V. Sivasankaran Nair vs The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved with the selection to be conducted to the post of Peon and Attender in the 2nd respondent-Bank. The petitioners claim to be members of the respondent-Bank, who contend that the appointment to the posts of Peon, Attender and Bill Collector was only to facilitate further promotion to the higher posts. Nepotism is alleged against the Managing Committee in making such appointments.

There are 10 sanctioned posts, of which 3 are of Peons. Admittedly, selection was made to 3 posts of Peon, one post of Attender and one post of Bill Collector. Specific allegation was made by the petitioners against the appointment of five persons named in the writ petition, as Bindu, R.K., Remya, R., Sindhu, G., Remya, L.R. And Sheeja, S. Though these persons figure in the rank list produced by the respondent-Bank in the affidavit dated 27.10.2014, none are high enough in the list to obtain appointment. The persons named though figure in the rank list, are lower in rank, which dispels the allegation of nepotism.

The further contention is with respect to the respondent-Bank effecting these appointments to facilitate promotion to the higher posts. Going by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder as it now exist, to the higher posts, direct recruitment and promotions are to be made by the Co-operative Examination Board [for brevity "Examination Board"]. Even for being promoted to such higher posts, the persons who are in the cadre of Peon, Attender and Bill Collector have to appear for a qualifying examination conducted by the Examination Board, that too after a service of three years. There is also a ratio prescribed in respect of direct recruitment and promotion. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appointments are now made to facilitate promotion to the higher posts. In any event, it is to be noticed that even if such promotions are made, it is only a fortuitous one, by virtue of service and the Bank cannot for that reason alone, be interdicted from making appointment to the lower posts; which may in future facilitate promotion to the higher posts.

In view of the above, no merit in the allegations is discernible. The writ petition would stand dismissed.