AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER versus BINU N. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 20-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R: 414 
A 
AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. 
B 
c 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
BINU N. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.7839 of 2014) 
AUGUST 20, 2014 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ] 
SERVICE LAW: 
Appointment - Appointments made to posts of Attender 
and Peon - Challenged - Held: Bank has failed to conduct 
written examination and interview as per the then existing 
guidelines issued by Registrar of Co-operative Societies -
D High Court rightly quashed the selection and appointments 
of selected candidates and directed the Bank to conduct a 
fresh selection in accordance with the Circular. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
E 
Art. 226 - Writ petition - Alternative remedy - Wlit petition 
challenging selections made by V!l/age Co-operative Bank -
Held: Maintainable - The dispute between writ petitioners and 
Bank does not come within the provision of s. 69 of Kera/a Co-
operative Societies Act - Therefore, it cannot be said that 
F alternative remedy by way of arbitration was available to them. 
A Village Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., by 
Notification dated 6.6.2009, invited applications to fill up 
the vacant posts of 1 Attender and 3 Peons and to 
reserve one vacancy of Peon for members belonging to 
G SC/ST. Pursuant to this, among others, respondents 
nos.1 to 3 applied and a written test was held on 
15.7.2009 and an interview was also conducted in the 
afternoon of that day. In the meanwhile, respondents .1 
to 3 filed a writ petition challenging the. Notification dated 
H 
414 
AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICES CO-OP. BANK 415 
LTD. v. BINU N. 
6.6.2009 on the ground that the said notification was not 
A 
in conformity with the Kerala Co-operative Societies 
Rules and the circulars issued under r."182(5) thereof. The 
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition 
and quashed the Notification, selection and appointment 
of the selected candidates directing the Bank to conduct 
B 
a fresh selection, in accordance with the Circular. Till 
then, the selected candidates were permitted to work on 
aaily wage basis. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended that the 
respondent-writ petitioners had effective alternative 
C 
remedy by way of arbitration petition u/s 69 of the Kerala 
Co-operative Societies Act; and that since the writ 
petitioners participated in the selection process, they 
could not turn round and challenge the selection process 
itself is bad. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no reason to interfere with the 
findings of the High Court. Rule 182(5) of the Kerala Co-
E 
operative Societies Rules stipulates that "In respect of 
societies and posts not covered by s.80(3)(A) and s.80B 
of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the 
appointments shall be made by the Committee after 
conducting the written examination and interview as per 
the guidelines issued by the Registrar". The circulars 
issued by the Government and Registrar of the Co-
operative So~ieties have statutory force and specifically 
stipulate the procedure for conducting the selection to 
F 
the post of sub staff. In the instant case, the Bank has 
failed to conduct written examination and interview as 
G 
per the then existing guidelines issued by the Registrar 
of Co-operative Societies. This Court concurs with the 
decision of the High Court. [para 11, 13 and 14) [419-E-
F; 422-C-E] 
H 
.... 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. Considering the provisions of s.69 of the Kerala 
Co-operative Societies Act, the dispute between the writ 
· petitioners and the Bank does not come within the 
provisions of this Section, and, therefore, it cannot be 
said that alternate remedy by way of fiHng an arbitration 
B case u/s 69 of the Act was available to them. [para 13] 
[422-8, C] 
1.3. Indisputably, the respondent writ petitioners 
moved the High Court challenging the circulars 
immediately after the notification and prior to the conduct 
C of examination. Therefore, it can also not be said that they 
could not challenge the selection process. [para 13] [422-
D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7839 
D of 2014. 
E 
. -~-
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2013 of the 
High Court of Kerala in W.A. No. 364 of 2010. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 7840 of 2014. 
Shekhar Naphade, Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, 
Madhurima Tatia, Gaurav Mitra and M.P. Shorawala for the 
F Appellant 
· 
G 
Liz Mathew, M.F. Philip for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.