Rajani. K.R., Part Time Sweeper, Idukki District Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Others vs The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, State Co-Operative Registrar''s Office, The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, The Idukki District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and General Manager, Idukki District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioners are all Part-time Sweepers appointed to the 3rd respondent-Bank as per a valid selection process. The selection itself was initiated by a notification in the year 2005, as is evidenced by Exhibit P1. Admittedly there was a challenge to the said selection process, which concluded as per Exhibit P2 judgment. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-Bank did not appoint any of the persons so selected. However, on the writ petition being dismissed as per Exhibit P2 judgment, all the petitioners were granted appointment on 07.07.2006. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of an appeal. The appeal also stood dismissed for the reason that none of the selected and appointed candidates were impleaded either in the writ petition or in the appeal. The Writ Appeal was held to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Subsequently, on the basis of an observation made in the judgment in Writ Appeal, all the petitioners were issued with Exhibit P5 show cause notice, threatening removal from service. After considering the representations, subsequently Exhibit P7 series of orders were again issued by the respondent-Bank, making appointments of the very same persons, but, however, on condition that the appointment would be only from the date of such order and that they will have to undergo probation for a period of one year thereafter. The petitioners, hence, challenge the said orders in the above writ petition.

What is significant is, what has been observed in Exhibit P4 judgment and the understanding of such observations by the respondent-Bank; reflected in Exhibit P7 series of orders. In appeal before the Division Bench, the petitioner therein relied on Exhibits P1 and P2 (therein), while the respondent-Bank sought to sustain the selections on the basis of Exhibit R2(a) (therein). The Division Bench held that both occupy different fields. Exhibit R2(a) was found to be not with respect to direct recruitments and it was also observed that Exhibits P1 and P2 would, in fact, apply to the selection of Part-time Contingent employees. These are the observations of the Division Bench, which, however, did not lead to any favourable order to the petitioner/appellant (therein), since the persons who are selected and appointed were not impleaded either in the writ petition or in the appeal. Hence, in effect the Writ Appeal stood dismissed and the challenge to the selection stood negatived.

According to the respondent-Bank, as is evidenced from Exhibit P7 series, the Court observed that the selection was illegal and void and the Bank was at liberty, if it desires so, to take remedial action including review and cancellation of such illegal appointment and conduct selection in accordance with law. In the first place, it is to be noticed that there is no finding that the selection was illegal or void. It was observed in passing, that in fact it was not Exhibit R2(a) relied on by the respondent-Bank that would govern direct recruitment of Part-time Contingent employees and it would be Exhibits P1 and P2. The Division Bench did not look into the selection process to see whether it has been carried on in accordance with Exhibits P1 and P2. The legality of the selection process was not at all considered by the Court. Furthermore, there was no liberty reserved to the Bank to take proceedings for fresh selection or to make review of the appointments already made. In fact, the Bank supported the selection, both before the learned Single Judge and before the Division Bench. The Bank at no point of time had a contention that there was any irregularity or illegality in the selection process. It was in the circumstance of the learned Single Judge dismissing the challenge against the selection process, that the petitioners were appointed. They were also continued in the service and the Bank, before the Division Bench, sought to support the selection. The understanding of the Bank, as is reflected in Exhibit P7 series, regarding the effect and force of the observations of the Division Bench, is patently wrong. The challenge against the selection process having been negatived and the Bank, even in the Writ Appeal stage, having absolutely no contention against the selection process, there is no reason for reviewing the selection validly conducted by the respondent-Bank and upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court, which judgment again holds the field in so far as the Writ Appeal was dismissed. Exhibit P7 series of orders, on the above reasoning, is set aside. The appointment of the petitioners would continue from the date on which they were appointed.

Writ petition allowed. No costs.