Kerala High Court
Sinoj P.S vs The Pindimana Service ... on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Wednesday, the 3rd day of November 2021 / 12th Karthika, 1943
WA NO. 1432 OF 2021
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2021 IN WP(C) 20976/2021 OF THIS COURT.
---
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C)20976/21:
SINOJ P.S.,S/O.SIVAN, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, PINDIMANA P.O.,
MUTHENKUZHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686692.
BY ADVS.M/S.P.P.JACOB & MARIYAM JACOB
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C)20976/21:
1.THE PINDIMANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.25,
CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686681,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PINDIMANA SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.25, CHELAD P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686681,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3.THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (G),ERNAKULAM,5TH FLOOR,NEW BLOCK,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU-682030.
4.ANEESH RAJAN,PULPRAKUDY HOUSE,PINDIMANA,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686681.
5.JIBI ELIAS,MOLATH HOUSE, MALIPARA,
CHELAD P.O., PAZHANGARA, ERNAKULAM-686681.
P.T.O.
6.LIJO RAGHAVAN,PLATHUMOOTIIL HOUSE,
PINDIMANA, ERNAKULAM.
7.JASMIN IBRAHIM,CHITTOTHKUDI,AIROORPADAM,
PINDIMANA,ERNAKULAM.
8.CHINTU BASIL,W/O.BASIL, KOOTTAPPALA HOUSE,
CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM
ADV.ALEXANDER JOSEPH FOR R1&R2
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notification and the
conduct of written test and interview scheduled on 6.11.2021 pending
disposal of the above appeal.
This Writ Appeal coming on for orders on 3.11.2021 upon perusing the
appeal memorandum, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
EXT.P1:TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.09.21
ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.R2(c):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2021 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXT.R2(d):TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R2(c)
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
.................................................................
W.A. No.1432 of 2021
[Arising out of judgment dated 28.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.20976 of 2021 of this Court]
.................................................................
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021
ORDER
When the case came up for admission today, we have
heard the parties through the learned Advocates including the
learned Senior Government Pleader for some time. Request is made
on behalf of Sri.Alexander Joseph, the learned Advocate appearing
for respondents 1 & 2 that due to his personal inconvenience the case
may be adjourned for further consideration to 05.11.2021.
2. From the pleadings submitted by none other than the
respondent Co-operative Society as per their counter affidavit dated
07.10.2021 filed in the instant W.P.(C), it is admitted by them that
the approved and authorized staff strength of the bank is 15 and the
present existing staff strength is only 7. The 2 nd respondent has
contended that one incumbent by name Smt.P.K.Leela is now
working as Part Time Sweeper, belongs to Scheduled Caste
community and she was appointed as per resolution dated
25.06.2003 issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents and that the 3rd
respondent Joint Registrar had approved her appointment as per
order dated 02.03.2007. On this basis it is sought to be contended by
the respondents 1 & 2 that one among the posts filled up so far has
already been occupied by an incumbent who belongs to SC community
and therefore, the main contention of the appellant that 10%
reservation for the SC/ST is not being observed by the respondent
bank in terms of Section 80(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Act, is untenable, etc. Per contra, Sri.P.P.Jacob, the learned counsel
appearing for the writ appellant would point out that it is reliably
learnt that Smt.P.K.Leela was not appointed on the basis of the post
being exclusively set apart for SC/ST reservation but on the basis of
rank of candidates from the open market and further that the post of
part time sweeper is not a post which comes within the authorized
staff strength of the bank in terms of the provisions contained in the
Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore the said post of part time
sweeper cannot be counted to reckon as to whether or not the 10%
SC/ST reservation in terms of Section 80(4) has been complied with
and that the said post of part time sweeper is thus to be excluded for
that purpose.
3. After hearing both sides, prima facie we feel that if as a
matter of fact the post of part time sweeper now occupied by
Smt.P.K.Leela is not part of the authorized and approved staff strength
of the bank or she was appointed not on the basis of exclusive SC/ST
reservation then her appointment cannot be reckoned for the purpose
of deciding as to whether 10% SC/ST reservation has been observed,
even if it is assumed that the said incumbent belongs to SC
community. If that be so, then going by the admitted pleadings of
respondents 1 & 2, the total authorized strength is 15 and 7 posts are
already filled up and 5 posts are now notified as per Ext.P1 and
therefore, at least the 10th post should have been set apart for SC/ST
reservation going by the mandate contained in Section 80(4) of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. This aspect of the matter has been
lost sight of by the 3rd respondent Joint Registrar while he issued
Ext.R2(d) proceedings dated 02.09.2021, whereby though the
previous selection notification was interfered with, liberty was given to
the respondent bank to proceed with issuance of a fresh selection
notification and fresh selection process. This aspect of the matter has
also not been very duly taken note of in the impugned judgment.
4. Further, very crucially it is admitted by none other than R1
and R2 in para 9 of their counter affidavit filed in the W.P.(C) that now
the 1st respondent has received applications and appointed an outside
agency for conducting written test and the interview. Further that,
both the written test and interview is now being scheduled on
07.10.2021 in pursuance of the impugned Ext.P1 selection notification
dated 10.09.2021. We are now apprised by both sides that the
abovesaid written test and interview has been postponed and is
scheduled to be conducted on 07.11.2021. If as a matter of fact both the
written test and interview is to be conducted on the same day, then
prima facie it reveals a very serious scenario whereby it can be easily
inferred that the selection agency or the respondent bank may not
have any adequate safeguards to keep the high confidentiality of the
marks secured by each of the candidates in the written test. It is trite
that the marks in the written examination has to be kept in a highly
confidential manner, so that the interview board members are not in
the knowledge about such written test marks. So that, the interview
board members can independently assess and give their evaluation in
the interview process, without being influenced by the knowledge of
the marks in the written test secured by the candidates. This aspect of
the matter is highly crucial as otherwise, there is always a reasonable
likelihood that the interview process will get flawed and vitiated due to
extraneous considerations, etc.
5. Since, now the written test and interview is stated to be
conducted on 07.11.2021 and as adjournment is made on behalf of the
learned Advocate appearing for respondents 1 & 2, with reluctance we
would grant an adjournment. We make it clear that the reluctance on
our part to adjourn the case is only because respondents 1 & 2 should
not later take a plea that stay may not be given by this Court on the last
minute prior to the written test process, inasmuch as the next working
for this Court is 05.11.2021 (Friday) and the written test and interview
is now scheduled to be held on 07.11.2021 (Sunday).
6. Respondents 1 & 2 will furnish instructions to their learned
counsel without any further delay as to whether the post of Part Time
Sweeper including the post of Part Time Sweeper occupied by
Smt.P.K.Leela is one which comes within the authorized and approved
staff strength of the bank which is stated to be 15 posts and whether
Smt.P.K.Leela was appointed as Part Time Sweeper on the basis of the
post being exclusively reserved for SC/ST or whether she was selected
and appointed from among the open market candidates, based on
their merit, etc. Further, the contentions of the appellant regarding the
grave illegality and impropriety in conducting both the written test
and interview on the same day should also be addressed by this Court.
The 3rd respondent Joint Registrar will also furnish specific
instructions to the learned Senior Government Pleader about these
aspects, more particularly as to whether the post of Part Time Sweeper
will form part of the authorized staff strength of 15 posts in respect of
the respondent bank.
List the case along with W.A.No.1044 of 2021 on the top of
Part II admission list on 05.11.2021.
Handover
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
03-11-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
