[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreelatha S vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2026
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:10785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.01.2026 IN WP(C) NO.38385 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SREELATHA S, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.BIJU, RESIDING AT MULLASSERIL, IVERKALA
NADUVIL, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O., KADAMBANAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691553
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.MOHANLAL
SMT.P.S.PREETHA
SHRI.MOTTY JIBY VASUDEVAN
SHRI.ABIJITH M.
SMT. AVANI NAIR
SMT.JAYAPRABHA ARJUN
SMT.PRAVEENA T.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691004
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:10785
DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DISTRICT OFFICE,
BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
4 THE DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER
DIARY DEVELOPMENT UNIT, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691520
5 THE IVERKALA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. Q-119(D)
APCOS, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 691507
6 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF IVERKALA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD. NO. Q-119(D)
APCOS, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT., PIN - 691507
BY SRI N ANAND
SRI P A HARISH SR G.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:10785
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 15.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C)
No. 38385 of 2025, by which the writ petition filed by the
appellant/petitioner was dismissed.
2. The appellant/petitioner had filed the writ petition, seeking
the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records leading to Ext P11 from the respondents 5 and
6 and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing Ext P11 notification for selection and appointment to
the post of Lab Assistant in violation of the provisions of the Co-operative
Societies Act and Rules.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 and to desist the
Respondents 5 and 6 from conducting selection and appointment to the
post of Lab Assistant in the 5th respondent Milk Society pursuant to Ext
P11 in violation of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and
Rules.
(iii) To declare that the Ext P11 notification of Respondents 5 and 6 for
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
selection and appointment to the post of Lab Assistant in the 5th
respondent Milk Society is illegal and in violation of the provisions of the
Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.
(iv) To dispense with filing of English translation of Vernacular
Documents.
(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a member
of the fifth respondent Dairy Co-operative Society. She was elected as
the President of the Society, and, owing to a no-confidence motion being
moved against her, she resigned from the post of President on
22.02.2025. The appellant approached this Court with a complaint that
the present Managing Committee of the fifth respondent Society is
proceeding to fill the post of Laboratory Assistant by publishing a notice
on the notice board of the Society, without obtaining prior permission
from the third respondent. The appellant contended that the failure on
the part of the Society to publish the employment notification in a
newspaper violates the provisions of law and has been done with a view
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
to appoint persons of their own choice. According to the Circulars issued
by the Registrar, it is mandatory for the Society to publish a notification
inviting applications for the post in a newspaper.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by
judgment dated 15.01.2026, issuing the following directions:
"3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent society, I am of
the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for granting the
reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Firstly, it must be noted that the
writ petition attempts to impugn the selection process for filling up the
post of Laboratory Assistant in a co-operative society. It is, at the least,
doubtful whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can be filed seeking interference with the proceedings taken by a
primary co-operative society to fill up the post of Laboratory Assistant.
Even if this petition is considered to be maintainable, the contentions
taken by the petitioner appear to have no merit. It is clear from Ext.R6(a)
that the fifth respondent proceeded to fill up the post of Laboratory
Assistant only after obtaining the necessary permission from the third
respondent. The petitioner's contention that the notification was
published only on the notice board of the society is also incorrect, as
Ext.R6(b) clearly shows that the notification was published in the Kerala
Kaumudi daily dated 30.07.2025. Furthermore, it is the contention of the
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent that an outside
agency has been appointed for the purposes of conducting the written
examination to fill up the post of Laboratory Assistant. Cumulatively
these facts indicate that the allegations raised by the petitioner cannot
be sustained in law. Accordingly, I find no reason to entertain the writ
petition.
This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that,
if the petitioner has any statutory remedies available, it will be open to
the petitioner to avail those statutory remedies, notwithstanding the
dismissal of this writ petition."
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Single Judge, without considering the evidence and the law in its
proper perspective, dismissed the writ petition, thereby causing serious
prejudice to the appellant. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge
ought to have stayed the appointment process during the pendency of
the election dispute, namely ARC No. 32/2023, before the Co-operative
Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as there is every likelihood of
the said proceedings being allowed and the Managing Committee of the
fifth respondent Society being superseded.
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
5.1 It was further contended that the learned Single Judge failed
to take note of the fact that immediately after the dismissal of the writ
petition, the fifth and sixth respondents issued notice dated 23.01.2026
proposing to conduct the selection and appointment to the post of
Laboratory Assistant in the fifth respondent Society and issued notices
to the candidates for selection, without awaiting the outcome of ARC No.
32/2023 pending before the Co-operative Arbitration Court,
Thiruvananthapuram.
5.2 The learned Single Judge also did not consider the provisions
of Rule 182(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. On these
grounds, the learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent Society vehemently contended that the appellant had
resigned from the post of President on 22.02.2025. Thereafter, a valid
Managing Committee has been in existence, which took a decision to fill
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
up the post in question. It was submitted that the appellant cannot seek
to club two distinct issues, namely, a personal dispute pending before
the Co-operative Arbitration Court and the selection process adopted by
the fifth respondent Society, as both issues are wholly independent of
each other.
6.1 It was further contended that the writ petition was filed with
the mala fide intention of stalling the appointment to the post of
Laboratory Assistant. No grounds whatsoever have been raised either in
the writ petition or in the present writ appeal to demonstrate any
violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules governing
appointments to the post of Laboratory Assistant.
6.2 With regard to the contention relating to non-publication of
the advertisement in a newspaper, it was submitted that Ext. R6(b)
clearly establishes that the advertisement was duly published in Kerala
Kaumudy dated 30.07.2025. The learned Single Judge, having correctly
appreciated the facts and the law, arrived at the proper conclusion;
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
therefore, no interference is warranted and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6.3 The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted
that, to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the appellant is required to demonstrate a statutory violation in
the public domain or a breach of public duty. In the absence of any such
breach, the writ petition is not maintainable. Reliance was placed by the
learned Counsel on the judgment of the Five-Judge Bench of this Court
in Association of Milma Officers' Ksheera Bhavan, Tvm and another v.
State of Kerala and others1 in support of the above proposition.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
8. So far as the alleged violation of Rule 182(4)(i) of the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 is concerned, the said Rule is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover,
2015 (1) KHC 779
WA NO. 315 OF 2026
2026:KER:10785
the learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any
procedural irregularity in the conduct of the selection process. Due
process has been duly followed by the fifth respondent in conducting the
selection.
8.1 The issue relating to the election or constitution of the
Managing Committee cannot be clubbed with the issue of appointment,
especially when the Managing Committee has been in existence for more
than a year and has been functioning in accordance with law. We do not
find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
warranting interference in the writ appeal.
Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit and substance,
is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
jjj
