JUDGMENT : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. 1. In response to Exhibit P1 notification issued by the second respondent Bank to fill up the posts of Attendar and Salesman, the petitioner applied for the post of Attendar. Having faced the written test and interview, as is evident from Exhibits P2 and P3, the petitioner was awaiting the results. At that juncture, the first respondent issued Exhibit P4 proceedings cancelling the entire selection. Assailing Exhibit P4, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. Ms. Reshma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, representing Mr. Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel on record, has submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue Exhibit P4 order. In elaboration, she has submitted that since the dispute is concerning the recruitment into a Co-operative Bank, the competent authority to adjudicate the disputes, if any, is the Co- operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. She has also submitted that though Exhibit P1 notification concerns the post of Attendar and Salesman, the petitioner has applied only for the post of Attendar, regarding which post the very Bank has already passed a resolution. 3. The learned counsel has taken me through the entire record, including the counter affidavits filed by the first and second respondents. She would strenuously contend that merely because some members of the Managing Committee have raised objections as regards the manner of recruitment, the first respondent ought not to have hastily passed Exhibit P4 order. Accordingly, she has urged this Court to allow the writ petition. 4. Sri. Rajesh, the learned Government Pleader, in tune with the counter averments, has strenuously contended that the first respondent has initially directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct a detailed enquiry into the complaint filed by one of the members of the Managing Committee. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued Exhibit P4 order, according to the learned Government Pleader, only on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Registrar. 5. The learned Government Pleader, making specific reference to the alleged procedural violations as have been pointed out in the counter affidavits, has submitted that Exhibit P4 is unexceptionable. In the end, he has submitted that the first respondent has got the necessary power. 6. Sri. V. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, has adopted the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. In the end, he has submitted that the first respondent has got the necessary power. 6. Sri. V. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, has adopted the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. In addition, he has submitted that instead of appointing a sub-committee to oversee the recruitment process, the Chairman of the Managing Committee has arrogated to himself the power of recruitment. He has, in the end, submitted that owing to large scale irregularities, the first respondent has rightly interdicted the selection process by issuing Exhibit P4 order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, as well as the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. 8. To begin with, we may list out the alleged procedural violations said to have taken place in the recruitment undertaken pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification:- (i) Though the respondent Bank through Resolution No. 199 dated 15.12.2011 resolved to invite applications for the post of Attendar, the notification was issued for the posts of both Attendar and Salesman. Therefore, the notification was contrary to the resolution adopted by the second respondent. (ii) The respondent Bank has not constituted any sub- committee to oversee the recruitment process. (iii) Exhibit P1 notification was published only in one newspaper, i.e. Deshabhimani daily, instead of more than one newspaper having wide circulation. (iv) The call letters for the interview have not contained the details of venue and time. (v) The examiner did not submit the marks list before the interviews could take place, and (vi) The Directors of the Managing Committee themselves requested the first respondent to set aside the selection process. 9. We may examine the objections in detail. Indeed, the respondent Bank passed the resolution deciding to invite applications for the post of Attendar. But Exhibit P1 has notified both the posts of Attendar and Salesman. To that extent, the notification covering the post of Salesman may not be sustained. At any rate, the petitioner has applied only for the post of Attendar and sought declaration of the results concerning the said post alone. Thus, the issue of publishing the results as regards the post of Salesman does not fall for consideration. In other words, the Society can rescind the process of recruitment as far as the post of Salesman is concerned. Thus, the issue of publishing the results as regards the post of Salesman does not fall for consideration. In other words, the Society can rescind the process of recruitment as far as the post of Salesman is concerned. This observation is without prejudice to the candidates applied for the post of Saleman. 10. Rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the Rules) provides a detailed procedure for recruitment. Sub-rule (2) thereof mandates that the Committee shall be the authority to appoint the employees in a Co-operative Society. Neither the Rule nor the administrative instructions issued supplementing the Rules specify that the Bank is required to constitute a sub- committee for the purpose of appointing any employees. 11. Clause (i) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 182 mandates that the Society shall report the vacancy to the Co-operative Service Examination Board and the applications for appointment shall be invited by the Examination Board through notification in two newspapers in vernacular dailies, having wide circulation in the area. The said stipulation applies to the Societies covered by Section 80B of the Act. 12. If we examine Section 80B, it is evident that the requirement of taking services of the Examination Board for conducting the examination and notifying the vacancies in two vernacular dailies apply to the posts over and above the cadre of Junior Clerks. In the present instance, the recruitment is concerning the post of an Attendar. 13. Though there is a specific allegation that the call letters have not contained particulars regarding the venue and time of the interview, Exhibit P3, one such call letter, amply establishes that both the place and time have been mentioned, explicitly. 14. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Government Pleader and also by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the Examiner, an external agency, has not supplied the candidates' marks in the written test to the Managing Committee before the candidates could be interviewed. 15. In this regard, it is pertinent to examine clause (ii) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 182. According to the said provision, the Examination Board shall conduct the written examination of the candidates and furnish the list of eligible candidates to be interviewed to the Committee of the Society within a period of three months from the date of requisition by the Society. The list so furnished shall not contain the marks secured by the candidates. According to the said provision, the Examination Board shall conduct the written examination of the candidates and furnish the list of eligible candidates to be interviewed to the Committee of the Society within a period of three months from the date of requisition by the Society. The list so furnished shall not contain the marks secured by the candidates. 16. True, in the present instance it is not the Examination Board that has conducted the written test as the post notified is below the rank of Junior Clerk. At any rate, the prohibition against divulging the marks to the interview board equally applies. The reason in this regard is not far to seek. 17. Not to prejudice the cause of any candidate, the established practice is that the interviewing committee should not have the knowledge regarding the candidates' performance in the written examination. Once the said committee awards marks in the interview, the Managing Committee thereafter collates the candidates' marks secured both in the written test and in the interview. After tabulating the aggregate, the Committee finds out the relative merit of the candidates. As such, I am of the view that any insistence on the respondents' part that the Examiner should have provided the details of marks secured by the candidates in the written test starkly violates the statutory mandate. 18. Another ground of objection raised by the respondents is that the members of the Managing Committee themselves have demanded the rescission of the selection. I am afraid, this is the weakest link in the chain of the respondents' claim. Merely because certain members of the Managing Committee have a change of heart in the course of time, they cannot be permitted to be whimsical so as to demand the abandonment of the recruitment which has been legitimately commenced. Nor does it lie in the jurisdiction of the first respondent to yield to the demand of the members of the Managing Committee unless there are statutorily compelling reasons to rescind the selection process. 19. Apart from the grounds of objections raised by the first respondent, the respondent Bank has raised certain additional grounds:- (i) The Examiner was not impartial; he had some political interest. (ii) The petitioner is also an active worker of the political party to which the Examiner had affiliation. 19. Apart from the grounds of objections raised by the first respondent, the respondent Bank has raised certain additional grounds:- (i) The Examiner was not impartial; he had some political interest. (ii) The petitioner is also an active worker of the political party to which the Examiner had affiliation. (iii) The Examiner did not hand over the answer sheets to the respondent Bank before it could conduct the interview. (iv) There was publicity (perhaps, rumours) that the petitioner had influenced the Examiner and that there was foul play in the conduct of the written examination and the evaluation. 20. Any expression becomes a clichi owing to its over use. As a matter of linguistic discretion, people avoid using clichid expressions for they have been robbed of their vitality owing to their overuse. The fact, however, remains that an expression gets repeatedly employed given its intrinsic merit or truth. Therefore, a clichi cannot altogether be condemned; and, at times, it comes handy if one does not want to reinvent a wheel just because it is old and overused. 21. Thus, I am compelled to take recourse to one such clichid expression: the allegations on the part of the respondent Bank are as vague as vagueness can be. Most of the times, either party to a lis vainly attempts to take recourse to very nebulous and amorphous allegations lacking even minimal substance. In that context, the courts have repeatedly called in the aid of the theory of vagueness. 22. In the present instance, one wonders whether the respondent Bank discharging public functions could be permitted to make such zany allegations as uncorroborated political affiliation or leanings. In the first place, the respondent Bank has not divulged, much less produced, any cogent proof concerning the alleged political affiliation of the Examiner. It has not even bothered to insist that the Examiner be made a party to the proceedings given the nature of the allegations levelled against him. Further, the respondent Bank has stated that the petitioner is an active worker of a political party to which the Examiner has affiliation. The less said, the better. These allegations are not worthy of any comment from the Court. 23. The insistence on the part of the respondent Bank that the Examiner ought to have handed over the answer sheets to it before it could conduct the interview is at best an extra-statutory, nay illegal, demand. The less said, the better. These allegations are not worthy of any comment from the Court. 23. The insistence on the part of the respondent Bank that the Examiner ought to have handed over the answer sheets to it before it could conduct the interview is at best an extra-statutory, nay illegal, demand. 24. Under the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the objections raised by both the first and second respondents as regards the alleged procedural violation in the process of recruitment that has taken place pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification are without any substance. In other words, the process of recruitment that has so far been undertaken either by the Examiner or by the respondent Bank itself cannot be found fault with. In the facts and circumstances, this Court allows the writ petition setting aside Exhibit P4 order of the first respondent. Consequently, this Court directs the respondents to proceed further from the stage where it has left off the recruitment process and declare the results concerning the post of Attendar only. No order as to costs.