Rachith M. Prabhu v. The Convener Recruitment Committee, Ernakulam Regional Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (Milma) and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945** **WA NO.2017 OF 2022 JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4328/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 9.6.2022** **-----------------** ## **- APPELLANT/PETITIONER :** RACHITH.M.PRABHU, S/O.K.MURALEEDHARA PRABHU, EDAKKATTIL HOUSE, AZAD ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 101 BY ADVS. BHARATH MOHAN SHERYL ELIZABATH SEBASTIAN ## **- RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** 1 THE CONVENOR RECRUITMENT COMMITEE, ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD.(MILMA), EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN – 682 024. 2 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 004 3 BOCKINO T.ASHOK, THEVERKATTIL HOUSE, KIZHUMURI P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 686 634 4 MIDHUN.P., PATTATH HOUSE, P.O.PERINCHERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 306 5 NEERAJ M. NAIR, PRANAV ERUMBAPULLY H, KOLATHARA P.O., CALICUT, PIN – 673 655 6 NIDHEESH.P., SYAMALA VILASOM, VAZHAMUTTOM EAST, P.O. MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689 646 WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 2 :- 7 ARUNKUMAR N.D., NANDANAM, THAYEZHUTHU LANE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 509 ADDL.8 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001 ADDL.9 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DAIRY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 033 ADDL.10 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 3RD FLOOR, ANNEX II, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001 ADDL.11 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001 ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8 TO 11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.2.2024 IN I.A.No.2/2023. BY ADVS. LATHA ANAND AJI V.DEV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV(K/000617/2017) S.SAJEEVAN(S-71) SRI.S.MANU, DSGI SRI.SAIGY JACOB PALATTY, SR.GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON 19.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO.2017 OF 2022 ## -: 3 :- ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 19th day of February, 2024** ## **Anu Sivaraman, J.** This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the Writ Petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the respondents to consider the Apprenticeship of the petitioner as experience for the purpose of employment and to allow the petitioner to take part in the selection process and appear for the interview before finalizing the selection process. The learned Single Judge found that the selection was for the post of Technical Superintendent (Engineering) under the Milma and Ext.P5 notification specifically provided that the qualification shall be Diploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics/ Refrigeration or Diploma in Dairy Engineering. Additionally, minimum two years of experience in the above field was also an essential qualification. The petitioner contended that he had the necessary experience relying on Exts.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c) certificates issued by MazeArc Engineering (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., Eloor North, Udyogamandal, M/s.JNBS HR Solutions and the Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd, Ernakulam respectively. WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 4 :- 3. The 1[st] respondent had filed a statement specifically stating that though Exts.P10(a) and P10(b) certificates which showed work experience as trainee and Apprentice trainee were in the correct format and were liable to be accepted, Ext.P10(c) certificate from the Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. specifically showed the petitioner's experience only as graduate apprentice (Mechanical Engineering) and that the said certificate could not be accepted. It was, therefore, contended that the appellant could prove only 14 months of experience which fell short of the required 24 months of experience as required under the notification. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.P11 Government Order provided that one year practical training undergone by graduate technicians or vocational apprentices in different industries/establishments is to be treated as one year experience for the purpose of employment under Central/State Government establishments. Reliance was also placed on Ext.P12 communication of the Ministry of Human Resource Development to all State Governments including Union Territory Administrations to consider recognition of one year apprenticeship training of Graduate Technician and WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 5 :- Technician (Vocational) apprentices as experience for employment under Central/State establishments. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Milma which is admittedly an Apex Co-operative Society which is governed substantially by the State Government should have accepted the Apprenticeship Certificate produced by the appellant as Ext.P10(c) also as experience. It is further contended that the act of the respondent in having accepted Exts.P10(a) and P10(b) but not Ext.P10(c) was completely arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be interfered with. 5. The learned Single Judge has considered the contentions raised by the appellant and has found that the Milma being only a Co-operative Society which is registered and functioning under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules, cannot be said to be a State Government Organisation. It was found that an apprenticeship undergone by a person cannot be equated with experience in an industry and that as such, the appellant cannot be held to be a person who is qualified under the provisions of Ext.P5 notification. WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 6 :- 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to our notice a judgment of a larger Bench of this Court in **Association of Milma Officers** v. **State of Kerala** [2015 (1) KHC 779 : 2015 (1) KLT 849] and contended that this Court had specifically held that the Milma which is a Co-operative Society cannot be said to be a State or its instrumentality under Article12 of the Constitution of India and that writ petitions against Cooperative Societies are maintainable when the action complained in the writ petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Co-operative Society or where the action of the Co-operative Society falls in the public domain or amounts to a breach of public duty and not otherwise. Further, reliance is also placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in **Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Produces Union Ltd. and ors.** v. **Aswathy V.A. and ors.** [MANU/KE/2478/ 2022] to contend that the qualifications for a post are to be decided by the employer and the courts cannot lay down conditions of eligibility or dwell into the issue with regard to desirable qualification being at par with the essential eligibility conditions. Further a decision of the Apex Court in **The Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors.** v. **Sandeep Shriram Warade and Ors.** [(2019) 6 SCC 362] WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 7 :- is also referred to, to contend that where the notification is clear and unambiguous, the courts would not be justified in going into the question of equivalency of qualifications or in second guessing the employer as regards the sufficiency of the qualification of the employee concerned. 7. In the instant case, we find that the experience required, going by Ext.P5 notification, was for a duration of two years. The appellant relied on three certificates to contend that he had the required experience. The first two certificates would show that he had worked as trainee in the concerned institutions for a period of 14 months. However, the third certificate, that is, Ext.P10(c) specifically states that he was functioning as a graduate apprentice under the Travancore Cochin Chemicals. In view of the fact that Ext.P11 Government Order is not directly applicable to the Milma, which is an Apex Co-operative Society, there was no provision requiring the Milma to accept Ext.P10(c) certificate obtained by the appellant as sufficient to decide the question of qualification as provided in Ext.P4. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the reliefs as sought for could not have been granted cannot be faulted. WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 8 :- In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in this intra court appeal. The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** **Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR JUDGE** Jvt/12.2.2024 WA NO.2017 OF 2022 -: 9 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2017/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES :- Annexure A1 COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 09.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRAINING RESPONDENT ANNEXURES :- Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES OF THE ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION