MADAVOOR SERVICE CO Vs. BIJULA P AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent in W.P(C)No.16895/2018 is challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Before the Single Bench the writ petitioner, 1st respondent herein, had challenged Ext.P8 order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in which her appointment in the appellant Bank was declared as illegal, and also challenged Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the appellant Bank through which her service was terminated.

(2.) Brief facts are that, the "Co-operative Examination Board" had published Ext.P1 notification through which applications were invited for appointment of one Junior clerk in the appellant Bank. The candidate who secured 1st rank in the selection was appointed by the Bank on 2.6.2018. Subsequently, by virtue of Ext.P3 proceedings issued by the appellant Bank, the writ petitioner was also appointed, presumably in another vacancy which existed. The writ petitioner continued in the service of the appellant Bank from March 2017 onwards. On 5.5.2018 she was issued with Ext.P5 intimation that the appellant Bank had decided to cancel her appointment, as per a decision taken by the Board of Directors on 5.5.2018. She was requested to submit explanations if any, against implementation of the said decision, on or before 11.5.2018. From Ext.P6 it is clear that the writ petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the President of the appellant Bank. Meanwhile two persons have submitted a complaint before the Joint Registrar requesting to cancel the appointment of the writ petitioner. Evidently, the Joint Registrar had conducted an enquiry through the Assistant Registrar and issued Ext.P8 proceedings holding that the appointment of the writ petitioner by the appellant Bank was illegal as it is not against a vacancy notified by the "Co-operative Examination Board". From Ext.P8 proceedings it is evident that the President of the Bank had participated in a hearing conducted by the Joint Registrar and expressed his willingness to cancel the appointment. In this context the Joint Registrar issued Ext.P8 directing the Bank to cancel the appointment. Subsequently, Ext.P7 proceedings was issued to the writ petitioner terminating her service with effect from 14.5.2018. Ext.P7 refers to another decision of the Director Board of the Bank dated 13.5.2018. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the petitioner and the Government Pleader who represented the Joint Registrar, found that, Ext.P8 was not preceded by any notice to the writ petitioner and that she was not heard before such an order was issued, which had the consequence of termination of her service. It was found that the petitioner's service could not have been dispensed with in the manner as has been done in Ext.P7 and P8. Therefore, the Joint Registrar was directed to take fresh steps by treating Ext.P8 as a show cause notice and the petitioner was permitted to submit detailed representation to the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar was directed to take a decision in accordance with law, with notice to the writ petitioner and to the appellant Bank. Till such time the decision is taken, it was directed to keep in abeyance Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings.

(3.) It is strange to notice that the present appeal was filed only by the Bank and not by the Joint Registrar or the State Government. In fact it is only the Bank who appointed the writ petitioner and allowed her to continue in service for a period of more than one year. Evidently the Bank had taken a decision of 5.5.2018 to cancel the appointment of the writ petitioner. It is not in dispute that, before taking any such decision the Bank had not afforded any opportunity to the writ petitioner in the matter of cancellation of her appointment. Subsequently, the President of the Bank had participated in the enquiry conducted by the Joint Registrar and expressed willingness to cancel the appointment. There also, the writ petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity to object the decision nor she was put to notice about any such proceedings initiated by the Joint Registrar or about the enquiry conducted. It is evident that pursuant to Ext.P8 the appellant Bank had again taken a decision on 13.5.2018 to terminate her service. No notice was seen issued even before taking such a decision.