Kerala High Court
Sheeja vs The Mukkom Service Co-Operative ... on 25 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943
WA NO.1250 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.09.2021 IN WP(C) 18074/2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P(C) NO.18074/2021:
1 SUHANA T.T.,
D/O.SUALIMAN.T.T., THAYYIL THODUKAYIL HOUSE,
NEELESWARAM P.O., OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE.
2 DEEPAK LAL,
S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, KODINGOTH HOUSE,
CHATHAMANGALAM P.O., N.I.T., KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
P.P.JACOB
MARIYAM JACOB
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C) No.18074/2021:
1 THE MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1241,
MANASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 602,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
THE MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1241,
MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 602, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),
KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673 004.
BY ADV SOUMIYA C.D
SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.01.2022,
ALONG WITH WA.1310/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943
WA NO. 1310 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2021 IN WP(C) 18460/2021 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P(C) NO.18460/2021:
1 SHEEJA.A
W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMPAPATTA HOUSE,
KALLURUTHY P.O., OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE.
2 INDIRA P.
W/O. KRISHNAN, VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O.,
OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE.
3 SHAN RAZACK
S/O. ABDUL RAZACK, ROCK HOUSE, POOLEPPOIL,
NEELESWARAM P.O., OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV P.P.JACOB
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C) No.18460/2021:
1 THE MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1241
MANASSERY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 602,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
MUKKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F 1241,
MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 602, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER.
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
3
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETEIS (G)
KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUTHIYARA,
KOZHIKODE-673 004.
BY ADV SOUMIYA C.D
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.01.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1250/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
4
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
=================================
W.A No.1250 of 2021
[arising out of the judgment dated 07.09.2021 in W.P(C) No.18074/2021]
&
W.A No.1310 of 2021
[arising out of the judgment dated 10.09.2021 in W.P(C) No.18460/2021]
=================================
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2022
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The appellants in W.A No.1250/2021 are the two petitioners in
W.P(C) No.18074/2021 and the appellants in W.A No.1310/2021 are
the three petitioners in W.P(C) No.18460/2021. According to the
appellants, after the conduct of the regular selection process, they were
appointed to various categories of posts like Part-Time Sweeper, Office
Attendants and Peons of the 1st respondent-Mukkom Service
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode. It appears that the Managing
Committee of the 1st respondent-Society was suspended and the
2nd respondent-Administrative Committee was directed to take charge
of the duties and responsibilities of the said elected Managing
Committee as per the orders of the 3rd respondent-Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies. Further it is stated that after the
2nd respondent-Administrative Committee has taken charge, the writ
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
petitioners/writ appellants have been served with Ext.P-10 notice dated
25.02.2021, issued by the Administrative Committee of the Society
stating that the appointment orders given in favour of the writ
petitioners are in violation of the various orders of this Court and the
Registrar and that the Administrative Committee has taken decision as
per resolution No.6 dated 24.08.2021 to remove them from service, etc.
It is challenging Ext.P-10 order of termination of the service and for the
consequential reliefs that the above writ petitions have been filed before
this Court. The learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment
rendered on 07.09.2021 in W.P(C) No.18074/2021 has held that the
impugned decision to terminate the services of the writ petitioners on
the basis of Ext.P-10 is illegal and ultra vires in as much as not even a
copy of the resolution referred to therein and the grounds of the
proposed action have been notified to them and that such decision
without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the writ
petitioners, to defend their case against the allegations of irregular
selection, etc., is illegal and bad in law. Accordingly, this Court has
quashed the impugned Ext.P-10 order and has remitted the matter to
the competent authority of the 1st respondent-Society, for taking
decision afresh on the said issue after affording reasonable opportunity
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
of being heard to the writ petitioners. The directions and orders passed
by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 07.09.2021 in
W.P(C) No.18074/2021 has also been made applicable in the case of the
petitioners in W.P(C) No.18460/2021, as per the separate judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge on 10.09.2021 in that case. Now,
the writ petitioners have filed the instant writ appeals contending that
the learned Single Judge should not have granted liberty to the
2nd respondent to take fresh action in the matter, as the selection and
appointment of the appellants/writ petitioners, are lawful, etc.
2. Heard Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in the two appeals, Smt.C.D.Soumya, learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent-Service Co-operative Bank-employer
and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the 3rd respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies.
3. While admitting these writ appeals, we were apprised that in
view of the quashment of the impugned Ext.P-10 order, the appellants
were continuing in service and accordingly, we had passed an order of
status quo, as regards the continuance of the service of the appellants.
Further, we had passed a detailed order on 01.11.2021, more
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
particularly directing the 2nd respondent-Administrative Committee and
the 3rd respondent-Joint Registrar, to furnish instructions as regards the
details of the alleged irregularities in the selection process and whether
any preliminary enquiry or some form of enquiry was conducted by the
3rd respondent-Joint Registrar or any other governmental authority to
substantiate the prima facie case and tenability of any such allegations
regarding the alleged irregularities in the selection process and as to
which are the guidelines or norms or circulars issued by the Joint
Registrar, which has been allegedly violated in the impugned selection
process, etc. Despite various adjournments, the 3 rd respondent has not
furnished any instructions in the matter on the abovesaid points except
to apprise this Court through the learned Senior Government Pleader
that two writ petitions, W.P(C) No.6640/2021 & W.P(C) No.17358/2021
are pending before this Court on the issue regarding the appointment of
the Administrative Committee and related aspects.
4. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration,
Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
submit on the basis of instructions that the original term of the
Administrative Committee was over and that a writ petition (civil),
W.P(C) No.27113/2021 was filed in which this Court had directed the
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
Joint Registrar to hand over the charge to the elected Managing
Committee and that thus the Administrative Committee is longer in
existence and the elected Managing Committee is now in place, etc.
5. Smt.C.D.Soumya, learned counsel appearing for the
1st respondent-Service Co-operative Bank would submit on the basis of
instructions that the elected Managing Committee has taken charge and
that the Managing Committee is of the firm opinion that there is no
necessity to terminate the services of the appellants, etc.
6. Despite various opportunities, the 3 rd respondent-Joint
Registrar has not furnished any instructions regarding the details of the
irregularities, if any alleged by the Administrative Committee, as
referred to in Ext.P-10. The learned Single Judge has already quashed
the impugned Ext.P-10 termination order and to that extent the said
quashment of the impugned Ext.P-10 order is in favour of the writ
petitioner/writ appellants and none has challenged that direction. The
learned Single Judge had remitted the matter to the competent
authority of the 1st respondent-Service Co-operative Bank to take a
decision in the matter. We are told that the Managing Committee of the
1st respondent is of the view that there is no necessity to terminate the
appellants from service, etc. We record the abovesaid stand of the
WA Nos.1250 & 1310/2021
1st respondent-Service Co-operative Bank and it is for the 1 st respondent
to deal with the matter, in accordance with law. The impugned
directions and orders of the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment in the W.P(C), will stand modified as above.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal
will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
vgd
