Kerala High Court
Raji V.B vs State Of Kerala on 18 June, 2025
WA NO. 794/2025 1
2025:KER:43083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO.794 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.5755/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
1 RAJI V.B
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O.LATE K.V.BALAN, KAVIYATH HOUSE,
VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
2 SREEDEVI N.S
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O.PRASAD P.K, PADINJARUTTAYIL HOUSE, POTTORE,
MULAGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
3 AKHIL C.S
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O SURESH BABU C, CHULLIKKATTIL HOUSE,
VIYYUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
4 RAJARAM T.R
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN, SIVARAM VIVAS, PLAVINKOOTAM
ROAD, VIYYUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
5 VIBIN M.V
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.VIJAYAN, MARATH HOUSE,
VIYYUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
WA NO. 794/2025 2
2025:KER:43083
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN
SMT.AMRUTHA SURESH
SRI.C.P.SABARI
SHRI.GILROY ROZARIO
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JAWAHAR SHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION,
THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), CIVIL LINE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL) SAHAKARANA BHAVAN,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
5 VIYYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.177, VIYYUR, P.O., THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 680010
6 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF VIYYUR SERVICE
CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO.177, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
VIYYUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT. PLEADER R1 TO R4
SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN, R5, R6
SMT.AMRITA ARUN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 794/2025 3
2025:KER:43083
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
14.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5755 of 2024.
Appellants were the petitioners in the Writ Petition and respondents
were the respondents therein.
2. The appellants had sought the following reliefs in the
Writ Petition.
"(i) Call for the records leading to issue para 3 of Ext.P3
circular 79/2011 to the extent it prohibits contractual/temporary
appointments as it is against Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of the
Supreme Court and the consequential orders issued by the
Joint Registrar by Ext.P7 and corresponding decision of the
committee as evidence by Ext.P8 and to quash the same by
issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction.
(ii) declare that the service of the petitioners cannot be
terminated in the light of para 3 of Ext.P3 circular.
(iii) For a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of
vernacular documents.
(iv) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ
2025:KER:43083
Petition directing the 5th respondent Society to complete the regular
recruitment to the post of clerk and salesman in the Society against
the substantive posts in accordance with the relevant Service Rules
within four months and allowed the appellants to continue to perform
their duties till the regularly selected candidates join their respective
posts of clerk and salesman. It was also clarified in the judgment
that the appellants may also apply against the substantive
vacancies to be filled up by the Society in accordance with service
Rules, if they are otherwise eligible.
4. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is
challenged by the appellants inter alia contending that it had failed
to appreciate that the appellants are continuing in service for the
last so many years and that there was no need to terminate the
services of the appellants. It was also contended that the
restrictions contained in Ext.P3 circular No.79/11 dated 09.11.2011
regarding making of contract appointments were against the
statutory provisions contained in the Co-operative Societies Act and
Rules and the said aspect was overlooked by the learned Single
Judge. It is contended therein that neither Section 80 of the Kerala
2025:KER:43083
Co-operative Societies Act nor Rule 182 prohibits the making of
contract appointments. Hence it is contended that Ext.P3 circular to
the extent it restricts contract appointment ought to have been set
aside by the learned Single Judge.
5. We heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan, Advocate appearing for the
appellants, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.Arun Chandran, Advocate
for respondents 5 and 6.
6. The learned Single Judge had taken note of the settled
legal position that adhoc/temporary arrangements should not be
made against substantive vacancies/posts and that the substantive
posts are to be filled up by regular appointments. By now, it is trite
that till regular appointments are made, it is permissible to man such
posts/vacancies through adhoc/temporary arrangements. It is after
duly taking note of the fact that the 5th respondent Society had been
continuing with the contractual employees to substantive posts, the
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies had passed the order that
was impugned in the Writ Petition. We note that in Ext.P3 circular,
which is dated 09.11.2011, it had been very specifically laid down
2025:KER:43083
that no appointment on daily wages shall be made under any
circumstances. We find no reason to interfere with the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the respondent Society
has to make regular appointments against substantive vacancies
and cannot continue with the contractual employees in the
substantive posts. We note that the learned Single Judge was only
reiterating the trite and settled position laid down by this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
