operators and Appraisers. With respect to the appointment of an individual agency, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank points out Circular No. 79/2011 wherein the Department itself has permitted appointment of individuals who have expertise or knowledge in the field of ''Co-operation'' to conduct the written test. In such circumstances, the said objection also cannot hold good. However, with respect to the defects noticed in the notification, this Court is of the opinion that necessarily the same has to be rectified showing the age limit of the persons who are entitled to apply for the posts as per the Rules framed as also clearly stating the reservation policy as emanating from the provisions of the Act and the Rules.

The learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 4 and 5 submits that after the filing of the writ petition, a new Committee has taken charge and it has been revealed from the minutes book that the decision to appoint persons as per Ext.P1 was an interpolation made in the Minutes of the earlier Committee and the earlier Committee itself had rescinded such resolution. The said submission is seriously objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who represents the Bank and the present Managing Committee. Since these are disputed questions of fact, it may not be proper for this Court to make a roving enquiry to find out whether proper resolution was made or not. In the above circumstances, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Thiruvananthapuram, the 2nd respondent herein, shall consider the issue and pass orders afresh. It is noticed that despite notice being issued to the 3rd respondent, none has appeared and the notice taken out twice, has been returned. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is a fictitious person. In such circumstances, the Joint Registrar would consider the issue in the light of the observations made in this judgment and Ext.P6 complaint need not be referred to at all. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 or their representative shall appear before the Joint Registrar on 16.12.2013. It is made clear that Ext.P5 is set aside only to facilitate a fresh consideration of the issue. Needless to say that the Bank cannot proceed with the applications received as per Ext.P2 and further recruitment would depend upon the orders passed by the Joint Registrar. The proceedings before the Joint Registrar shall be concluded within one month from 16.12.2013.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. Parties are left to suffer their costs.