Kerala High Court
Joby Chacko vs Joint Registrar (General) on 6 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3798 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
1 JOBY CHACKO,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.CHACKO JOSEPH, PONNAKUZHIYIL,CHEMBAKAPPARA P.O.,
IDUKKI-685 514.
2 BOBIT ANTONY,
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.ANTONY MATHEW, CHERUCHILAMBIL HOUSE, ERATTAYAR
NORTH, ERATTAYAR NORTH P.O., KATTAPPANA,
IDUKKI-685 514.
3 JISHNU SHYAM,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SHAYMKUMAR, CHEMBAKASSERIYIL, IDINJAMALA P.O.,
IDUKKI-685 514.
BY ADVS.
R.T.PRADEEP
M.BINDUDAS
K.C.HARISH
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
OFFICE OF JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI-685 603.
2 THE SANTHIGRAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K280,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHIGRAM P.O.,
IDUKKI-685 514.
3 SECRETARY,
THE SANTHIGRAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K280,
SANTHIGRAM P.O., IDUKKI-685 514.
RAJANI P.M.,
4 PUTHENPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHEMBAKAPPARA P.O.,
IDUKKI 685514.
GEETHA MOHAN,
5
KALLARAKKAL, ERATTAYAR P.O., IDUKKI 685514.
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SURYA MOHAN P.
V.PREMCHAND
SRI.JOSHY THANIKKAMATTOM - GP
WP(C) NO. 3798 OF 2022 2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3798 OF 2022 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners impugn Ext.P6 order issued by the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies interdicting a selection
process, which was being conducted by the 2 nd respondent - Co-
operative Society at that time, for the purpose of appointment
to the posts of Peon and Attenders.
2. The petitioners contend that, as is evident from Ext.P6,
the Joint Registrar has acted upon an assumption that the
External Agency entrusted to conduct the written examination
by the Society was not an accredited one. They say that this is
per se improper and incorrect because, Ext.P1 order would
clearly show that said Agency was accredited and has been
shown as Item No.24 therein. The petitioners thus pray that
Ext.P6 and the consequential Exts.P7, P8 and P9 orders, be set
aside.
3. I notice from the files of this Court that, finding force in
the submissions of the petitioners as afore, a learned Judge of
this Court had issued an order on 04.02.2022, granting interim
order as prayed for, which is to mean that petitioners were
allowed to provisionally join duty, pursuant to their selection.
The said order is in force even today and obviously, the
petitioners are continuing in service.
4. Sri.Joshy Thanikkamattom - learned Government
Pleader, responded to the afore allegations of the petitioners -
as made by their learned counsel - Sri.R.T.Pradeep, saying that
Ext.P6 was based on a complaint made by certain persons to the
effect that the External Agency entrusted by the Bank for the
purpose of conduct of their written examination was not
accredited. He, however, conceded that, going by Ext.P1, this
does not appear to be correct.
5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident that
the Joint Registrar could not have interfered with the process of
selection conducted by the Society, unless there were
compelling reasons for doing so. His jurisdiction in matters of
this kind are limited; but I do not propose to speak on it
affirmatively in this case because I am certain that Ext.P6
cannot find favour for the reasons that I will presently record.
6. As rightly submitted by the learned Government
Pleader, Ext.P6 has been issued based on a complaint by certain
persons solely to the effect that the External Agency entrusted
by the Society to conduct the written examination was not an
accredited one. However, going by Ext.P1, this certainly is
incorrect and the said Agency has been included as Item No.24
therein.
7. That apart, Ext.P6 only says that the Society shall not
continue with the selection process until further orders. This
order was issued on 01.02.2022 and there is nothing to show
that the Joint Registrar had followed it up with any further
enquiry or proceedings. It is, therefore, indubitable that the
Joint Registrar has left it there, after having issued Ext.P6.
8. The fact that the petitioners were allowed to join duty
through the afore interim order of this Court is also an
additional reason why this Court feels it necessary to grant
them relief, particularly when none of the complainants have
raised any objection thereafter.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P6
to P9; thus confirming the interim order of this Court dated
04.02.2022; declaring that the petitioners will be entitled to all
benefits pursuant to their selection and appointment as per law.
Needless to say, I leave full liberty to the official
respondents to initiate and conduct any enquiry that they may
deem necessary; however, after making sure that they do so on
cogent and reliable evidence and materials, and not based on
hearsay or unsubstantiated imputations.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/6.7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3798/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2022
DELINEATING THE OUTSIDE AGENCIES BY THE
REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET FOR THE
WRITTEN EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE
OUTSIDE AGENCY ON 28.01.2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
29.01.2022 TO 1ST PETITIONER AS PEON IN
3RD RESPONDENT SOCIETY.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
29.01.2022 TO 2ND PETITIONER AS PEON IN
3RD RESPONDENT SOCIETY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
29.01.2022 TO 3RD PETITIONER AS ATTENDER
IN 3RD REPONDNET SOCIETY.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2022
BY 1ST RESPONDENT STOPPING THE
PROCEEDINGS FOR APPOINTMENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022
OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022
OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2022
OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER.
