Nikil Babu vs The Joint Registrar Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16911 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 15002 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

     1     NIKIL BABU
           AGED 32 YEARS
           PULLANHOLI, THALAKKULATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673317.

     2     PRASAD KUMAR P.K.,
           PANDARA KULATHIL HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL P.O., KOZHIKODE-
           673303.

           BY ADVS.
           B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
           ANITHA RAVINDRAN
           HARISANKAR N UNNI
           SARANGADHARAN P.



RESPONDENT/S:

     1     THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
           KOZHIKODE.

     2     THE KARANOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F1244,
           ELATHUR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673303.

           BY ADVS.
           P.P.JACOB
           MARIYAM JACOB



OTHER PRESENT:

           SR GP BIMAL K NATH


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15002 OF 2021              2



                            JUDGMENT

The second respondent issued Ext.P1 notification

inviting applications for the posts of 4 peons and three

night watchmen. The petitioners claim that they had

applied for both the posts and were issued Ext.P2 and

Ext.P3. According to the petitioners, though several

candidates appeared in the written test, without any

justification, the second respondent has fixed and chosen

few persons for the interview. It was stated that the

petitioners are avoided to ensure that such selected

persons get the job.

2. Second respondent has filed detailed counter

specifically contending that the first petitioner has

participated in the selection process and as such is not

entitled to challenge proceedings. I agree with the

argument set up by the petitioners. However, it is stated

by the learned senior Government Pleader that complaints

were received by the first respondent regarding the

conduct of the selection process. Accordingly, an officer

has been appointed to enquire into the above allegations

and to take appropriate decision.

3. Having considered this, without going into the

merits of the present Writ petition, I am inclined to dispose

of the Writ Petition, directing the first respondent to cause

the enquiry to be completed as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within a period of one month and thereafter the

second respondent shall proceed with the selection process

subject to the report of above enquiry. In the meanwhile,

during the above period of one month finalisation of the list

shall stand deferred. Further decisions will be subject to

the report of the enquiry and ultimately the decision of the

Joint Registrar.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15002/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 21.08.2019.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NO.026 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NO.0150 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM WHICH APPEARED IN THE DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED 27.07.2021.