Kerala High Court
Dr.Mary Senteria.P.S vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 25 February, 2011
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5980 of 2010(V)
1. DR.MARY SENTERIA.P.S.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :25/02/2011
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 5980 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner and the fifth respondent entered service as Peon in the fourth respondent bank on the same day namely 10.12.2004. In the ranked list prepared by the managing committee of the fourth respondent bank, the fifth respondent was ranked first and the petitioner was ranked second. The managing committee of the fourth respondent bank that met on 9.12.2010 under the chairmanship of its President resolved as per Ext.P2 resolution to promote the petitioner to the category of Attender ignoring the seniority of the fifth respondent. It appears, aggrieved thereby, some of the members of the managing committee of the fourth respondent bank filed a complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies(General), Palakkad. The Joint Registrar called for a report from the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and thereafter sent Ext.P3 order dated 16.2.2011 to the President of the fourth respondent bank directing him to cancel the promotion given to the petitioner as Attender and to fill up the vacancy in accordance with law. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this WPC No.5980/2010 2 writ petition.
2. The main contentions raised by the petitioner are that before Ext.P3 order was passed, he was not put on notice or heard, that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority to interfere with the promotion given to him and that if the fifth respondent was aggrieved by the promotion given to him, she ought to have moved the Co- operative Arbitration Court raising a dispute under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is contended that the Joint Registrar should not have in such circumstances interfered with his appointment.
3. I heard Sri.Rajesh Vijayendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ext.P2 resolution adopted by the managing committee of the fourth respondent bank discloses that the petitioner was promoted taking note of his sincerity in discharging his duties and taking into account his age. Under the feeder category rules, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1, vacancies of Attender have to be filled up by promotion of Peon/Night Watchman. Neither the petitioner nor the managing committee of the fourth respondent bank has a case that the fifth respondent who was admittedly senior to the petitioner in the category of Peon was ineligible to be promoted as Attender. Therefore the promotion given to the petitioner was not in WPC No.5980/2010 3 order. That being the situation, the stand taken by the Joint Registrar cannot be said to be illegal. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Commissioner of Police v. Abida Beevi (2006 (2) KLT
112) while considering the validity of an order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta held that even assuming the Lok Aykta has no jurisdiction, if the order passed by it renders justice, this Court need not interfere with it. It was held that if the complainant had approached this Court, this Court would have passed an order identical to the one passed by the Lok Ayukta and such being the situation, this Court need not interfere with the order. In such circumstances as the impugned order renders justice to the fifth respondent, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for even assuming for the sake of arguments that the fifth respondent ought to have moved the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking annulment of the promotion given to the petitioner.
I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.5980/2010 4 WPC No.5980/2010 5