Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE KADAPLAMATTAM SERVICE CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE KADAPLAMATTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE v. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 29607 of 2006(Y) [2006] RD-KL 3889 (19 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29607 of 2006(Y)

1. THE KADAPLAMATTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Petitioner

2. P.M.THOMAS,

Vs

1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL

For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :19/12/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 29607/2006 Dated this the 19th day of December, 2006

JUDGMENT

The prayer of the writ petitioners is that Ext.P3 direction dated 28.10.2006, informing the first writ petitioner, bank, not to continue with the appointments of the attender, till the enquiries on the allegations of irregular appointments and disbursements of loans, initiated by the Joint Registrar is complete. Further allegation is that the appointments would enable the attenders to be promoted as Junior Clerks, and the appointment of Junior Clerks is through the examination conducted by the Co-operative Service Examination Board.

2. When the matter came up for admission, an interim stay of Ext.P3 was granted. The counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Assistant Registrar had given a para vise remarks on the allegations made against the petitioner, bank, on 16.10.2006, as could be seen from Ext.P6. Relying on it, the counsel submits that the W.P.(C).29607/2006 2 intention of the bank to appoint an attender, is only to fill up one vacancy that was existing in the bank. Therefore, the complaint is baseless and the direction of the Joint Registrar to stop the appointment of the attender is also not sustainable.

3. The counsel for the additional second respondent submits that he is one of the members of the bank. I heard the arguments advanced by either side. Though the Assistant Registrar had made a para vise reply, yet there is an enquiry being initiated by the Joint Registrar. It was at that stage, that the stay of the said direction was granted.

4. The counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the bank had proceeded with the conducting of the written test and it is scheduled to be held on 23.12.2006. As the arrangements had already been made, the counsel, therefore, prays that the same may not be further stayed.

5. In the above facts situation, I vacate the interim stay granted on Ext.P3 direction of the Joint W.P.(C).29607/2006 3 Registrar dated 28.10.2006. I direct the Joint Registrar, the first respondent, to complete the enquiry that had been initiated on various complaints received by him, including the appointment of the attender in the first writ petitioner, bank. This shall be done within thirty days from today.

6. The written test of the attenders shall be held on 23.12.2006 as scheduled. But the declaration of result and consequential appointments, if any, shall only be subject to the decision taken on the enquiry that would be conducted by the Joint Registrar, the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.