JUDGMENT : 1. Through successive statutory interventions, the Cooperative Societies registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, 'the KCS Act'), are now allowed to make appointments only to those posts in their services that fall under the category of “sub-staff”, which includes Peons, Attenders, Night Watchmen etc. 2. By the provisions of Sections 80(3A) and 80B of the KCS Act, all other posts have been removed from the competence of the society to fill up and are entrusted either with the Public Service Commission or with the Co-operative Examination Board. 3. It is, thus, only the aforementioned posts which are now left with the various Co-operative Societies to fill their own. Even in the selection processes to these posts, several attempts have been made by the competent statutory Authorities to ensure that there is transparency, fairness and complete rectitude as to the manner in which the Societies operate, edificed on the mandate of Rule 182(5) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (for short, 'the KCS Rules'), which enjoin the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to issue guidelines for the purpose of conduct of the written examination and interview. 4. In furtherance of these statutory imperatives, the Registrar appears to have issued a Circular, bearing No.79/2011, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P7 in W.P. (C)No.5345/2019 and as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.7534/2019, wherein, apart from various other stipulations, the Registrar prescribes that “the written test shall be conducted by an outside agency having expertise or knowledge or experience in the field of co-operation which may also include individuals” (sic). These instructions indubitably are intended to ensure that the processes adopted by the Societies are beyond fault and without error and to ensure that allegations of capriciousness, nepotism, corruption and such other are kept at bay. However, tragically, these stipulations being often imprecise and incapable of a specific import, allegations that were intended to be averted are now being raised by candidates applying for such posts, on a regular basis before this Court. These two cases are text book examples of such allegations. 5. The petitioners in these cases say that they are candidates or aspiring candidates, who have applied or intended to apply consequent to the notifications issued by the respective respondent Societies for appointment to the posts of Peons/ Attenders/Night Watchmen. These two cases are text book examples of such allegations. 5. The petitioners in these cases say that they are candidates or aspiring candidates, who have applied or intended to apply consequent to the notifications issued by the respective respondent Societies for appointment to the posts of Peons/ Attenders/Night Watchmen. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 5345/2019 concedes that, though she was desirous of making an application under the notification involved in the said case, she could not do so because it was published only in two evening newspapers by name, “Karaval” and “Utharadesam”, which do not have any circulation in the area where the Society is situated and therefore, that she was not even aware of it. She also has a specific contention against the circular aforementioned that, since it does not specify how the “Outside Agency” or an “Individual” to conduct the written examination is to be chosen, apart from merely saying that they shall have expertise, knowledge or experience in Co-operation, it virtually allows the Societies to pick any “Agency” or “Individual” of their choice without any enquiry into their credentials, credibility or integrity and that this will thus foster more corruption contrary to its very purpose; adding that otherwise, the Government ought to have devised a mechanism of empanelling such “Agencies” or “Individuals” after a thorough process of evaluation and scrutiny of their credentials so that the Societies can then choose one among them. 6. Coming to W.P.(C)No.7534/2019, the petitioners are stated to be candidates who have applied under the notification involved therein and they impel identical allegations as above against the “Outside Agency” and consequently, pray that circular No.79/2011, to the extent to which these words are used so imprecisely, be struck down. 7. I have heard Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both cases; Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, learned standing counsel appearing for the Co-operative Bank in W.P.(C)No.7534/2019; Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned standing counsel appearing for the Society in W.P.(C)No. 5345/2019; Sri.P.P.Jacob and Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the selected and appointed candidates and Smt.C.S.Sheeja, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 8. 8. Before I answer the syllogistical contentions of the parties, I must record that when I considered these writ petitions on an earlier occasion, I was certain that the prescriptions in Circular No.79/2011 with respect to the “Outside Agency” required the views of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, particularly on account of its apparent imprecision, as has been pointed out by the petitioners. I had thus made the following order on the 11th June, 2019. “In various cases involving the appointment of employees to Co-operative Societies, the State invariably takes a stand before this Court that such appointments have to be done fairly and transparently and therefore, that the concerned Statutory Officers also be either arrayed as respondents or that this Court suo motu implead them. 2. In the afore background, it is ineffable as to how the circular, which is impugned in these cases, namely, Ext.P6 in WP(C)No.7534/2019, has been issued by the Government allowing an individual also to be engaged by a Society to conduct the written test. This Court is posing this question for the simple reason that there are no guidelines in the circular as to how the 'individual' will have to be appointed or whether such 'individuals' have been empanelled by the Government through a valid process, from which the Societies can draw a particular name and engage him. 3. However, by giving the latitude to the Society as has been seemingly done in the circular to appoint any 'individual' having expertise, knowledge or experience in the field of co-operation, the entire discretion has been vested with the Society; otherwise, the Government ought to have prepared a panel of such persons, from which the Societies could draw an individual. 4. This is a matter of vital importance and I am, therefore, of the view that the Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation should answer this question specifically, through an affidavit. 5. I, resultantly, suo motu implead the Government of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation, Thiruvananthapuram as an additional respondent in both these cases and further direct the said Authority to file an appropriate affidavit before this Court explaining the validity of the contents of Ext.P6 Circular in WP(C)No.7534/2019, with specific reference to the inclusion of 'individual' for the purpose of conducting written test along with an outside agency. 6. 6. The Registry is directed to make requisite incorporations in the cause title of these cases. List this case for further consideration on 25.06.2019; within which time, the affidavit shall be placed on record.” 9. Even though these matters were thereafter listed several times, no response was forthcoming from the Government or from the Registrar on this issue and I, therefore, indited another order on the 6th of August, 2019 in the following manner: “The learned Senior Government Pleader seeks more time to file counter affidavit. List these cases for further consideration on 19.08.2019; within which time, if no counter affidavit is filed, it will be presumed that the Government has nothing to offer in answer to the allegations.” 10. Today, when these cases are called, the position is not very different and neither the Government nor the Registrar are able to explain why the stipulations in the circular with respect to “Outside Agency” and “Individuals” allowed to operate as such, have been left without specific guidelines when such engagement is made by the Societies. 11. I must say that this Court is distressed with the rather cavalier attitude shown by the official respondents and this can only be on account of the fact that they have nothing to offer in answer to the allegations of the petitioners and to the prima facie view that I have recorded in my earlier orders. 12. I, therefore, proceed to consider these two writ petitions in the afore background, taking note of the specific inputs available. 13. Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that his clients have brought to the attention of this Court two pressing concerns of the candidates and the aspiring candidates, who are desirous to participate in the selection processes being conducted by the various Co-operative Societies in Kerala. He alleges that for the first, in many instances, the notifications issued by the Societies are published in newspapers having little or no circulation, presumably to ensure that only persons of their choice are able to apply; and for the second, that by allowing them to pick and choose the “Outside Agency” or “Individuals” to conduct the written examination, the very same mischief, which is ostensibly intended to be avoided, is being perpetuated. 14. 14. Sri.Jawahar Jose then contends that, in fact, in W.P.(C) No.5345/2019, the official respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they concede that the newspaper, in which the notification had been published by the Society concerned, did not have any circulation in the area and that the following have been unequivocally averred therein.: “It is submitted that the Rule 185(5) of the Kerala State of Cooperative Societies Act and Circular No.79/2011 of the Registrar of Co-operative societies stipulates the procedure to be followed in the appointment against the vacancies in the Societies, as per Circular No.79/2011, the notification inviting application to vacancies in any co-operative societies should be published in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area. It is submitted that the notification inviting application to the vacancies in the second respondent society is published in two dailies, 2) Kannada edition of “Karnival daily” and “Utharadesam” Malayalam daily, which are published from Kasargod. Both these dailies cannot be considered as dailies having wide circulation in the area. Therefore, the notification cannot be considered as a notification in accordance with the Circular No.79/2011 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.” 15. Sri.Jawahar Jose thus contends that as far as W.P. (C)No. 5345/2019 is concerned, the respondent Society cannot be allowed to make appointments through such a notification. 16. On the second limb of his argument, namely, with respect to the engagement by the Societies of “Outside Agency” and “Individuals” to conduct the test, he submits that Circular No. 79/2011 is wholly vague and amorphous, thus enabling the Societies to choose any such Agency or Individual as per their singular choice and interest and that it thus perpetuates corruption behind the facade of legitimacy. 17. Sri.Jawahar Jose then continued that prior to the present circular, another one had been issued by the Registrar, namely Circular No.18/1991 dated 07.06.1991, wherein also the written test for selection was directed to be conducted through an Outside Agency. He says that this circular was challenged in a series of litigations, finally concluding in a judgment in W.P. (C)No.37441/2009 and connected matter, wherein this Court spoke pejoratively about the manner in which the “Outside Agencies” were being engaged by the Societies, without their credentials being put to evaluation by any official Authority. He says that this circular was challenged in a series of litigations, finally concluding in a judgment in W.P. (C)No.37441/2009 and connected matter, wherein this Court spoke pejoratively about the manner in which the “Outside Agencies” were being engaged by the Societies, without their credentials being put to evaluation by any official Authority. He says that it is consequent to this that the present circular, namely Circular No.79/2011, was issued, however, again continuing with the same mischief, in fact, exacerbating it with the sanction to engage an individual also to conduct the written test. He, therefore, says that the circular cannot obtain any further sustenance, since the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.37441/2009 strikes it at its root. He, resultantly, prays that Circular No.79/2011, to the extent to which the Registrar has allowed the Co-operative Societies to choose their own “Outside Agency” or “Individuals” to conduct the written examination be either struck down or read down, so as to bring it in consonance with the imperatives of the KCS Act and Rules. 18. In answer to the afore submissions of Sri.Jawahar Jose, Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned standing counsel for the Society in W.P.(C)No.5345/2019, submitted that the allegation made against his client, that the notification concerned had not been published in reliable newspapers, is completely wrong and untenable because the documents produced by them on record, namely R2(g) and R2(h), would establish that the newspapers chosen by them have large circulation of more than 19500 and 16500 respectively in the concerned area and that the Government had recognised this as early as in the years 2012 and 2013 respectively, as is clear from the said documents. He then submitted that, as has been clearly averred by them in their counter affidavit, the Agency chosen by them to conduct the test is an individual by name Sri.Kunhikannan V., who is a retired Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies and who has more than 30 years of experience in the field. He says that Sri.Kunhikannan V. is one of the most competent persons available and that even the petitioners do not allege incompetence as far as he is concerned. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed, without this Court acceding to any of the reliefs sought for. 19. He says that Sri.Kunhikannan V. is one of the most competent persons available and that even the petitioners do not allege incompetence as far as he is concerned. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed, without this Court acceding to any of the reliefs sought for. 19. On the larger question of “Outside Agency” and the “Individuals” chosen by the Societies under the mandate of Circular No.79/2011, Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth submitted that there is no ambiguity or imprecision in the stipulations in the said Circular because it clearly provides that the written test shall be conducted by an “Outside Agency” or “Individual” having expertise or knowledge or experience in the field of cooperation. He asserts that since the “Outside Agency” to be chosen by the Societies must implicitly qualify the requirements of the said circular, there is no question of any capriciousness or nepotism being promoted, as has been alleged by the petitioners and that the Societies can only choose Agencies or Individuals with proven track record and credibility. 20. Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Co-operative Bank in W.P.(C)No.7534/2019, adopts most of the afore submissions of Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, however, adding that in this case, there is no allegation regarding the newspapers in which the notification was published by his client but only as against the choice of the “Outside Agency”. He says that the identity and credentials of the Agency appointed by his client are available from paragraph 2 of their additional counter affidavit, dated 21.03.2019, which reads as under: “As per resolution No.16 dated 16.1.2019, the Board of Directors decided the Co-operative Service Consultancy, Kanhangad to conduct the examination for the post notified in Ext.P1. The members of the Co-operative Service Consultancy, Kanhangad are the persons given below: 1. V. Kunhikannan, Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Retd.) 2. Rajan, Assistant Registrar (Retd.) 3. P. Narayanan, Assistant Registrar (Retd.) 4. Ramachandran, Senior Co-operative Inspector (Retd.) All the above said persons are expertise, thorough knowledge and experience in the field of Co-operation. The above said Co-operative Service Consultancy, Kanhangad conducted the examination as per Ext.P1 notification. The allegation that the examination has been conducted by an individual is absolutely incorrect. The Co-operative Service Consultancy, Kanhangad has conducted the examination.” 21. Ramachandran, Senior Co-operative Inspector (Retd.) All the above said persons are expertise, thorough knowledge and experience in the field of Co-operation. The above said Co-operative Service Consultancy, Kanhangad conducted the examination as per Ext.P1 notification. The allegation that the examination has been conducted by an individual is absolutely incorrect. The Co-operative Service Consultancy, Kanhangad has conducted the examination.” 21. Sri.Pushparajan Kodoth thus contends that the allegations made by the petitioners against his client are wholly without basis and totally uncorroborated; and consequently, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed, allowing his client to make appointments under the processes already completed by them. 22. Sri.P.N.Mohanan and Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the candidates who have already undergone the selection process conducted by the respondent-Societies, submit that, in fact, some of them have already been appointed but concede that such appointments have been made subject to the result of these writ petitions, as has been ordered by this Court earlier. They assert that the allegations made by the petitioners in these cases are untenable, particularly because many of them did not even apply or participate in the selection process and therefore, that even if they have any remedy, it is to approach the competent Authority under Section 69 of the KCS Act, rather than having filed these writ petitions making reckless and bald allegations. They, therefore, pray that these writ petitions be dismissed. 23. Smt.C.S.Sheeja, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, admits that in spite of the various opportunities granted by this Court, no specific explanation has been offered on record either by the Government or by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies with respect to “Outside Agency” and “Individuals”, who are allowed to conduct written examinations. She, however, says that, as is clear from Circular No.79/2011, the Societies are under the intractable rigor of conducting written examinations only through an Agency who strictly qualify the requirements therein and that such an Agency shall have to be fully competent, with wide and deep expertise and experience in the field of Cooperation and that if there is any deviation therefrom, the official respondents will intervene in appropriate cases. 24. 24. After submitting as above, the learned Senior Government Pleader, however, concedes to a pointed question of this Court, that “Outside Agencies” or “Individuals” are left to be chosen by the Societies as per the Circular and that their credibility and expertise are also left to be assessed by the Societies. She says that, nevertheless, this would not, in any manner, hamper or prejudice the processes because the prescription, that the Agencies or Individuals must have expertise, knowledge or experience in the field of co-operation, would ensure that only the best are chosen and that questionable or confutative Agencies or Individuals are kept away from the field. She adds that the sincerity of the official respondents, in ensuring that the selection is done fairly and transparently by the Societies, is clear from the fact that whenever there are allegations against such processes, action is immediately taken. 25. I have evaluated the submissions of the parties as afore recorded very carefully since I am aware that another Judge of this Court, in Hakkim E. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others [2014 (4) ILR 413], has found Circular No. 79/2011 to be valid in law and to have been issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in proper exercise of his jurisdiction. I am in complete affirmation with the views and holdings in the above judgment, since there cannot be any doubt that it is within the province of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to issue appropriate guidelines for the purpose of conduct of written examination, going by Rule 182(5) of the KCS Rules. No one has a case that the Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in having issued the Circular and therefore, the views in Hakkim E. (supra) are irreproachable and completely acceptable as far as I am concerned. 26. That said, the crucial aspect in these writ petitions is not as to the competence of the Registrar to issue the Circular; but as to the worth of the stipulations therein, when it is implemented and imposed upon the Societies. 27. When one reads the Circular, the prescriptions with respect to “Outside Agency” are contained in paragraph 4(c) of the circular which reads as under: “The written test shall be conducted by an outside agency having expertise or knowledge or experience in the field of cooperation, which may also include individuals.” 28. 27. When one reads the Circular, the prescriptions with respect to “Outside Agency” are contained in paragraph 4(c) of the circular which reads as under: “The written test shall be conducted by an outside agency having expertise or knowledge or experience in the field of cooperation, which may also include individuals.” 28. Thus, quad hoc, the qualifications of the “Outside Agency”, the Circular mandates that they must have expertise or knowledge or experience in the field of co-operation; but it is uncontested, at least as of now, that there are absolutely no proceedings issued by the Government or by the Registrar identifying any such “Agencies” or “Individuals” after their antecedents, credibility and credentials have been tested. The fallout of this would be that any person allegedly professing some expertise or knowledge or experience in the field of cooperation would be capable of being beckoned by any Society, without any check by the Statutory Authorities. This is an extremely perilous proposition, since nothing is brought on record by any of the parties, including the official respondents, as to any legal bridles in the manner in which a Society can choose the “Outside Agency” or the “Individuals” to conduct written examinations on their behalf. 29. Illustratively, assuming a case where an officer of the Co-operative Department had been proceeded against, found guilty and then expelled, even then, going solely by the stipulations in the Circular, such person would also be eligible to be engaged as an “Outside Agency” and his antecedents would remain hidden from public gaze; and axiomatically, unless someone comes to know of this and then chooses to challenge it, his engagement by a Society as an “Outside Agency” in furtherance of their nefarious designs, could technically be legally valid. This is certainly dangerous and cannot be allowed. 30. The learned Senior Government Pleader, in fact, confirms that there has been no empanelment of such “Outside Agency” or “Individuals” by the Government or by the Registrar and admits that any person, who is stated to have some experience or expertise in the field of co-operation, would come within the umbra of the stipulations in the circular. This irrefutably means that the choice of an “Outside Agency” or “Individual” vests with the Society and that unless and until someone mounts a challenge, they would be able to even manipulate any result that they may want to achieve. 31. This irrefutably means that the choice of an “Outside Agency” or “Individual” vests with the Society and that unless and until someone mounts a challenge, they would be able to even manipulate any result that they may want to achieve. 31. It is guided by the afore thoughts that I had indited the order dated 11.06.2019 extracted above and as is clear from paragraph 3 thereof, I have clearly indicated the distress of this Court in the Circular offering unlimited latitude to a Society to appoint any Individual as an Outside Agency, even without the Government or the Registrar being aware of such persons. True, the said order was confined to the question of an Individual being chosen as an Outside Agency but they would ring true for all Agencies as mentioned in the circular. 32. I am, therefore, firm in my mind that unless and until the “Outside Agencies” or “Individuals” are properly identified or empanelled by the Registrar or such other competent Authority, it would be wholly imprudent to let the Societies choose on their own, as is now permitted. 33. I have recorded the afore as the general views of this Court in these legal aspects and I deem it now apposite to consider the singular allegations and facts involved in these cases guided by it. 34. As far as the cases at hand are concerned, in W.P.(C) No.5345/2019, the Joint Registrar has taken a specific view, as noticed above, that the newspapers in which the concerned notification was published by the Society do not confirm to the requirements of Circular No.79/2011. 35. As regards the second limb of the allegations regarding the credentials, credibility, integrity and professional capacity of the Outside Agency is concerned, the counter pleadings of the official respondents in both cases are completely silent on this. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the selection processes in these two cases will have to be scrutinized and reviewed by the competent statutory Authorities, so as to ensure that the same had been done without fault, after assessing the credentials of the Outside Agency engaged by the respondent-Societies. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the selection processes in these two cases will have to be scrutinized and reviewed by the competent statutory Authorities, so as to ensure that the same had been done without fault, after assessing the credentials of the Outside Agency engaged by the respondent-Societies. In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions and direct the concerned Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to immediately call for the relevant and germane records and cause a complete assessment of the processes adopted by the respondent-Societies in these cases and then take a considered decision, after affording all the parties herein an opportunity of being heard, as to whether the appointments proposed and made by the societies can be confirmed, adverting specifically to my observations above regarding the competence and credentials of the Outside Agency concerned. The above being directed as regards the specific cases being considered herein, I deem it appropriate to further order the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to review and revisit clause 4(c) of Circular No.79/2011, dated 09.11.2011 and immediately take a decision as to how the “Outside Agencies” and “Individuals” will have to be chosen by the Societies and also as to whether it would be better to cause an empanelment of such Agencies/Individuals with proven track record and credentials, from which the Societies can then choose. This shall be done by the Registrar implicitly adverting to my observations in this judgment and necessary proceedings shall be issued within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall then apply as general directions under Section 66A of the KCS Act to all Societies in Kerala.