The petitioner is a society who is aggrieved with Ext.P6 order passed by the Joint Registrar, on an objection by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, admittedly is an employee who was dismissed from the service of the 1st respondent. The appeal against the dismissal, filed before the President of the society, was also dismissed as per Ext.P1. It is stated that Ext.P1 is pending consideration before the Arbitration Court. On an earlier occasion, when the Secretary was sought to b e appointed as per a notification the 3rd respondent had filed an application before the Joint Registrar contending that if she were in employment, she would have been entitled to the post and hence no appointments would be made to the post of Secretary, till an adjudication regarding her removal from the service is settled. The Joint Registrar surprisingly passed an order in her favour, which was challenged by the Society in a writ petition in which an interim order was passed as per Ext.P2. The said writ petition is said to be pending.
2. The petitioner, then brought out a subsequent notification, seeking to appoint a Clerk in the service of the Society, which is evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. The 3rd respondent again approached the Joint Registrar, who again interdicted the selection by Ext.P6. The Joint Registrar in Ext.P6 found that there is a complaint regarding the suspension of the petitioner received at the office of the Joint Registrar (General). There was also reference to a number of allegations against the petitioner and her having been found not guilty in certain allegations levelled against her. Hence, the Joint Registrar found in Ext.P6 that since such a complaint is pending before the Joint Registrar and the 3rd respondent having been dismissed from service as a Junior Clerk, the further appointment would impede the proper consideration of her representation. For one the Joint Registrar could not have considered any representation with respect to the suspension or dismissal from service or the allegations with respect to an enquiry report, since sub-clause (d) of sub- section (2) of Section 69 specifically brings such disputes within the ambit of that provision. It is such a dispute which is now said to be pending before the Arbitration Court.
3. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would vigorously contend that despite the Joint Registrar having no jurisdiction, this Court could invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and interdict selection till the adjudication with respect to her dismissal is concluded. It is also contended that the agency constituted for selection is not proper.
4. Dealing with the second contention first, the petitioner is not a participant in the selection, nor is she concerned in any manner with the administration of the society. The petitioner's challenge against the mode of selection is hence only to be negatived. With respect to invocation of Article 226, this is a writ petition filed by the Bank, against the improper exercise of authority by the Joint Registrar. The petitioner Bank also cannot be asked to wait till adjudication is concluded. If the adjudication concludes in the 3rd respondents' favour, then the the 3rd respondent could definitely take proceedings as approved by law, to get her claims established. That cannot interdict the petitioner Bank from making selection and making appointments to the sanctioned posts which fall vacant in the petitioner society.
Writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P6.
Parties shall suffer their costs.
jma //true copy// Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) P.A to Judge