Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

P.V.Beena vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative on 13 June, 2008

Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14819 of 2008(L)


1. P.V.BEENA,W/O.P.V.RAJESH,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHAMJO.T.C.,S/O.CHENTHAMARAKSHAN,

                        Vs



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

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. THE PALAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :13/06/2008

 O R D E R
        THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
               W.P.(C) NO. 14819 OF 2008(L)
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioners who were peons in the third respondent bank were promoted as clerks. A few years thereafter, one Sheik Musthafa filed a complaint that the promotions of the petitioners as clerks are before completion of three years of service and hence, in violation of a circular issued by the Registrar. An enquiry was conducted through Assistant Registrar and on the basis of the enquiry report, Registrar had issued a notice requiring the bank to demote the petitioners back as peons, cancelling the promotions given to them and also to recover the excess drawn salary as clerks. The petitioners were not heard before taking such a decision affecting their service. Even on that ground the impugned decision has to go. Not only that, the third respondent bank had demonstrated the reason why the promotions had to be made in the interest of the institution. The Joint Registrar has W.P.(C) No.14819/2008

- 2 -

not found against that plea on the matter, on its merits. On that ground also, the impugned order, in so far as it is against the petitioners, is irrational and arbitrary.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned order. All necessary consequences shall follow. No costs.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/16/6/08