SUBEESH KRISHNAN Vs. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Secretary of one Nanmanda Rural Co -operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Housing Society") and is aggrieved by the enquiry initiated by the 2nd respondent on a complaint by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, admittedly, was a Senior Clerk in the service of the Housing Society, who was suspended pending enquiry on 17.03.2009 and thereafter dismissed from service on 03.12.2009. It is contended that the Arbitration Case filed by him has set aside the enquiry conducted by the Housing Society and that the Joint Registrar has issued Exhibit P7 order by which the filling up of a vacancy in the post of Accountant has been interdicted, which order, admittedly, has been stayed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.3201 of 2013. The dispute raised in the complaint of the 3rd respondent, produced as Exhibit P9, is with respect to appointment of the petitioner as Secretary in the Housing Society.

(2.) THE selection to the post of Secretary in the Housing Society was conducted by the Co -operative Service Examination Board and the petitioner having come out successful in the written examination as also in the interview, with 1st rank; was appointed by order dated 02.09.2010 and he joined the service of the Bank on

(3.) THE 3rd respondent complained about the action of the Housing Society in attempting to make direct recruitment to the post of Secretary by Exhibit P3, before the Joint Registrar. The same was considered and Exhibit P4 was passed, finding that the 3rd respondent had no entitlement to be considered for promotion to the post of Secretary and that there is no irregularity in the selection mooted by the Housing Society. Hence, the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent was rejected. The same was challenged before this Court by a writ petition, numbered as W.P.(C).No.8181 of 2010, which was dismissed on 25.05.2010. An appeal filed against the said judgment was also withdrawn, as is evident by Exhibit R3(b), on the contention of the 3rd respondent, who was the appellant therein, that he is vigorously pursuing the statutory remedies.