Kerala High Court
The Karimthottuva Service … vs Smitha S on 9 July, 2026
1
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1948
W.A. NO.1853 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.11544 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4, 5, 6 & 8:
1 MR.PRINCE THOMAS, AGED 34 YEARS, PRINCY BHAVANAM,
MUTHUVILAKKAD PADINJARU, MUTHUVILAKKAD P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 520
2 SMT.RAJITHA R.S. PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS,
KOCHUKALILIL VEEDU, KARIMTHOTTUVA,
KARIMTHOTTUVA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 540
3 SMT.ATHIRA S, AGED 28 YEARS, MANGALATH HOUSE, KARIMTHOTTUVA,
KARIMTHOTTUVA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 540
4 HARIKRISHNAN. S, AGED 36 YEARS, SANADANA MANDIRAM,
PERUVELIKKARA, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
2
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 7:
1 SMITHA S, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.ANIL KUMAR P,
VALIYA KAIPPALLIL VADAKKATHIL HOUSE,
PANAPPETTI, PORUVAZHI POST, SASTHAMKOTTAH,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 520
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), CIVIL STATION POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 013
3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
[GENERAL], OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES [GENERAL], SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690 521
4 THE KARIMTHOTTUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.
2594, KARIMTHOTTUVA POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 690 520
5 MR.SANATHANAN PILLAI, SANADANA MANDIRAM, PERUVELIKKARA,
SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SHRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
SMT.FATHIMA PARVEEN P.S.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2025 ALONG
WITH WA.1884/2025, THE COURT RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.6.2026, AND THE
COURT ON 9.7.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1948
W.A. NO.1884 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.11544 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:
THE KARIMTHOTTUVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.2594,
KARIMTHOTTUVA POST, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 690 520
BY ADV SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 AND 4 TO 8 IN THE WPC:
1 SMITHA S, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O ANIL KUMAR P,
VALIYA KAIPPALLIL VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, PANAPPETTI,
PORUVAZHI POST, SASTHAMKOTTAH,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 520
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), CIVIL STATION POST,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 013
3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [GENERAL],
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
[GENERAL], SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 521
4
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
4 MR.PRINCE THOMAS, PRINCY BHAVANAM, MUTHUVILAKKAD PADINJARU,
MUTHUVILAKKAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 520
5 SMT.RAJITHA R.S. PILLAI, KOCHUKALILIL VEEDU,
KARIMTHOTTUVA, KARIMTHOTTUVA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 540
6 SMT.ATHIRA S, MANGALATH HOUSE, KARIMTHOTTUVA,
KARIMTHOTTUVA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 540
7 MR.SANATHANAN PILLAI, SANADANA MANDIRAM PERUVELIKKARA,
SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521
8 HARIKRISHNAN. S, SANADANA MANDIRAM, PERUVELIKKARA,
SASTHAMKOTTA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 690 521
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SMT.FATHIMA PARVEEN P.S.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1.8.2025 ALONG WITH
WA.1853/2025, THE COURT RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.6.2026, AND THE COURT
ON 9.7.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 9th July, 2026)
[WA Nos.1853/2025, 1884/2025]
K.Natarajan,J
Writ Appeal No.1884 of 2025 filed by the 3rd respondent and
Writ Appeal No.1853 of 2025 filed by the respondents Nos.4 to 6 and
8, challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge of this
Court in Writ Petition (C) No.11544 of 2023 dated 25.06.2025, for
having set aside the selection process of the appellants in Writ Appeal
No.1853 of 2025.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellants, learned Government Pleader, and the counsel for the writ
petitioner/respondent No.1.
3. The case of the writ petitioner/1strespondent before the
learned single Judge of this Court was that the respondent
6
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
No.3/Karimthottuva Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., i.e., the
appellant in W.A.No.1884 of 2025, has issued the notification as per
Ext.P1 for the selection of two peon posts and two attender posts in
the bank. The 3rd respondent bank decides to entrust the conduct of
the test/examination to an outside agency. Subsequently, the
committee conducted the interview and sent the interview marks to the
outside agency. Then, based upon the rank list, the four appellants in
W.A.No.1853 of 2025 have been selected for the four vacancies in the
bank. The selections were challenged by the 1st respondent mainly on
the ground that the 7th respondent in the writ petition is the father of
the 8th respondent in the writ petition, who is the applicant/selected
candidate for the post. Therefore, the very selection process conducted
by the managing committee was highly irregular, and the conduct of
the selection process was biased; therefore, prayed for setting aside the
same. The same was allowed by the learned single Judge of this Court,
7
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the bank as well as the
candidates strenuously contended that the 7th respondent in [W.P.(c)],
who is the father of the 8th respondent, was the president of the
management committee at the time of issuing the notification calling
for applications from the eligible candidates for filling the four posts.
Subsequently, the work of conducting the test was entrusted to an
independent outside agency. They have conducted the exam, and they
kept the marks in secret. The committee was set up for the interview,
and at that time, the 7th respondent, who is the father of the 8th
respondent, abstained from the interview. Then the interview marks
were sent to the outside agency, and based upon the interview marks
and the marks secured in the written test, the outside agency gave the
rank list; and based upon the rank list, the appointment orders were
issued. Therefore, R7, the president of the committee, was recused or
8
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
abstained from the interview committee, and another person
conducted the interview as the chairman; the selection process was
then continued. Therefore, it cannot be said that any bias or
irregularities were committed by the management committee in the
appointment or selection process. Therefore, setting aside the
appointment is not correct. Therefore, the order under challenge
deserves to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel also contended that previously there
was a complaint filed by five managing committee members raising
allegations against the president. Considering the same, the Joint
Registrar passed an order which restrained the appointment of
Mr.Harikrishnan (8th respondent in WPC), who is the son of the said
president, and confirmed the appointments of the other three
candidates.
6. Subsequently, said Harikrishnan, the 7th respondent filed a
9
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
writ petition before this Court, where the order of the Joint Registrar
was set aside and directed to be considered afresh by making enquiry.
Therefore, after an enquiry made by the Joint Registrar into the
allegations made by one of the candidates, Smt.Smitha (the writ
petitioner herein) and the members of the management committee, the
Joint Registrar categorically held that the president of the committee
abstained from the interview board and subsequently he has resigned
from the post on 03.08.2021, thereafter, on 06.08.2021, his resignation
was accepted, and the appointment order was issued to the 8 th
respondent, and found that there is no bias or malpractice in the
selection process. Therefore, the Joint Registrar approved the selection
process by appointing the appellants 1 to 4 in W.A.No.1853 of 2025.
The order of the Joint Registrar was challenged by the writ petitioner
in W. P. (C) No.11544 of 2023, and the same was allowed, which is
not correct.
10
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
7. In support of these arguments, the counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also stated that all these
4 candidates have already joined duty, worked for more than 4 years,
got married and have children. Therefore, at this stage, setting aside
their appointment will put the families into hardship and financial loss.
Therefore, the order under challenge has to be set aside.
8. The counsel for the 1st respondent vehemently objected to
the appeal and supported the order of the learned single Judge,
contending that from the date of issuance of Ext.P1 notification till the
selection, the 7th respondent was the President of the Bank and had
resigned only on the date of appointment of his son Harikrishnan/8 th
respondent in the writ petition. It is also contended that the outside
agency was appointed by the father of this candidate; therefore, the
five members of the managing committee filed a complaint against the
president before the Joint Registrar by filing the Ext.P4 complaint.
11
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
Even the first respondent also filed a complaint/Ext.P5, which clearly
reveals that the committee committed irregularities and the
appointment itself is mischievous based upon the bias. Therefore, the
learned single Judge of this Court rightly quashed Ext.P13 to the extent
it applies to respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 in the writ petition and the
selection process initiated based on Ext.P1 notification; hence, there is
no error in the order to interfere, and hence, prayed for dismissing the
appeals.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the 7th respondent has
categorically contended that the judgment of the single Judge of this
Court is not sustainable and the 7th respondent, being the President of
the society, after he came to know his son was a candidate, he did not
participate in the interview and he abstained from the interview. The
selection process was conducted by an outside agency, and after
receiving the interview marks from the person who interviewed the
12
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
candidates, based on the ranking, the selection list of candidates was
published. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. It is also contended by the counsel for the 1st respondent
that merely because the President of the society abstained from the
interview, that itself is not considered bias. However, it is further
submitted that the president did, in fact, act with bias, as he alone
engaged and appointed the outside agency. The signature of the
interviewing members, who interviewed, was obtained on blank paper,
and subsequently, it was manipulated. The minutes of the meeting
were not concluded, and it was added subsequently. Therefore, all
these aspects were not properly considered by the Joint Registrar.
Therefore, prayed for dismissing the appeals.
11. He also contended that when irregularities started in the
process of selection, where the father of the candidate participated
throughout the selection process, except for the interview. Therefore,
13
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
the selection process itself is vitiated, and in support of this case, he
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2026 KHC
Online 6079) Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj v. Union of India.
We have perused the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent in the case of Captain Pramod Kumar
Bajaj v. Union of India (supra), which held at paras 41 and 42 as
under:
41. Though considering the fact that “the Officer” now holds
a sensitive position, we refrain from making any observations on his
role in the entire sequence of events leading to the present litigation.
Nonetheless, we feel that the inclusion of “the Officer as a member of
the SCSC, which rejected the petitioner’s candidature, has
undoubtedly created a genuine perception of bias in the mind of the
petitioner and was in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice. “The Officer had earlier faced contempt proceedings at the
instance of the petitioner in relation to the very same ongoing tussle,
and in such circumstances, a reasonable apprehension as to his
impartiality and independence in the process of selection of the
petitioner as Member (Accountant), ITAT, is fortified. True it is. that
“the Officer” was only one among the members of the Committee;
however. his presence and participation in the selection process,
inspite of his arraignment as a contemnor in the contempt
proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner, was not
justified and rendered the decision making process vulnerable on the
touchstone of the principles of natural justice and gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension of bias.
42. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to the
14
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
observations of this Court in State of Gujarat v. R.A. Mehta, ((2013)
3 SCC 1) on the doctrine of bias, which encapsulate the principles
governing the present controversy. The relevant observations made
by this Court in the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: –
“58. Absence of bias can be defined as the total absence of
any preconceived notions in the mind of the authority/Judge, and in
the absence of such a situation it is impossible to expect a fair deal /
trial and no one would therefore see any point in
holding/participating in one as it would serve no purpose. The
Judge/authority must be able to think dispassionately and submerge
any private feelings with respect to each aspect of the case. The
apprehension of bias must be reasonable i.e, which a reasonable
person would be likely to entertain, Bias is one of the limbs of natural
justice. The doctrine of bias emerges from the legal maxim nemo
debet esse judex in propria causa. It applies only when the interest
attributed to an individual is such so as to tempt him to make a
decision in favour of, or to further his own cause. There may not be
a case of actual bias, or an apprehension to the effect that the matter
most certainly will not be decided or dealt with impartially but where
the circumstances are such so as to create a reasonable apprehension
in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the
decision, the same is sufficient to invoke the doctrine of bias.
59. In the event that actual proof of prejudice is available, the
same will naturally make the case of a party much stronger, but the
availability of such proof is not a necessary precondition, for what is
relevant, is actually the reasonableness of the apprehension in this
regard in the mind of such party. In case such apprehension exists the
trial judgment / order, etc, would stand vitiated for want of
impartiality and such judgment / order becomes a nullity. The trial
becomes coram non judice.
60. While deciding upon such an issue, the court must
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and examine the
matter from the viewpoint of the people at large. The question as
regards “whether or not a real likelihood of bias exists must be
determined on the basis of probabilities that are inferred from the
circumstances of the case by the court objectively or upon the basis
of the impression that may reasonably be left upon the minds of those
15W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
aggrieved or the public at large”, (Vide S. Parthasarathi v. State of
A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459: 1973 SCC (L&S) 580: AIR 1973 SC 2701],
State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna [(2001) 2 SCC 330: 2001 SCC (L&S)
1010: AIR 2001 SC 343]. Ν.Κ. Bajpai v. Union of India ((2012) 4
SCC 653) and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [(2011)
14 SCC 770: 2012 (4) SCC (Civ) 1034: AIR 2012 SC 364]. Emphasis
supplied)The aforesaid observations made by this Court makes it clear
that an authority exercising adjudicatory or selection functions must
not only act fairly but must also appear to act fairly, for justice must
manifestly be seen to be done. The rule against bias would certainly
be attracted where the person / authority intrinsically involved in the
evaluation process has a personal connection with, personal interest
in, or prior involvement in the matter under consideration, or has
earlier taken a position which he may be interested in sustaining. The
doctrine is applied not only to avoid the possibility of a partial
decision but also to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of
the decision-making process.
12. The counsel for the appellants submitted that one of the
members of the selection committee recused himself/herself from the
interview due to the participation of a candidate who was his/her
relative or son; consequently, the selection process could not be
vitiated. In support of this, the counsel also relied upon the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P.
and Others (Manu/SC/0123/2025), Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of
16W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417] and Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of
Punjab and Others (1991 Supp (1) SCC 313).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnadatt Awasthy‘s case,
cited (supra) at paragraphs 33, 34 and 39, held as under:
33. A five-judge constitution bench of this Court in Ashok
Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0026/1985: (1985) 4
SCC 417 endorsed the decision in Javed Rasool (supra) and held that
when a near relative of a member of the Public Service Commission
is a member of the Selection Committee, it will be enough if the
concerned member desists from interviewing his relation. He should
withdraw from the committee when his relative appears for the
interview and he should not participate in discussion in regards to
the merit of the candidate and even the marks should not be disclosed
to the concerned member.
34. Similarly, in Jaswant Singh Nerwal v. State of Punjab
MANU/SC/0650/1991: 1991:INSC:42: 1991 Supp (1) SCC 313, the
father of one of the selected candidates was in the selection
committee conducting the interview. However, he did not participate
in the deliberation when his son appeared for viva voce. It was held
therein that selection was thus not vitiated.
39. Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
MANU/SC/0133/1987 : 1978:INSC:16: (1978) 1 SCC 248, described
natural justice as a profound ‘humanising principle’ designed to
imbue the law with fairness and ensure justice. This principle has
garnered widespread recognition across democratic societies and
has evolved into a universally accepted rule, influencing areas of
administrative decision-making.
Another case reported in Jaswant Singh Nerwal, cited (supra),
17
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
was already considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Krishnadatt Awasthy.
Another case relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in the
case of Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service
Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others [(2021) 4 SCC 631], at para 66,
which is as under:
66. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence.
Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions
associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire
process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause
hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in
wrongdoing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision
to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrongdoing cuts
through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the
legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment.
Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in
laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which
was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second
Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister
was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that
the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings
which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those
findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault
with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of
the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.
13. By keeping these two judgments in mind and looking into
18
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
the case of the parties, as on the date of issuing notification/Ext.P1, the
7th respondent, father of the 8th respondent in W.P.(c) /candidate,
attended the meeting, and after the meeting, applications were called
from the candidates by fixing the last date for applying for the post as
14.06.2019. As per the resolution No.1, dated 24.05.2019, the
managing committee decided to give an advertisement inviting
applications for the vacant post and fixed the last date for the
application as 14.06.2019. At that time, the 7th respondent was the
President of the Bank/Society. On the same day, the society passed
one more resolution by authorising Sanathanan Pillai, the Bank
President (7th respondent), to entrust an outside agency for conducting
the written test. Admittedly, the 7th respondent has not appointed,
identified or entrusted the written test work to an outside agency prior
to scrutiny on the last date of receipt of application. But it is admitted
that the outside agency was appointed by the 7th respondent/president
19
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
as per the Resolution No.16, dated 21.06.2019. After the completion
of the scrutiny of the applications, the test was conducted on
13.07.2019. Then the interview was conducted on 15.07.2019. On
25.11.2019, the rank list was announced, and on the date of the
interview, i.e., on 15.07.2019, the 7th respondent/president abstained
from the interview.
14. Subsequently, following the publication of the rank list, the
7th respondent resigned only on 3.8.2021 in anticipation of selection.
On 6.8.2021, the resignation was accepted, and on the same date, the
managing committee decided to instruct the secretary to issue an
appointment order to the 8th respondent. Considering the same, it can
be seen that throughout the selection process, after issuance of
Ext.P1/notification, the 7th respondent actually participated, even
though the outside agency conducted the written test with full
knowledge that the candidate list included the son of the president.
20
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the appellant in respect of Krishnadatt Awasthy‘s case, cited (supra),
is not applicable, as the UPSC selection committee is altogether
different from the recruitment committee; the selection committee is
either the appointing authority or a different wing herein. In this case,
both the appointing authority and selection authority are one and the
same management committee.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
very writ petition is not maintainable as it is against the bank/society,
in view of the provision under the Societies Act. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the respondent objected to the same, stating that a
similar issue is already decided by the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal Nos.313 & 364 of 2010 dated 12.02.2013.
16. We have perused the said judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench, where a similar issue was raised regarding the maintainability
21
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
of the writ. In the said judgment, it was held at para 6 as under:
6. As far as the contention of the appellants regarding
maintainability of the writ petition concerned, we are of the opinion
that it has to be decided against the appellants in view of the decision
of the Full Bench in John’s case (supra). In that case, the Full Bench
of this Court had categorically held that when a Co-operative society
is doing a duty of public nature and when there is infringement of any
statutory rules by such co-operative society, then for remedying the
same, a writ would lie. In this case, Rule 182 (5) of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Rules reads thus;
“In respect of societies and posts not covered by
section 80(3) (A) and Section 80B of the Act, the
appointments shall be made by the committee after
conducting the written examination and interview as per
the guideline issued by the Registrar.”
It is pursuant to the same that Exts.P3 to P6 circulars have
been issued by the Government and Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies laying down the guidelines for conducting the written test.
Those circulars specifically stipulate the procedure for conducting
the selection to the post of sub staff in the Co-operative Societies.
Since the petitioners contended that Ext.PI notification has been
issued in violation of Ext.P6 circular issued under Rule 182(5) of
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the writ petition is
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially
since the circulars will have statutory force in view of the fact that
the circulars have been issued pursuant to Rule 182(5) of the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Rules.
Therefore, once again, it is found that the parties can file the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. As regards the non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., the
22
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
managing committee of the bank has not been impleaded in the writ
petition. Therefore, the counsel for the appellant in W.A. No.1884 of
2025 contended that the same under challenge is not sustainable. The
contention of the appellant was that the management committee was
not made a party in the writ petition; therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable. But the said objection was not raised by the appellant
when he entered an appearance before the single Judge while arguing
the matter. That apart, the managing committee has been represented
by the appellant, who is secretary to the said society/bank. Therefore,
the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/the
secretary of the bank is not acceptable, as the same were not raised in
the writ petition, and he has appeared and contested the matter. Such
being the case, this court, at this stage, is not needed to give any
findings or opinion in the appeals. Though the question of law can be
raised at any stage, even after passing the order, the managing
23
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
committee, if at all it is aggrieved by the judgment, could have filed
an appeal before the High Court by seeking leave of the court.
Therefore, the contention cannot be accepted.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the 7th respondent in
W.P.(c), who is the father of the 8th respondent, cannot be said not to
have been involved in the selection process from the beginning until
the issuance of the appointment order on 6.8.2021.
In view of the complaint made by the committee members and
the 1st respondent, revealed that the irregularities as well as the bias
were not ruled out in the selection process. Therefore, considering the
same, the learned single Judge of this court rightly allowed the writ
petition filed by the 1st respondent. In the said writ petition, the
impugned order (Ext.P13) was under challenge, and a fresh selection
process was directed based upon Ext.P1, strictly by following the
statutory and legal position. Therefore, we do not find any error in the
24
W.A. NOs.1853 2025 & 1884 OF 2025
2026:KER:50194
order under challenge and are not inclined to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, Writ Appeals are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
K.Natarajan,
Judge
Sd/-
Johnson John,
Judge
ss
