Kerala High Court
Akhil T.U vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23948 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 AKHIL T.U., AGED 22 YEARS,
S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE,
RANDAR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 673.
2 DEEPU VIJAYAN, S/O. LATE VIJAYAN,
AGED 32 YEARS, KARAKUNNATHU HOUSE,
MADAKKATHANAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686670.
BY ADV.SRI.M.M.MONAYE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.
3 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
CIVIL STATION, KAKAKNAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.
4 THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2824,
VAZHAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VAZHAKULAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686 670.
5 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SERVICE
COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2824, VAZHAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VAZHAKULAM P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 670.
2
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
6 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 673.
ADDL.R7 ARJUN SAJEEV,
APPLICANT FOR THE POST OF ATTENDER,
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SAJEEV K, AMBATTU HOUSE,
KAPPU KARA, MADAKKATHANAM P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686670.
(IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 23/10/2019 IN
IA5/2019)
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW B.KURIAN
SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.T.KOSHY
SMT.A.K.PREETHA
SRI.K.T.THOMAS
SRI.SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2025,
THE COURT ON 30.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition
seeking to challenge the notification at Ext.P1, as one issued
without following the statutory requirements as well as the
guidelines issued by the Registrar, for effecting selection and
appointment to the 4th respondent, Service Co-operative Bank.
The petitioners contend that the 4th respondent published Ext.P1
notification for selection to the posts of Peon, Attender, and
Depot Manager, pursuant to which the petitioners have applied.
The 1st petitioner, who only has a higher secondary qualification,
sought appointment to the post of Attender, whereas the 2nd
petitioner, who has a postgraduate degree, applied for all the
posts. They contend that the 4th respondent issued admission
tickets for the written examination scheduled to be conducted on
11.03.2018. With reference to the admission tickets issued to
the 2nd petitioner, it is pointed out that the examination for
appointment to the post of Attender was scheduled at 10 a.m. to
11 a.m., for the post of Peon at 12 p.m. to 1 p.m., and the post
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
of Depot Manager at 02.30 p.m. to 03.30 p.m. The 1st petitioner
submitted Ext.P7 complaint before the 4th respondent, pointing
out various improprieties in the conduct of the examination.
Despite the complaint as above being submitted, the petitioners
state that the selection process continued, and upon enquiry,
they came to know that they were not successful in their
examinations. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P8
representation to the Joint Registrar, pointing out the corruption
involved in the selection process, followed by another complaint
to the 3rd and 6th respondents. The petitioner states that upon
enquiry, they came to know that one "S&G Society Consultancy",
a private agency, having connection with the Managing
Committee of the 4th respondent, was entrusted with conducting
the written test so as to make appointments to the posts at the
whims and fancies of the Managing Committee. They contend
that the selection procedures were against Exts.P11 and P12
circulars. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ
petition is filed as above, seeking to set aside Ext.P1 notification
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
and the selection process. While admitting the writ petition on
18.07.2018, this Court ordered that the selection pursuant to the
notification at Ext.P1 would be subject to the result of this writ
petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the additional
7th respondent got himself impleaded, contending that he had
participated in the selection process and had been selected to
the post of Attender.
2. I have heard Sri.M.M.Monaye, the learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri. K.T.Thomas, the learned counsel for the 4th
respondent and Sri. Thomas M.Jacob, the learned counsel for the
additional 7th respondent.
3. The challenge in this writ petition, as noticed earlier, is
against the selection process pursuant to Ext.P1 notification
issued by the 4th respondent. At the outset, this Court notices
that both petitioners had applied for appointment/selection in
response to the notification at Ext.P1. They have also
participated in the selection process, as seen from the admission
tickets issued to the respective petitioners by the 4th respondent,
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
as noticed earlier. The petitioners have also attended the written
examinations. At that point of time, the petitioners had not raised
any complaint with respect to the conduct of the selection
process. True, the petitioners refer to Ext.P7 letter dated
28.03.2018, pointing out certain malpractices, allegedly with
reference to the examination held on 11.03.2018. At this
juncture, this Court notices that apart from producing Ext.P7,
there is no evidence produced from the side of the petitioners to
show that Ext.P7 was served on the 4th respondent. The 5th
respondent has also contended in its counter-affidavit that the
letter at Ext.P7 was never served upon it.
4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners may not be justified in contending that the selection
procedure undertaken by the 4th respondent was flawed for one
reason or another, especially since they had admittedly
participated in the selection process. In this connection, I rely
on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the following
judgments: OM Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
and Others [(1986) (Supp) SCC 285], N.S. Kanjoonjamma
and Others v. V. Vasudevan [(1997) 4 SCC 426], Chandra
Prakash Tiwari and Others v. Shakuntala Shukla and
Others [(2002) 6 SCC 127], and Sarojakumari D. v. R.
Helen Thilakom and Others [2017 (4) KHC 898].
5. Therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioners are not
entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. Even on
the face of the afore, this Court notices the contention raised by
the learned counsel, Sri. Monaye, on behalf of the petitioners. It
is his contention that the 4th respondent did not follow the
mandate under Ext.P11 Circular while formulating the selection
process. He contends that though the Circular provides that the
written test is to be conducted by an outside agency, the afore
outside agency- S&G consultancy- was a private agency having
a close connection with the Managing Committee. This, according
to them, led to corrupt practices in the selection process.
However, this Court notices Ext.R7(g) wherein the Government
had, by notifications issued in the year 2020, recognized various
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
agencies that could conduct examinations like the one pointed
out in this writ petition. As many as 53 agencies have been
identified, out of which the agency pointed out in the writ petition
is one that is listed at serial No.27. Therefore, the petitioners
may not be justified in contending that the selection process
carried out through the intervention of the afore agency was
without any legal basis. For the very same reason, I am of the
opinion that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners on the judgment of this Court in Mohanan and
Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2010 (3) KHC 634],
as confirmed by a Division Bench in Mannady Service Coop.
Bank Ltd. v. Krishna Kumar and Another [2011 2 KHC 361]
would not be of much help to the petitioners since in that case,
the outside agency was not approved like the agency in the case
at hand. True, the agency in the case at hand was approved only
in the year 2020, as seen from Ext.R7(g). However, since the
said agency was approved in the year 2020, the petitioners are
not justified in contending that they are not competent enough
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
to conduct examinations of the nature herein. This Court further
notices the judgment of this Court in W.P(C) No.14022 of 2018
on the basis of which the selection procedure had been continued
by the 4th respondent. Though the petitioners here sought to
intervene by filing a review petition, pointing out the
discrepancies alleged in the afore writ petition, the afore attempt
was rejected by the Judgment in RP No.706 of 2019. It is
pursuant to the afore that the selection process was continued
and the additional 7th respondent was admitted to the post of
Attender. The contention raised by the petitioner that the 4th
published the names of candidates, with false numbers, marks,
is also not correct insofar as the list so published - Ext.R7(b) -
only shows the hall ticket number and name. Furthermore,
admittedly, the selection process was for appointment to the
posts of Attender, Peon, and Department Manager. The
petitioners have not chosen to implead those who would be
affected, while filing this writ petition. The additional 7th
respondent got himself impleaded, contending that he is being
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
considered for appointment to the post of attender, after
participating in the selection. Therefore, as held by the Apex
Court in Ranjan Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and
Others [(2014) 16 SCC 187], without impleading the affected
persons, this writ petition is not maintainable. This Court also
notices that the outside agency referred to above has been
engaged by various other societies also for conducting
examinations, as averred in the counter affidavit. Further, this
Court, while interfering in the selection process in Mohanan and
Others (supra), has found that the agency therein was not
shown to have expertise in the field. But in this case, the position
is otherwise as noticed earlier.
From all the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioners
are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition.
Therefore, the captioned writ petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23948/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.02.2018
PUBLISHED IN THE MANGALAM DAILY 2.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET DATED
27.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER OF COMMERCE DEGREE
CERTIFICATE DATED 11.02.2013.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NUMBER 159
FOR THE POST OF ATTENDER DATED 27.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NUMBER 236
FOR THE POST OF PEON DATED 27.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET NUMBER 328
FOR THE POST OF DEPOT MANAGER DATED 27.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.6.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SENDING PETITION
TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13.7.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/91 DATED
7.6.1991 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.14/2010 DATED
19.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28/5/2018 IN WPC
14022/2018.
W.P(C) No.23948 of 2018 2025:KER:55899
EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST OF CANDIDATES ELIGIBLE
FOR INTERVIEW FOR THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC
14022/2018.
EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9/10/2019 IN RP NO.
706/2019 IN WPC NO.14022/2018.
EXHIBIT R7(D) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.2.2019 ISSUED BY
THE CPI(M) LOCAL SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK IS PRODUCED AND MARKED
AS EXHIBIT R7(D).
EXHIBIT R7(E) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.3.2022 IN IA 1/2022
IN UNNUMBERED RP 2020 (FILING NO.7911/2020) IN
WP(C) 14022/2018.
EXHIBIT R7(F) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.6.2022 APPOINTING
THE 7TH RESPONDENT AS ATTENDER.
EXHIBIT R7(G) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EM(2) 4296/2020 DATED
18.1.2022 AS PER WHICH THE AGENCY NAMED S & G
SOCIETY CONSULTANCY IS RECOGNISED.
EXHIBIT R7(H) TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.79/2011 DATED
9.11.2011 REFERRED TO IN EXT.R7(G).
EXHIBIT R7(I) TRUE PRINTOUT OF THE SYNOPSIS OF EVENTS THAT
HAS HAPPENED AFTER EXT.P1 NOTIFICATION.
