MUHAMMED SADIQUE T. Vs. MOITHEEN KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges that though Annexure A1 interim order had been issued by this Court on 29.07.2020, directing the Chelembra Service Co-operative Bank Limited not to effect appointment to the post of Attender without obtaining further orders, the incumbent was allowed to take office on 30.07.2020 in the morning.

(2.) The petitioner asserts that as soon as Annexure A1 order had been issued by this Court, his learned counsel had sent an email at 9.25 a.m. on 30.07.2020 to the aforementioned Bank, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure A3, but that in spite of this, the appointment was effected at 10 a.m. The petitioner, therefore, prays that necessary action be taken against the third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Society.

(3.) When the afore submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner by Sri.Navod Prasannan on an earlier occasion, when this case was considered, the learned senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam, instructed by Sri.Arun Chandran, appearing for the respondents, tried to explain that his client was not aware of the interim order when the appointee was allowed to take office on 30.07.2020 in the morning and submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by his client, wherein, the following averments have been made: