## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/20TH POUSHA 1933**
**WPC.No. 1030 of 2010 (C) ------------------------**
## **PETITIONER:-**
## **-------------**
**THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, NELLAYI-PARAPPOOKKARA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NELLAYI P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT REP. BY THE PRESIDENT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM**
## **RESPONDENTS:-**
## **--------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRICHUR.**
**3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE. SOCIETIES (G), MUKUNDAPURAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
**4. N.A.MUKUNDAN, JUNIOR CLERK, NELLAYI-PARAPPOOKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NELLAYI P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
**5. V.R.LATHA, JUNIOR CLERK, NELLAYI-PARAPPOOKKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NELLAYI P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT.**
- **R4 BY SRI.V.G.ARUN R4 BY SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**MG**
## **WPC.No. 1030 of 2010 (C) ------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-**
**EXT.P1:COPY OF THE FEEDER CATEGORY RULES ALONG WITH PROCEEDINGS NO.CRP.1176/02(1)/K/DIS.DATED 22.11.2002. EXT.P2:COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.04.2005 ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS. EXT.P3:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.01.2006. EXT.P4:COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.6.2004. EXT.P5:COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C.R.P.2898/2006/K.DIS.DATED 12.2.2007. EXT.P6:COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.4936/C/2007 DATED 12.02.2007. EXT.P7:COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.384/2009/CO-OP. DATED 17.7.2009.**
## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-NIL**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**PA TO JUDGE**
**MG**
## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.**
-------------------------------------WP (C) No.1030 of 2010 --------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 2012
## JUDGMENT
The Managing Committee of a co-operative society represented by its President has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ext.P5 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ext.P7 Government order. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
2. The fourth respondent entered service as Peon in the Nellayi- Parapookkara Service Co-operative Bank on 1.2.2001. He did not then possess the educational qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation. The fifth respondent herein entered service as Attender on 19.2.2003. At that point of time besides a pass in the SSLC Examination she also possessed the educational qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation. Since the fourth respondent who was admittedly senior in service did not possess the educational qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation, he was sent for training. He completed the training and
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010
-2-
appeared for the examination in April 2004. The results were published on 26.10.2005 and Ext.P2 certificate was issued to the effect that the fourth respondent has passed the Junior Diploma in Co-operation. When the fourth respondent was undergoing training, a vacancy of Junior Clerk arose in the bank. Since the fifth respondent possessed the educational qualifications, the Managing Committee resolved to promote her and she was promoted as Junior Clerk by order dated 1.4.2004. On the same day the fourth respondent rejoined duty in the bank after undergoing the course. Later, he was also promoted as Junior Clerk with effect from 1.10.2005.
3. Shortly thereafter, the fourth respondent filed Ext.P3 representation before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thrissur wherein he contended that as per the feeder category rules (Ext.P2) for being considered eligible for promotion as Junior Clerk, a Peon or an Attender should have a minimum service of three years besides the educational qualifications and therefore the promotion given to the fifth respondent on 1.4.2004 before she completed three years of service, is illegal. It appears that the promotion given to the fifth
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010 -3respondent was questioned by Sri.M.P.Jose who had filed a representation dated 28.4.2004 before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In that representation also the same contention was raised. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Mukundapuram thereupon sent Ext.P4 letter dated 7.6.2004 to the Secretary of the bank whereby he directed the bank to cancel the promotion given to the fifth respondent. It appears that no action was taken on the said direction. However later, by Ext.P5 order passed on 12.2.2007, after receipt of Ext.P3 representation, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General), Thrissur directed that the fourth respondent be promoted with effect from 1.10.2005 and the fifth respondent be promoted with effect from 19.2.2006 to the category of Junior Clerk. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies held that the fifth respondent became eligible to be promoted only when she completed three years of service as Attender. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the employer bank filed an appeal before the State Government. The fifth respondent did not chose to challenge Ext.P5 separately. The bank as well as respondents 4 and 5 were heard and by Ext.P7 order passed on
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010 -4-
17.7.2009, the Government upheld Ext.P6. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P4, P5 and P7 orders.
4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction or authority to interfere in a service dispute and that if the fourth respondent had a grievance that he was superseded and the fifth respondent was illegally promoted or that the promotion given to the fifth respondent is illegal, he ought to have moved the Cooperative Arbitration Court seeking redressal of his grievances or raised an industrial dispute. As regards Ext.P4, it is contended that the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies also does not have jurisdiction to interfere in a service dispute on a complaint filed by a stranger to the society and that order is also liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction.
5. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the impugned orders. It is contended that when the fifth respondent was promoted on 1.4.2004 she did not possess the experience qualification of three years stipulated in the feeder category rules and in rule 185 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore the promotion given to the fourth
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010
-5-
respondent was not in order. It is stated that both respondents 4 and 5 were not qualified on 1.4.2004, when the vacancy arose and the vacancy could have been filled up only when the senior among the two, namely, the fourth respondent, acquired the education qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation and also completed three years of service. The fourth respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit justifying the impugned orders. It is contended that the result of the examination held in April 2004 was published in the year 2004 itself and therefore he ought to have been promoted in the place of the fifth respondent.
6. I heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. Though the fifth respondent has been served she has not chosen to enter appearance or file a counter affidavit. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to sub-section (2) of section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act that the dispute raised by the fourth respondent in Ext.P3 representation was a
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010 -6-
dispute in connection with the employment of respondents 4 and 5 in a co-operative society and therefore, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Government could not have interfered in the said dispute. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that if at all anyone can be said to be aggrieved by the impugned orders it is the fifth respondent and as the fifth respondent has chosen to challenge Ext.P5 order in appeal before the Government or Exts. P4 and P7 orders in this Court, the challenge to the impugned orders at the instance of the employer bank on the ground of exclusion of jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. It is not in dispute that as per the feeder category rules, besides a pass in the SSLC Examination and Junior Diploma in Co-operation, the incumbent aspiring for promotion as Junior Clerk should also possess a minimum of three years experience as an employee of the bank. The fifth respondent entered service in the bank only on 19.2.2003. She completed three years of service only on 19.2.2006. Therefore even if she was otherwise qualified, she
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010
-7-
could not have been promoted as Junior Clerk before 19.2.2006 since she did not possess the requisite experience qualification. The promotion given to the fifth respondent was therefore not in
order. Since the fourth respondent did not possess the educational qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation, he could not have also been promoted to the vacancy of Junior Clerk which arose on 1.4.2004. He became eligible to be promoted only when he passed the examination in August 2004. Though none was qualified on the date of occurrence of the vacancy the fourth respondent became eligible to be promoted on his acquiring the educational qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation in August 2004. The fifth respondent on the other hand acquired the experience qualification only on 19.2.2006. In the light of these admitted facts the decision taken by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Ext.P5 cannot be said to be illegal. If that be so, I find no reason why at the instance of the employer and in the absence of a challenge to that order by the concerned employee namely the fifth respondent, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 should interfere with that order on the short ground that being a dispute in connection with the
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010
-8-
employment of officers and servants of a co-operative society, the Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute or to adjudicate upon the rights of parties. That apart, the order renders justice to the fourth respondent. If the fourth respondent had approached this Court, this Court would have on these facts granted him the reliefs granted by the Joint Registrar. On that score also, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P5. The petitioner cannot in my opinion be said to be a person aggrieved by the impugned orders.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the observations of a learned single Judge of this Court in **Chandran vs. State of Kerala 1994 (1) KLT Short Notes 26** that in extra ordinary circumstances a society can effect appointments by promotion without considering the seniority in the feeder category rules. No extra ordinary circumstance was pleaded or proved before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Even in Ext.P6 appeal, apart from stating that it was absolutely necessary to fill up the post of Junior Clerk, no extra ordinary circumstance was set out as a reason to promote the fifth respondent though she did not possess the
WP(C)No. 1030 of 2010
-9-
experience qualification. That apart, the date on which the fifth respondent was promoted is also not set out. It is evident from Ext.R4(b) provisional certificate that the fourth respondent became qualified at least by August 2004. Even in the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge had held that once the feeder category rules have been approved and they have come into force, all appointments or promotions can be effected only in accordance with the feeder category rules and therefore the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies could not have issued a direction contrary to the feeder category rules. I therefore find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that extra ordinary circumstances existed warranting the out of turn promotion of the fifth respondent.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
**Sd/P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.**
Rkc
//true copy//
PA to Judge
