High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-09-30Writ petition dismissed; costs

K.P.M. Pushpaja v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.21607 of 2009 (U)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2014-09-30
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; costs to be borne by the petitioner.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; costs

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.P.M Pushpaja

Respondents

State of Kerala
Registrar of Co-operatives Societies
Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Palakkad
Pattithara Service Co-operative Bank
The President, Pattithara Service Co-operative Bank

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Santheep Ankarath
• Sri. T.P. Ramachandran (Thacheth)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. R. Ranjith
• Sri. Surin George Ipe

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K.P.M. Pushpaja, is an employee (Attender) in the Pattithara Service Co-operative Bank who was promoted to Junior Cashier in 1995 despite not possessing the essential qualification of a Junior Diploma in Co-operation (JDC). The bank proceeded on the expectation of an exemption from the qualification, but the Government rejected the exemption by a June 4, 2009 order (Exhibit P2), and the 1st Respondent issued the communicating order on July 9, 2007 (Exhibit P3). The petitioner contends that a valid Managing Committee resolution enabling exemption under Rule 185(8)(b) cannot be overturned by the Registrar and relies on the decisions in Dasan v. Registrar of Co-op. Societies and Narayanan C.K. v. Mathil Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. The court clarifies that both precedents relate to Rule 185(8)(b) and are distinguishable because the present case concerns sub-staff promotions under Rule 185(8)(c), which expressly prohibits exemption from cooperative training qualification for promotion to the clerical category. The Circular No.54/82 (26.11.1982) on classification changes is not applicable to the petitioner’s case, as it concerns appointments made before its issuance. The petitioner also argues lack of notice, and seeks salary for the period of cashier duties, but the court views the promotion as irregular. Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 185(8)(b)Rule 185(8)(c)Rule 181Rule 186Circular No.54/82 dated 26.11.1982Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that an exemption from essential qualification, if sought by a valid Managing Committee resolution under Rule 185(8)(b), cannot be struck down by the Registrar. She relies on decisions in Dasan v. Registrar of Co-op. Societies and Narayanan C.K. v. Mathil Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. It is argued that the petition seeks a promotion within the clerical category, for which sub-rule (8)(c) of Rule 185 explicitly prohibits exemption from the Co-operative training qualification. The Circular No.54/82 is invoked to counter classification changes, with the argument that pre-Circular appointments should be continued; the petition challenges lack of notice, and seeks salary for the period during which the petitioner performed cashier duties.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Rule 185(8)(c) bars exemption for sub-staff promotions to the clerical category. Exemption under Rule 185(8)(b) does not apply here as the petitioner seeks promotion within the sub-staff class. They contend the Registrar’s rejection (Exhibit P3) is valid, as sub-rule (8)(c) prohibits such exemptions. The cited precedents (Dasan and Narayanan C.K.) are distinguishable since they concern Rule 185(8)(b); Circular 54/82 clarifies classification changes and does not entitle retroactive promotions for pre-Circular appointments. The salary claim is untenable because the promotion was irregular. The petition is without merit and should be dismissed with costs.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Dasan v. Registrar of Co-op. Societies	2007 (1) KLT 581	Distinguished	Cited to illustrate exemptions under Rule 185(8)(b); the present case involves Rule 185(8)(c) prohibiting such exemptions, making the earlier decision inapplicable.
Narayanan C.K. v. Mathil Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kannur	2014 KHC 3026 2014(2) KLJ 703	Distinguished	Also concerns Rule 185(8)(b); not applicable to the sub-staff promotion issue under sub-rule (8)(c) addressed in the present case.
Sathyan v. Govt. of Kerala	2008 (4) KHC 120	Mentioned Only	Cited for principle that reasons are to be stated when denying exemption; not controlling here due to prohibition under Rule 185(8)(c).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.P.M. Pushpaja v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/8TH ASWINA, 1936 ## W.P.(C).No.21607 of 2009 (U) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- ------------------------ K.P.M.PUSHPAJA, W/O. SABARINATHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, 'DARSANA', KOOTTANAD P.O. NANDIYAMKODE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (WORKING AS CASHIER, PATTITHARA SERVICE CO-OERATIVE BANK, PATTITHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT). BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.T.P.RAMACHANDRAN (THACHETH) RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, PALAKKAD. 4. PATTITHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTITHARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PATTITHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK PATTITHARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH. R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- WP(C).No.21607 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- EXTP1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PROMOTING THE PETITIONER DATED 01.12.1995 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.6.2009 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2008. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------------ NIL. Vku/- ( true copy ) ## K.Vinod Chandran, J. **---------------------------------------** W.P.(C).No.21607 of 2009-U **---------------------------------------** Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is challenging Exhibits P2 and P3 order, which declined exemption of educational qualification. 2. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as an Attender on 28.06.1982. The petitioner had only the qualification of S.S.L.C. Though the petitioner had undergone the course of Junior Diploma in Co-operation [JDC], the petitioner had not qualified in the same. Despite the petitioner having no such qualification, it is stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Cashier with effect from 01.12.1995 by an order, seen at Exhibit P1. Admittedly the said promotion was not permissible by the Rules, since the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification of JDC, which only would entitle the petitioner to hold the post of Junior Cashier. The petitioner was continued in the post of Junior Cashier on the ground that the Bank had applied for an exemption from qualification. WP(C).No.21607 of 2009 - 2 - 3. Subsequently, by Exhibit P2 order dated 04.06.2009, the petitioner was reverted back to the post of Attender with effect from 01.04.2009 on the ground that the request for exemption from qualification was rejected by the Government. Such rejection was made by Exhibit P3. 4. The petitioner's contention is that exemption sought for by the Managing Committee by a valid resolution cannot be rejected by the Registrar. The petitioner also relies on the decisions reported in _**Dasan v. Registrar of Co-op. Societies**_ **[2007 (1) KLT 581]** and _**Narayanan C.K. v. Mathil**_ = _**Service Co-op. Bank Ltd., Kannur**_ **[2014 KHC 3026 2014(2) KLJ 703].** 5. It is to be specifically noticed that both the above decisions are instances where a resolution was passed under Rule 185(8)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. Sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (8) provides for the method to be adopted when considering exemption from essential qualification, wherein the essential qualification prescribed is WP(C).No.21607 of 2009 - 3 - graduation and above. In such circumstance, while considering the same, the person who is sought to be exempted from the essential qualification of graduation and above, should have passed JDC, should have minimum service of five years in the feeder category and should not be less than forty-five years of age. In the context of such a case; if a resolution is passed by the Managing Committee of the Society, going by Rule 185(8) (b), the Registrar cannot tinker with it. 6. In the present case, the petitioner does not seek promotion to a post for which the essential qualification is graduation or above. She is in the sub-staff category and claims promotion to the clerical category. What would be applicable to employees under sub-staff category is sub-clause (c) of sub-rule (8) of Rule 185, wherein it is specifically prescribed so: 185(8)(c) “Employees of the sub-staff category shall not be exempted in any case from Co-operative training qualification for promotion to the clerical category”. - 4 - WP(C).No.21607 of 2009 Hence, there is no question of exemption to the petitioner, even if applied for under Rule 181 of the Rules. Rule 185(8)(c) extracted above specifically prohibits exemption of Co-operative training qualification for promotion to the clerical category. Hence, the aforesaid decisions would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner also has a contention with respect to the classification of the society and qualification of employees as clarified by the Government in Circular No.54/82 dated 26.11.1982. The Circular specifically deals with situations where there is a classification change as prescribed by the Government and indicates that if the employee had been appointed as per the qualification prescribed in the Rules, as available in Rule 186 at that point of time, despite the classification change the appointment shall be continued. Only a classification change would attract the provisions in the Circular cited. The above Circular only took note of the employees who were appointed or promoted prior to its issuance. Herein there is WP(C).No.21607 of 2009 - 5 - a prayer for promotion subsequent to that, only on the contention that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender before the Circular came into force. This cannot be sustained, by any stretch of imagination. 8. The next contention of the petitioner is that the order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. He also relies on the decision in _**Sathyan v. Govt. of Kerala**_ **[2008 (4) KHC 120],** wherein a learned Single Judge held that, reasons are to be stated while declining exemption from possessing qualifications. As was noticed above, the present case is not one where exemption under Rule 185(8)(b) is attracted; but, there is a clear prohibition under sub-clause (c) of sub-rule (8) of Rule 185. In such circumstance, what has been stated in Exhibits P3 and P4 would suffice. 9. The petitioner's contention for payment of the salary of Cashier, during the period in which she discharged duties, also, cannot be countenanced, since the promotion was irregular and clearly contrary to the statutory rules. WP(C).No.21607 of 2009 - 6 - In the light of the aforesaid findings, the petitioner has absolutely no sustainable case and the writ petition would stand dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge vku. ( true copy )