Kerala High Court
Binu George vs Joint Registrar Co-Op.Societies ...
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY,THE 24TH DAYOF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937
WP(C).No. 5250 of 2016 (E)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER : -
----------------------
BINU GEORGE, AGED 42 YEARS,
VADAKKEKKARA, PUTHENVEEDU,
ELEMPALPO, KOLLAM, PIN-691322.
BY ADV.SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS :-
-------------------------
1. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OP.SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.
2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
ELEMPALSERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 604,
ELEMPALPO, KOLLAM, PIN -691 322.
3. SECRETARY.
ELEMPALSERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
ELEMPALPO, KOLLAM, PIN -691322.
R2 & 3 BY ADV.SRI.G.D.PANICKER
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 5250 of 2016 (E)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE (L.M.V) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 2585 DATED 10/3/12 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/12 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRNASLATION.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION AS APPEARED IN
MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED15TH JANUARY 2016 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED23/1/16 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.
---------------------------------------
// TRUE COPY //
P.A.TO JUDGE
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 5250 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as a Driver on a temporary basis, has submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the second respondent. The said representation is in anticipation of the second respondent's efforts to fill up the post of Driver on a permanent basis in terms of Exhibit P4 notification.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in this context, submits that it will suffice if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's Exhibit P5 representation in accordance with law.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, on his part, has submitted that the authorities do not have any objection to consider the petitioner's Exhibit P5 representation expeditiously. He has, however, further submitted that Exhibit P5 is, in fact, a job application, in consideration of which the petitioner has already been permitted to write the written examination. According to him, but for this writ petition, the respondents could have taken a W.P.(c) No. 5250 of 2016 2 decision to fill up the post.
It is made clear that the pendency of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the respondents taking an appropriate decision in terms of Exhibit P4 recruitment notification. At the same time, it is made clear that the authorities may as well consider the petitioner's Exhibit P5 representation, keeping in view his past experience, of course, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-