W.A. Nos. 2311 of 2018 & 2474 of 2018
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- R. Narayana Pisharadi
- Judgment Date
- 2019-01-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The impugned judgment is set aside and the writ appeals filed by the Bank as well as a claimant to the post of Deputy General Manager in the Bank are allowed thereby dismissing the writ petition.
- Final Disposition
- Writ appeals allowed; writ petitions dismissed; no costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Vasudevan Unni P.S., Deputy General Manager-in-Charge, Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Kollam
- The Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, Head Office, Kollam-691001
Respondents
- T. L. Parthasarathi, Senior Manager/Recovery Superintendent, Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Kollam 691001
- The Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, Head Office, Chinnakkada, Kollam 691001
- Kerala Public Service Commission, represented by its Secretary, PSC Office, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram 695004
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. B.S. Swathy Kumar
- • Sri. Anitha Ravindran
- • Sri. Harisankar N. Unni
- • Sri. P.C. Sasidharan (for Kollam DCB)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Dr. K.P. SatheesAN (Sr.)
- • Sri. P. Mohandas
- • Sri. P.C. Sasidharan (SC for PSC)
- • Sri. K. Sudhinkumar
- • Sri. Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad
- • Sri. Mohandas (ERNAKULAM)
- • Sri. Sabu Pullan
- • Sri S.K. Adhithyan
- • Sri S. Vibheeshanan
Case Synopsis & Summary
The present consolidated appeals challenge the appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager (DGM) of the Kollam District Co‑operative Bank Ltd. (the Bank). The PSC conducted direct recruitment in 2011, publishing a ranked list valid for 4½ years. The first respondent stood at Rank 3 but the list expired before the vacancy was reported to PSC in 2016, and no appointment could be made from that list. The Bank promoted the second vacancy and direct recruitment for the first and third vacancies, with the fourth vacancy expected to be filled by promotion. The Bank, relying on Rule 185(3) and Rule 187, argued that vacancy processing and open/direct quotas, with 50% quota reserved for member societies under Rule 80(3A) of the Act, should govern appointment. The single Judge had directed out‑of‑turn appointment of the first respondent, which the Bank and the claimant to the post challenged. The Division Bench, citing Vimala Kumari v. State (Full Bench) and the reservation principles under the Rules, held that the first respondent’s appointment out of turn was not permissible and that vacancies must be filled per the established rules and quotas, with the 4th vacancy by promotion and the turn in open recruitment at the 17th position. The appeals are allowed and the writ petition(s) dismissed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Out-of-turn appointment doctrine
- Reservation principles for direct recruitment under 80(3A) of the Co-operative Societies Act
- Allocation of vacancies between open quota and member societies quota (alternation)
- 50% reservation for member societies (Rule 187)
- Full Bench Vimala Kumari v. State (1994) 2 KLT 47 (cited as binding on proper interpretation of recruitment rules)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contend that vacancy fill‑ups must strictly follow the rules: 1) direct recruitment and equal promotion quotas between direct recruitment and promotions; 2) 50% of vacancies reserved to member societies; 3) open quota vacancies must be reported timely to PSC; and 4) turn of direct recruitment should be observed, with out‑of‑turn appointments not permissible, especially when vacancies were reported late. They rely on Rule 185(3), Rule 187, and Section 80(3A) of the Act, as well as the reservation framework under Rules 14–17 of the 1958 Rules, and Vimala Kumari to argue the need for orderly, rule‑based appointment and non‑preference to belated claims.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents maintain that vacancies must be filled according to the statutory framework: open quota vs member societies quota with alternation, reporting of vacancies to PSC, and adherence to the ratio of direct recruitment to promotions (1:1). They argue that the single Judge erred in directing out‑of‑turn appointment and that proper prescription of all quotas, including 50% reserved for member societies, should apply, with the PSC advised to give directions where vacancies are reported on time.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vimala Kumari v. State | 1994(2) KLT 47 | Positive | Full Bench decision relied upon to emphasize proper application of recruitment/reservation rules; used to counter the single Judge’s out‑of‑turn appointment direction. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 W.A. Nos. 2311 of 2018 & 2474 of 2018 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.