W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases; W.A.No.2525/2019 & Conn. Cases; W.A.No.2534/2019; W.A.No.2538/2019; W.A.No.707/2020 (Common Judgment)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WA NO. 2491 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2019 IN WP(C)21914/2019 OF** **HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 & 5:** - **1 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADVS.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 6 TO 8:** - **1 ABDUL SHUKUR NAHA,AGED 52 YEARS CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT SAFA, CHUNGAM,FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT - 673 632.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 2 - **2 SINDHU R. NAIR,CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK INSPECTION WING, THANA, KANNUR,HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT FLAT NO.1 AB, ALPHA VIOLET, SREE GOKULAM HARMONIA, KANGARAPADY, KOCHI - 682 021.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **4 THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **5 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN DPI, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** - **6 SMT.APARNA PRATAP,GENERAL MANAGER/MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **7 K.V. RAJANI,ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,HEAD OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,** - **8 S.KALYANAKRISHNAN,REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MASER LANE, THRISSUR - 680 684.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** - **SRI.K.S.ANIL SR.GP.SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R3 TO R5** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2021, ALONG WITH WA.2525/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WA NO. 2525 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2019 IN WP(C) 21914/2019 OF** **HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:** **SMT.APARNA PRATHAP, GENERAL MANAGER/MANAGING DIRECTOR IN-CHARGE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.** **BY ADVS.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY N.SANTHA V.VARGHESE PETER JOSE CHRISTO S.A.ANAND K.N.REMYA L.ANNAPOORNA VISHNU V.K. ABHIRAMI K. UDA** Y ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 AND 7 & 8:** **1 ABDUL SHUKUR NAHA, AGED 52 YEARS, CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT SAFA, CHUNGAM, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT - 673 632.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 4 - **2 SINDHU R.NAIR,CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK INSPECTION WING, THANA, KANNUR, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT FLAT NO.1 AB, ALPHA VIOLET, SREE GOKULAM HARMONIA, KANGARAPADY, KOCHI - 682 021.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** - **4 THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.** - **5 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** - **6 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **7 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUTE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **8 K.V.RAJANI,ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **9 S.KALLYANAKRISHNAN,REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MASAR LANE, THRISSUR - 680 684.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 5 **BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA SRI.K.S.ANIL SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.HELEN P.A** . **SR.GP.SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R3 TO R5** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2021, ALONG WITH WA.2491/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 6 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WA NO. 2534 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6.12.2019 IN WP(C) 24131/2019** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6:** - **1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695 001.** - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **3 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT.** **BY ADVS.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 7 ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 7 TO 9:** - **1 SASIDHARAN G.B.,AGED 55 YEARS, REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN THIRUMULPAD,RESIDING AT SREESAILAM, PRAYIKARA PALACE, MAVELIKKARA.** - **2 ELDO P.M,AGED 57 YEARS REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, RESIDING AT PAPPARIL HOUSE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O, KOLENCHERY-682 311.** - **3 THULASIDAS D,DEPUTY MANAGER, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, S/O. DIVAKARAN, MURIMALAKIZHAKETHIL, PUTHIYAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA-690 101** - **4 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001** - **5 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **6 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, CORPORATE OFFICE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.** - **7 ANIL KUMAR M.P, REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 020** - **8 ELIZABATH GEORGE,AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 8 **9 M. RAJAN,REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNANNETH BUILDING, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SMT.N.R.REESHA SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.HELEN P.A. SR.G.P.SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R4 TO R6** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2021, ALONG WITH WA.2491/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 9 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WA NO. 2538 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2019 IN WP(C) 21914/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION:** - **1 ABDUL SHUKUR NAHA, AGED 52 YEARS CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM,HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT SAFA, CHUNGAM, FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT-673 632.** - **2 SINDHU R NAIR,CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (NORTH ZONE)KSCARD BANK INSPECTION WING, THANA, KANNUR, HAVING PERMANENT, RESIDENCE AT FLAT NO 1AB, ALPHA VIOLET,SREE GOKULAM HARMONIA, KANGARAPADY, KOCHI682 021, NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK (KSCARD)ITM, KOCHI.** **BY ADVS.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.S.ANIL SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.HELEN P.A.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 10 ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** **2 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN DPI, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.** - **4 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **6 SMT.APARNA PRATHAP, GENERAL MANAGER/ MANAGING DIRECTOR INCHARGE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **7 K.V.RAJANI,** **ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 11 **8 S.KALYANAKRISHNAN, REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MASAR LANE, THRISSUR-680 684.** **BY ADVS.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SMT.N.R.REESHA SMT.T.S.LIKHITHA R1 TO R3 BY SR.G.P.SMT.K.R.DEEPA** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2021, ALONG WITH WA.2491/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 12 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WA NO. 707 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2019 IN WP(C) 21914/2019 OF** **HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT:** **K.V.RAJANI, AGED 56 YEARS REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR.** **BY ADVS.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.ARJUN SATHISH KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 & 8:** **1 ABDUL SHUKUR NAHA, AGED 52 YEARS, CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM,HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT SAFA, CHUNGAM,FAROOK COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT-673 632.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 13 - **2 SINDHU R NAIR, ,** **CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), INSPECTION WING, KSCARD BANK INSPECTION WING, THANA, KANNUR, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT FLAT NO 1 AB , ALPHA VIOLET, SREE GOKULAM HARMONIA, KANGARAPADY, KOCHI-682 021.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **4 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **5 THE REGISTRAR OC CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN DPI, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.** - **6 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF , KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **7 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,** **KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **8 SMT.APARNA PRATHAP,** **GENERAL MANAGER/MANAGING DIRECTOR INCHARGE, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, HEAD OFFICE, STATUE JUNCTION, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 14 **9 S.KALYANAKRISHNAN, REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. HEAD OFFICE, MASAR LANE, THRISSUR-680 684.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE SRI.K.S.ANIL SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.HELEN P.A. R3 TO R5 BY SR.GP.SMT.K.R.DEEPA** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.06.2021, ALONG WITH WA.2491/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 15 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** Common judgment dated 6.12.2019 in W.P.(C)Nos.21914 and 24131 of 2019 is under challenge in the captioned appeals. W.A.No.2534 of 2019 is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24131 of 2019 and all the other appeals are directed against the judgment in W.P(C)No.21914 of 2019. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in W.P. (C) No.21914 of 2019 filed W.A.No.2491 of 2019 and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 therein filed W.A.Nos.2525 of 2019 and 707 of 2020 respectively. W.A.No.2538 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.21914 of 2019. W.A.No.2534 of 2019 is by the respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C)No.24131 of 2019. The appellants in W.A.No.2538 of 2019, who are Chief Inspecting Officers in the Administrative Officer Cadre of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, for short 'the Bank', filed W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 on being aggrieved by their reversion to the post of Regional Manager. W.P. (C)No.24131 of 2019 was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.A.No.2534 of 2019. Earlier, respondents 1 and 2 in the said writ appeal were, promoted as Regional Managers and 3rd respondent W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 16 therein was promoted as Deputy Manager. In W.P.(C)No.24131 of 2019 respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.A.No.2534/2019 challenged their reversion to the post of Deputy Manager and the 3rd respondent challenged his reversion to the post of Assistant Manager. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the writ petitions as per the common judgment dated 6.12.2019 on the following lines:- - “i. Impugned proceedings reverting the petitioners are set aside. - ii. Smt.Aparna Prathap is restrained from discharging duties as that of Managing Director or General Manager. - Iii. The Deputy General Manager or senior-most qualified officer in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Regional Manager alone shall be given the additional charge of Managing Director or General Manager if the office as above are vacant. Smt.Aparna Prathap can continue in the post of Administrative Officer subject to her qualifying in the next exam in terms of Rule 185(6) of the K.C.S. Rules and subject to observation at para.16. No costs. " It is aggrieved by the said common judgment in the aforesaid manner that the captioned appeals have been filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereafter in these appeals the parties are referred to in accordance with their rank and status in the writ petitions and the documents are referred to in the order they are set forth in the writ petitions, unless otherwise specifically W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 17 mentioned. The above mentioned writ petitions from which the captioned appeals arose were filed raising various contentions and allegations. The learned Single Judge noted the following factual background for the writ petitions. Earlier, Smt.Aparna Prathap, who was the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 was promoted to the post of General Manager of the Bank while working as Administrative Officer. The said promotion was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 by filing W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2018 and it culminated in Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P1 is, in fact, a common judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.36878 of 2018 filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019, 38679 of 2017 filed by the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 and 14792 of 2017. In W.P.(C)No.38679 of 2017 the 6[th] respondent prayed to interdict the attempt of the statutory authorities to revert her from the post of General Manager and the petitioners in the other two writ petitions questioned the appointment of the said 6[th] respondent as the General Manager of the Bank. Taking note of the mandate of Rule 185(4)(i) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969, for short 'the KCS Rules', stipulating 'Direct Recruitment' as the method of appointment to the post of General Manager in the Kerala State Co-operative Bank and the District W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 18 Co-operative Banks, this Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment, marked as such in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019, directed the Managing Committee of the Bank, the 4[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019, to revert her from the post of General Manager to the post which she is legally entitled to hold. However, the contentions of the petitioners in W.P. (C)Nos.36878 of 2018 and 14792 of 2017 relating to the post to which she must be accommodated after her reversion was left open. Needless to say W.P.(C)No.38679 of 2017 filed by the 6[th] respondent was dismissed. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 was that they were reverted by the said Smt.Aparna Prathap from the post of Regional Manager to the post of Chief Inspecting Officer in the Administrative Officer cadre only as a counter blast to their action in challenging her promotion to the post of General Manager and causing her reversion by filing W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2018. The petitioners in W.P(C)No.21914 of 2019 also raised challenge, in regard to the continuation of the 6[th] respondent in the post of Administrative Officer on the ground of being unqualified for the said posts and contended that despite the order for her reversion she is continuing to exercise her duties as that of General Manager. They further contended that the 7[th] respondent (sic., the 6th respondent) herself, in an arbitrary and W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 19 whimsical manner passed Ext.P2 order dated 29.07.2019 immediately after the judgment in W.A.No.1706 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019 though the direction in the judgment in Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 was to the Managing Committee viz., the 4[th] respondent therein. It is considering such contentions and also the rival contentions raised in resistance that the impugned common judgment in the captioned appeals was passed by the learned Judge in the aforementioned manner. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in all the appeals. 4. It is also relevant to note an admitted position that W.A.No.1706/2019 filed by the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.21914 of 2019 against the judgment in W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2019 directing her reversion from the post of General Manager of the Bank was dismissed. The learned Counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent would also submit that the 6[th] respondent is not raising any contention regarding her reversion from the post of General Manager and further that it was not at all a matter in issue either in the writ petitions or in the captioned appeals. It appears to be an acceptable submission. But then, the question is whether the 6[th] respondent is still holding the charge of W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 20 General Manager despite her reversion from the post. We will consider the said question later. The learned Counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent would further contend that though arguments were advanced against the continuation of the said respondent in the post of Administrative Officer by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 the fact is that despite the production of the order whereby she was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer as early as on 6.02.2012 as Ext.P13 in the writ petition they had not chosen to challenge the same. 5. From the pleadings in W.P.(C)Nos.21914 and 24131, of 2019 and the rival pleadings as also the materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that the right or otherwise of the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 the appellant in W.A.2525 of 2019 to continue in the post of General Manager is not at all a matter to be looked into in these proceedings as the question of her right to continue as General Manager was already decided and attained finality with the dismissal of W.A.No.1706 of 2019 filed by the 6[th] respondent. She was put in charge as Managing Director as per Ext.R4(a) dated 30.3.2019 as she was then the General Manager-in-charge, as can be seen from Ext.R4(a). It is therefore, a matter to be considered whether after reverting the 6[th] W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 21 respondent from the post of General Manager whether she is put back in charge of the said post. Therefore, the challenge against all the issues decided in the impugned common judgment dated 6.12.2019 calls for consideration in these appeals. 6. The impugned common judgment dated 6.12.2019 would reveal that even after setting aside the impugned proceedings reverting the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.21914 and 24131, of 2019 and refraining the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 from discharging duties of Managing Director or General Manager she was permitted thereunder to continue in the post of Administrative Officer subject to her qualifying in the next exam in terms of Rule 185(6) of the K.C.S Rules and subject to observation at para.16. What was observed in paragraph 16 of the impugned common judgment as conditions for her continuance in the post of Administrative Officer was as follows:- "If there are no vacancies to accommodate qualified hands as an Administrative Officer, necessarily, Smt. Aparna Prathap shall be reverted to the post of Regional Manager. It is made clear that only after accommodating qualified hands, Smt. Aparna Prathap can be retained in any higher post. Smt. Aparna Prathap cannot discharge her duties as the Managing Director or General Manager as she is not a qualified person to hold the post of Administrative Officer. If new Managing Director has not assumed office the Government shall make arrangements - to appoint the senior most officer in the cadre to W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 22 discharge the duties of the Managing Director. Since Smt.Aparna Prathap is also not qualified to hold the office of the Administrative Officer, she cannot also discharge the duties of General Manager. The Deputy General - Manager or senior most qualified officers in the administrative cadre/ Regional Manager alone shall discharge the duties of General Manager." (Underline supplied) 7. The afore-extracted paragraph 16 of the impugned common judgment would reveal that the observation in the said operative portion of the judgment regarding continuance of the 6[th] respondent in the post of Administrative Officer was made subject to twin conditions; firstly, that in order to continue she should qualify in the examination in terms of Rule 185(6) of the K.C.S Rules and secondly, to the satisfaction of the aforementioned conditions made in paragraph 16 of the said judgment. The above extracted paragraph 16 would also reveal that the learned Single Judge had categorically arrived at the conclusion therein that the 6[th] respondent is not a qualified person to hold the post of Administrative Officer. That apart, in the said paragraph it was specifically directed that if there are no vacancies to accommodate qualified hands as Administrative Officers, necessarily, the 6[th] respondent shall be reverted to the post of Regional Manager. Further, it was made clear therein that only after accommodating the qualified hands that she could be retained in any W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 23 higher post. Thus, going by the impugned judgment the chance for continuance of the 6[th] respondent in the post of Administrative Officer is subject to the cumulative satisfaction of all the aforesaid conditions. 8. We will now, consider the contentions of the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 raised to mount challenge the above mentioned conclusions, observations and directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. In W.A.No.2525 of 2019 she raised various contentions for the said purpose. She would contend that both the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 and herself had obtained promotion as Administrative Officers by virtue of the exemption from passing the qualifying examination prescribed under Rule 185(6) of the Rules. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has committed error of law in interpreting Exts.R4(m) to R4(o) exemption orders issued by the Government under Rule 181 of the KCS Rules. It is the further contention that the learned Single Judge has also erred in holding that only temporary promotions were permissible under those exemption orders and that there was no exemption for applicability of the provisions under Rule 185 of the KCS Rules and hence, the promotees on the strength of those orders were bound to acquire necessary qualifications at the first opportunity when W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 24 examinations are conducted by the Board immediately after the promotion. In short, according to the 6[th] respondent/the appellant in W.A.No.2525/2019 the exemption under those orders was unconditional. The further contention advanced is that the exemption granted under those Government Orders was absolute. The said contention was fully endorsed by respondents 6 and 7 in the appeal who are the appellants in W.A.No.2491 of 2019. Virtually, respondents 3 to 5 in the appeal who are also parties in the other appeals would also support the said contention. We are of the considered view that to look into the correctness of the conclusions of the learned Single Judge on those points and the tenability of Smt.Aparna Prathap, the appellant in W.A.No.2525/2019 and the aforesaid respondents it is only appropriate to refer to Exts.R4(m) to R4(o) orders and Rules 181 and 185 of the K.C.S Rules. Rule 181 of the K.C.S Rules reads thus:- “ **181. Power to exempt from Rules** - The State Government may, by general or special order and subject to such conditions as they deem fit, exempt any registered society or class of such societies from any of the provisions of these rules or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such society or class of societies with such modifications as may be specified in the order.” Rule 185, in so far as it is relevant, reads thus: **“185:- Promotion.-** (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2), (3) and (4), appointments to the categories W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 25 of posts in a society, other than those mentioned in subrules (2), (3) and (4), shall be made by promotion, on the basis of seniority in the feeder category. The feeder categories for this purpose shall be specified by the society by framing suitable regulations, with the approval of the Registrar. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (5) Selection of candidates to the posts to be filled up by promotion under sub-rule (2) shall be made from the feeder category in accordance with merit and ability to be assessed through a qualifying examination. Provided that all candidates, irrespective of the fact whether their probation has been declared or not, in the feeder category, shall be eligible to appear for the qualifying examination, even if they do not possess the prescribed minimum educational qualifications for the promotion post: Provided further that 1/2 mark for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 10 marks, shall be added on to the marks secured by each candidate in the qualifying examination, as grace marks: Provided also that appointment to 10% of vacancies to be filled up by promotion under sub-rule (2), shall be made, in accordance with seniority in the feeder category, from among those who have attained the age of 52 years, without insisting on merit and ability, to be assessed through qualifying examination. (6) Selection of candidates to the posts to be filled up by promotion under sub-rule (3) and to all the higher posts, if any, in between to the posts mentioned under sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) shall be made from among those who have passed the qualifying examination in accordance with the seniority in the feeder category.” Further, going by sub-rule (8) of Rule 185 it shall be competent for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to relax the qualification, other than basic qualification and pass in the competitive examination specified in W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 26 sub-rule (5), of an employee, for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases, on the request of a society by passing a resolution subject to the conditions specified thereunder. 9. Exts.R4(m) to R4(o) are issued by the Government intending to achieve the avowed purpose, which is common in all those orders, identified by taking into account various facts such as; statutory requirement under Rules 185(5) and (6) of the K.C.S Rules to pass the qualifying examination for promotion to the posts covered by the subrules(2) and (3) of Rule 185, the failure on the part of the Co-operative Examination Board which was entrusted to conduct examinations prescribed under the aforesaid sub-rules of Rule 185, recommendation of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to exempt the societies from the operation of sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 185 of the KCS Rules up to a particular date mentioned or till the date of publication of result after conducting the qualifying examination, whichever is earlier, the non-feasibility of withholding of promotion to higher posts of eligible incumbents and the fact that non-availability of persons in higher posts would affect the day to day affairs of societies. After taking into account - all such aspects Government in all the aforesaid orders exempted all co - operative societies under the control of the Registrar of Co operative W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 27 Societies or deemed to be registered under the KCS Act from the - operation of sub rules (5) and (6) of Rule 185 of K.C.S Rules for a period from the date specifically mentioned in Exts.R4(m) to (o) or till the date of publication of result after conducting the qualifying examination whichever is earlier. Had it been for the purpose of granting absolute exemption for the societies why the exemption was specifically ordered to be only up to the period specifically mentioned in those exemption orders or till the date of publication of result after conducting the qualifying examination, whichever is earlier? It is the contention of the 6th respondent, the appellant in W.A.No.2525 of 2019 that promotees during the period of exemption are not required to acquire the prescribed qualification by virtue of the exemption granted to the societies from the operation of sub-rules (5) and (6) of rule 185 by invoking the power under rule 181 of K.C.S Rules. We find difficult to uphold the said contention for more than one reason. 10. A perusal of Ext.P3, marked as such in W.P.(C)No. 21914 of 2019, would reveal that the position in similar orders of exemption from the prescribed competitive examinations, was virtually clarified thereunder. As per the same, given in reply to a representation, it was made clear that the demand for doing away with W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 28 the prescription for passing the examination prescribed under Rule 185 of the K.C.S Rules could not be recognised. That apart, it was made clear thereunder that because of the non-conduct of prescribed examination till then those who are in the feeder categories would be eligible to get provisional promotion. However, such provisional promotees would lose the promotion in case of failure to pass the same at the first opportunity to pass the examination. The respondents would even question the existence of such an order or clarification. But then, it is to be noted, even after the issuance of Exts.R4(m) and (n) in the year 2011 when petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 and the party respondents viz., the appellants in W.A.Nos.2525/2019 and 2538/2019 and some other parties were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer/Regional Manager as per Ext.P13 dated 6.02.2012 it was ordered only provisionally and subject to the disposal of one ARC then pending before Arbitration Court and subject to the contents of Government letter No.6383/B2/2001 dated 24.10.2001, which is Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.21914 of 2019 as also on condition that the promotees shall not plead equities at the time of final disposal of O.Ps/Petitions then pending before this Court, Arbitration Court and with Government/Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Obviously, it was also W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 29 made clear therein that the promotions thus effected would not by itself render any right to the promotees. No order or circular giving contraclarification than Ext.P3 dated 24.10.2001 on such exemption from qualification prescribed under Rule 185 is brought to our attention. In view of the specific conditions in Ext.P13 order of promotion dated 6.02.2012 the contention of the 6th respondent, the appellant in W.A.No.2525 of 2019 and similarly situated parties, who also endorsed the contention of the said appellant, that factum of placing the promotees under the said order of probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years from the date of joining in the promoted post, indicative of the nature of promotion effected thereunder as regular cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that in the cases on hand, what was granted is not relaxation of qualification as relates any employee of any particular Co-operative Society invoking the power under Rule 185(8) of the KCS Rules by the Registrar, but exemption to Co-operative societies from the operation of sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 185 by the Government, invoking the power under Rule 181 of the KCS Rules. Though in Exts.R4(m) to (o) the predicament of the employees otherwise eligible for promotion, but for passing of the qualifying examination was mentioned and taken into account for W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 30 issuing them the situation intended to be averted, as can be seen from the 'explanatory note' was the adverse effect on the day-to-day affairs of the Societies. The Explanatory Note reads thus:- “As such the societies could not promote the employees, to - - the posts mentioned under sub rule (2) and sub rule (3) of Rule 185 of the said Rules and it affects the day to day affairs of the society.” The 'explanatory note' appended to Exts.R4(m) and (n) would also reveal that they were issued in public interest and the exemption was ordered only for a period up to a particular date or till the date of publication of result after conducting the qualifying examination, whichever is earlier that too, as noted earlier, in public interest. Hence, if the orders are scanned with reference to Ext.P3 which is referred to in Ext.P13 order dated 6.2.2012 it cannot be said that the promotions effected, on the strength of Exts.R4(m) to (o) were not provisional, but were regular. 11. It is also relevant to note in this context that the 6[th] respondent/appellant in W.A.No.2525/2019, who claims the effect of Exts.R4(m) to (o) as absolute exemption, herself thereafter appeared for the examination prescribed under Rule 185 and now, acquired the prescribed qualification, as directed in the impugned common judgment. In this context, it is to be noted that one Sreedevi.S, who is W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 31 working as Agricultural Development Manager in the Bank has filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking leave for impleading and also filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 for getting impleaded as additional respondent No.10 in W.A.No.2525 of 2019 contending that she had acquired the prescribed qualification earlier than the appellant in W.A.No.2525 of 2019 and respondents 1 and 2 therein, who were the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.21914 of 2019. We will deal with those interlocutory applications later. We referred to those applications to indicate that despite taking up such contentions all the parties have applied and acquired or attempting to acquire the prescribed qualification under Rule 185 for promotion under the aforesaid sub-rules. In the contextual situation, it is also a question as to what is the necessity for conducting such examinations by the Co-operative Examination Board if permanent exemption is given to all the Co-operative societies from the operation of sub-rules (5)and (6) of Rule 185 of the K.C.S Rules. If it is contended that it meant for new recruits, then it is as good as contending that the exemption is for those eligible incumbents in service who could not acquire the prescribed qualification of passing the examination due to its non-conduct and not for ensuring that the day to day affairs of Cooperative societies are not effected due to the absence of persons to W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 32 mann higher posts. In other words, as relates the promotees, it was really a concession which could not confer any right to continue as a matter of course. 12. Now, we will consider the further contentions raised by the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 viz., the appellant in W.A.No.2525 of 2019. It is her contention that her promotion to the Administrative Officer as per Ext.P13 was not challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 as is evident from the prayers made in the said writ petition. It is her further contention that the learned Single Judge ought to have non-suited the petitioners in the said writ petition. The aforesaid contentions though appear to be attractive they cannot be accepted. We have already noted that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 viz., the appellants in W.A.2538 of 2019 had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36878 of 2018 against the promotion of the 6[th] respondent to the post of General Manager of the Bank while she was working as Administrative Officer. Obviously, the 6th respondent who now takes up such a contention, had also approached this Court earlier, by filing W.P. (C)No.38679 of 2017 with the prayer that the attempt of the statutory authorities to revert her from the post of General Manager of 'the Bank' W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 33 be interdicted, asserting that she is fully qualified to be appointed and to remain as the General Manager of the Bank. As per Ext.P1 common judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.36878/2018, 38679/2017 and 14792/2017, except W.P.(C)No.38679/2017 moved by the 6th respondent, the other writ petitions were disposed of and W.P.(C)No.38679/2017 was dismissed. Taking note of the mandate of Rule 185(4)(ii) of the 'K.C.S. Rules' stipulating 'Direct Recruitment' as the method of appointment to the post of General Manager in the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and the District Co-operative Banks, this Court as per the said judgment ordered to revert her from the post of General Manager to the post which she is legally entitled to hold. Further, taking note of the controversy in regard to her right to hold the post of Administrative Officer/Regional Manager raised by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36878/2018 who are the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019 and the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14792/2017 this Court then, left open the said issue. In this context it was held in Ext.P1 thus:- "6. Once I hold as above, I am also aware that there are certain corollary contentions in these writ petitions relating to the earlier promotion of Smt.Aparna Pratap as a Regional Manager and against her actions in having effected appointments to other posts in such capacity. These are not issues into which I propose to W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 34 go into detail at this point of time, since these aspects will have to be considered at the first instance by the competent statutory Authorities, if and when the parties approach them; and only thereafter can this Court be called upon to judicially scrutinize its validity." W.A.No.1706/2019 filed by the 6th respondent was dismissed by this Court. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action on the part of the learned Single Judge in entertaining W.P. (C)No.21914 of 2019 despite the existence of alternative remedy as they have approached the Court feeling aggrieved by the authorities virtually, upholding her right to continue as Administrative Officer, in view of the afore-extracted paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 judgment. That apart, the well-nigh settled position is that existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, in exercise of the discretion when a learned Single Judge entertained a writ petition and considered it on merits, in the appeal the parties cannot be non-suited on the ground that an alternative remedy was available to the writ petitioner. (See the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd.** v. **R.S.Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264]** and the decisions of this Court in **Shaji K. Joseph** v. **Viswanath (2011 (3) - KLT 513)** and in **Gandhigram Agro Based Industrial Co operative** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 35 ## **Society Ltd.** v. **Marangattuppilly Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.** **and Others (2019 (3) KHC 60)** , in which one among us (C.T.Ravikumar, J.) was a member.) 13. The next question is whether in the absence of a specific prayer in the writ petition the learned Single Judge was correct or justified in considering the right of the 6[th] respondent therein/the appellant in W.A.No.2525 of 2019 for continuing in the post of Administrative Officer. As already noticed, as per Ext.P1 common judgment in W.P.(C)No.36878/2018 (filed by the appellants in W.A.No.2538/2019), W.P.(C)No.38679/2017 filed by the appellant in W.A.No.2525/2019) and in W.P.(C)No.14792/2017, this Court directed the 4[th] respondent viz., the Managing Committee of the Bank to revert the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019/the appellant in W.A.No.2525/2019 from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold. In W.P.(C) No.21914/2019, the petitioners therein viz., the appellants in W.A.No.2538/2019 raised the following contentions against Smt.Aparna Prathap, the 6[th] respondent therein: “The judgment of the learned Single Judge had specifically directed the 4[th] Respondent to take a final call regarding the post to which the 6[th] Respondent had to be reverted. The 7[th] Respondent (sic., the 6[th] respondent) herself in an W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 36 arbitrary and Whimsical manner passed an order in her capacity as Managing Director reverting herself to the post of Administrative Officer within hours of affirmation by the Division Bench. True copy of the order passed on 29/07/2018 by the 6th Respondent reverting the 6th Respondent to the post of Administrative Officer is produced herewith and marked as **Exhibit P2.** A cursory glance at Exhibit P2 would betray the fact that the 6th Respondent had thrown to the winds, the specific directions given by this Hon'ble Court. The specific direction was to the 4th Respondent to take a final decision regarding the post to which the 6th Respondent is entitled to hold. It is respectfully submitted that the 6th Respondent is lawfully entitled to hold only the post of Deputy Manager, going by the provisions as enumerated in Rule 185 (2)(iii) and Rules 185 (5) and (6). The 6th Respondent has not passed the muster by clearing the qualifying examination for the post of Regional Manager, held for the first time in the year 2013 by Co-operative Service Examination Board (in short, CSEB hereafter). True copy of the Government Order No.6383/B2/ 2001/Co-operation dated 24.10.2001 stipulating a pass in the qualifying examination mandatory is produced herewith and marked as **Exhibit P3.** It is respectfully submitted that the 6th Respondent, in her capacity as Managing Director In charge, had in a vindictive manner reverted the Petitioners herein to the post of Regional Manager. It is respectfully submitted that there was no such direction by this Hon'ble Court to revert the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners herein are fully qualified to hold the posts which they were holding on 29.07.2019. True copy of the order reverting the 2nd Petitioner is produced herewith and marked as **Exhibit.P4.** " Thus, it is obvious that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/19 have not only challenged the action on the part of the 6[th] respondent therein in reverting herself to the post of Administrative Officer but also W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 37 contended that she is lawfully entitled to hold only the post of Deputy Manager going by the provisions enumerated in Rule 185 (2) (iii) and Rules 185 (5) & (6) besides contending that the 6[th] respondent in a vindictive manner reverted the petitioners in her capacity as Managing Director-in-charge to the post of Regional Manager. 14. In Ground (A) they have contended that as per Ext.P1 judgment it was for the Managing Committee to take a final call regarding the post to which the 6[th] respondent had to be reverted, but, in the case on hand, the 6[th] respondent had acted as a Judge in her own cause which is totally unheard of in Administrative Law. Hence, they have challenged Exts. P2 and P4 orders. In Ground (B) they have stated that they had passed the qualifying examination. In Ground (C) they have contended that the 5[th] respondent(sic., the 6[th] respondent) is not lawfully entitled to hold either the post of Administrative Officer or Regional Manager, since she had not passed the qualifying examination and further had not even participated in the qualifying examination and therefore, she could only hold the post of Deputy Manager as stipulated in Rule 185(2)(iii). 15. The aforesaid facts and Exts.P2 and P4 would reveal that the 6[th] respondent reverted herself to the post of Administrative W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 38 Officer though as per Ext.P1 judgment this Court directed only the 4[th] respondent - Managing Committee to revert her from the post of General manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold. The concept of one becoming appointing authority or disciplinary authority for himself is totally alien and absolutely unacceptable to service jurisprudence. Paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 judgment, as extracted above, would reveal that the learned Single Judge while passing Ext.P1 took note of the specific contention of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2018, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 against the 6[th] respondent's earlier promotion to the post of Regional Manager. Paragraph 6 in Ext.P1 would reveal that it was after noting the same and certain other contentions that the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.(C)Nos.36878/2018 and 14792/2017 with direction to the Managing Committee to revert her from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold. Thus, it is evident that the words “to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold” were used while directing the Managing Committee to revert Smt.Aparna Prathap from the post of General Manager with a purpose, realising and recognising the position that the 6[th] respondent cannot act as her own appointing authority and order her reversion from the post of General W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 39 Manager. It was in unambiguous terms that this Court in Ext.P1 judgment issued such a direction and therefore, there was no reason for the 6[th] respondent, who was the General Manager-in-charge to treat it as a direction to herself, in whatever capacity, to revert herself from that post to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold or in other words, to think that she herself had to decide that question, in the light of Ext.P1. The counter affidavit filed by the 6[th] respondent would reveal that virtually, her attempt was to establish that Ext.P2 order reverting her to the post of Administrative Officer and reverting the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019/the first appellant in W.A.No.2538 of 2019, was passed by her based on the decision of the President of the Bank and that was later ratified by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 13.8.2019. In other words, to establish that it was not she who had decided the question of her reversion from the post of General Manager to the post of Administrative Officer and therefore, it could not be said that she had acted as Judge on her own cause. Before considering the case of the 6[th] respondent we will refer to the case of the Managing Committee, the 4[th] respondent in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019 in the counter affidavit filed through its President. What is stated therein is that the new committee in which he holds the W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 40 office of President assumed charge on 1.7.2019 and Ext.P1 judgment dated 2.7.2019 was received at the office of the Bank only on 20.7.2019. Allegedly, the legal opinion obtained subsequently was to the effect that in case no stay is obtained in the appeal filed against Ext.P1, reversion of Smt. Aparna Prathap should be effected from the post of General Manager. Conspicuously, nothing is stated either in the counter affidavit or in any of the additional affidavits filed subsequently as to whether it obtained any specific opinion as to the post to which the 6[th] respondent is legally entitled to hold. We may hasten to add that even if such opinion was obtained it would not absolve the 4[th] respondent from taking an independent decision and pass appropriate orders on the said question in view of the specific direction under Ext.P1 judgment. Furthermore, it is stated in the counter affidavit that since the meeting of the Board of Directors was scheduled to be held only on 13.8.2019 and in the light of the fact that time limit for compliance was given in the judgment, the President of the Bank issued direction to revert the 6[th] respondent as Administrative Officer, the post which she was holding before getting promoted as General Manager. It is also stated in paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit that in order to accommodate Smt.Aparna Prathap in her original post it had become W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 41 necessary to revert Sri.Abdul Shukur Naha (the first petitioner in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019) to his original post as Regional Manager, from which he was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer consequent to the promotion of Smt.Aparna Prathap as General Manager. Now, we will revert to the contentions of the 6[th] respondentSmt.Aparna Prathap. Her further contention is that she was fully qualified when her promotion as Administrative Officer was granted on 7.02.2012. She has also stated therein that in compliance with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment she was reverted to the cadre of Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM with immediate effect and consequently she took over the charge of General Manager. We would have taken the said statement as truthful but for the following indisputable factual position obtained from the materials on record:- The statements of the 6[th] respondent- Smt.Aparna Prathap made in her counter affidavit dated 22.8.2019 and in the additional counter affidavit dated 23.10.2019 would reveal that despite the specific direction in Ext.P1 judgment dated 2.7.2019 to revert her from the post of General Manager and even after her reversion from the said post to the cadre of Administrative Officer as per Ext.P2 order she is continuing to hold the charge of General Manager. She was also holding W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 42 simultaneously the full additional charge of Managing Director. In this regard, it is to be noted that she herself had passed Ext.P2 order reverting her to the Administrative Officer cadre and reverting the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 who was working as Chief Inspecting Officer (South Zone) in the Inspection wing of the Head Office of the Bank at Thiruvananthapuram in the cadre of Administrative Officer/CIO/ Principal ITM, to the cadre of Regional Manager and posting him as Regional Manager at Regional Office Kasaragod with immediate effect, in the capacity as Managing Directorin-charge. That apart, in both the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by her after reversion from the post of General Manager to the cadre of Administrative Officer as per Ext.P2 order dated 29.7.2019, she had stated in paragraph 1 thus:- " I was the General Manager, now in charge of the post of General Manager and working as Administrative - Officer in the Kerala State Co operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and I am conversant with the facts of the case." (Underline Supplied) In this context, it is relevant to refer to Ext.R4(a) order dated 30.3.2019 whereby additional charge was given to Smt.Aparna Prathap. It reads thus:- W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 43 "Government are pleased to assign full additional charge of Managing Director of Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural & Development Bank to Smt.Aparna Prathap, General Manager(i/c), 'KSCARDB, till a new officer is appointed in the post." Before going into the other questions we will have to take exception to the facts revealed from the afore-extracted paragraph 1 of both the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the 6[th] respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 after her reversion from the of General Manager to the post of Administrative Officer as per Ext.P2 order. This has to be made with reference to another statement of herself and the 4[th] respondent, contained in their respective counter affidavits, to the effect that to honour Ext.P1 judgment of this Court dated 2.7.2019 the 6[th] respondent was reverted from the post of General Manager and then she had to sign the order of her own reversion from the post of General Manager as she was the then Managing Director-in-charge. Going by the recital in Ext.R4(a) the full additional charge of Managing Director of the bank was given to Smt.Aparna Prathap as she was the then General Manager-in-charge. A conjoint reading of her statements in the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit and the counter affidavit of the Managing Committee filed through its President, all filed after Ext.P2 order of W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 44 reversion dated 29.7.2019, would reveal that even while occupying the post of Administrative Officer after reversion from the post of General Manager (in fact, while working as General Manager-in-charge) she continued to hold the post of General Manager and also continued to hold the charge of Managing Director. As a matter of fact, she is still continuing to hold charge of the post of General Manager. In the contextual situation, it is only appropriate to refer to another deprecative action on the part of the President of the Bank as revealed from Ext.R4(i). The order in so far as it is relevant for the said purpose reads thus:- "Consequent to the above, the post of General Manager became vacant. As it affects the functioning of the institution, for administrative convenience, the President of the Bank vide Proceedings No.E1/FRV/2018 dated 29.07.2019 had given full additional charge of General Manager to Smt. Aparna Prathap, Administrative Officer, subject to ratification by the Board.” ## **Point for Decision** The Board may consider the above and ratify the action taken by the President of the Bank in giving full additional charge of General Manager to Smt. Aparna Prathap, Administrative Officer." In short, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances borne out from records would only go to show that Ext.P2 order passed on the same day of the dismissal of W.A.No.1706/2019 filed against Ext.P1 W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 45 judgment viz., on 29.7.2019 is only an eye wash to make it appear that in compliance with Ext.P1 the 6[th] respondent-Smt.Aparna Prathap was reverted. If that is not so, where is the question of an employee ordered to be reverted to the cadre of Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM while working as General Manager-in-charge and claimed to have joined duty in the post of Administrative Officer is continuing to work as General Manager-in-charge and by virtue of that capacity continuing to function as Managing Director in the Bank. We will make further observation about the action on the part of the President of the Bank, later. 16. Now, we will examine the tenability of the contentions raised by those appellants who were respondents in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019 to sustain Exts.P2 and P4 orders and in other words, the challenge against interference with Exts.P2 and P4 orders. The indisputable position, as noted earlier, is that as per Ext.P1 judgment it was the Managing Committee of the Bank, the 4[th] respondent in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019, which was directed to issue appropriate orders reverting Smt.Aparna Prathap from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold. We have already referred to the aspect as to why this Court instead of W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 46 issuing a direction simpliciter for her reversion used the words ' to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold' while ordering to revert the 6[th] respondent- Smt.Aparna Prathap. In the light of what is already observed on that issue, at any circumstances, the task of identifying the post to which Smt.Aparna Prathap is legally entitled to hold, should not have been left to her and the Managing Committee should have applied mind and found out the same. Add to the usage of words ' to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold' the usage of the words 'appropriate orders' in the said direction, would further strengthen our view. In this context, it is also to be noted that by virtue of the provisions under Rule 185(2) of the K.C.S. Rules the appointing authority of the employees of the Bank is the Managing Committee. For that reason also the President could not have interfered with the matter, that too, without applying the mind to find out which is the post to which Smt. Aparna Prathap is legally entitled to hold. We also take note of the fact that despite the assertion in the counter affidavits by the 6[th] respondent and the 4[th] respondent filed through the President of the Bank, the order carrying direction to revert the 6[th] respondent to the post of Administrative Officer, said to have been issued by the President of the Bank, was not produced in the writ W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 47 proceedings as also in the appellate proceedings. There is no specific case that such a direction was issued orally. They cannot take up a case of oral direction in respect of the said matter as the specific direction to issue appropriate orders reverting the 6[th] respondent from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold was issued vide Ext.P1 judgment to the Managing Committee. As noticed hereinbefore, in paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent it is also stated that in order to accommodate the 6[th] respondent in her original post it had become necessary to revert Sri.Abdul Shukur Naha (the first petitioner in W.P. (C)No21914/2019) to his original post as Regional Manager, from which he was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer consequent to the promotion of Smt.Aparna Prathap as General Manager. The additional affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019 dated 17.9.2019 would reveal the further case of the 4[th] respondent in the matter of issuance of order of reversion of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914 of 2019 viz., the appellants in W.A.No.2538/2019 and others. The office note instrumental to Exts.P2, P4 and other orders of reversion of employees promoted by the 6[th] respondent in her capacity as Managing Director-in-charge, was W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 48 extracted therein. Going by the same, the President of the Bank, based on the legal opinion of the Standing Counsel and after consultation with the Directors and as authorized by them directed the Managing Director (i/c) to implement the judgment in accordance with the legal opinion and the direction contained in the report of the Section 65 enquiry subject to ratification. The Office Note extracted therein did not reveal what exactly was the specific direction as relates the issue of reversion of Smt.Aparna Prathap viz., as to which post she is legally entitled to hold on reversion and in what manner her reversion is to be made. The Office Note extracted would only suggest that on being authorised by the Directors of the Bank the President of the Bank only directed the Managing Director to implement the judgment in accordance with the legal opinion and the direction contained in the report of the Section 65 enquiry subject to ratification. Where is the decision by the Managing Committee in the matter, as has been directed by this Court in Ext.P1? It is also stated in the additional affidavit that the Office Note would also reveal that such a decision was taken by the President after consulting with the members of the Board over phone since such a meeting could not have been convened to implement the direction within the time frame provided in the W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 49 judgment. The fact that the consultation with the members of the Board was over phone is also not discernible from the extracted portion of the Office Note. There is no mention in the said additional affidavit as to what was the legal opinion. Whatever that be, the facts revealed from the materials on record and the pleadings would reveal that there was absolutely no consideration by the Managing Committee viz.,the Board of Directors, with application of mind, on the question as to which post Smt.Aparna prathap should be reverted in order to implement the direction in Ext.P1 judgment as the direction was to revert her to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold. In the additional affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent dated 21.10.2019 it is stated as follows:- "It is submitted that in this connection, that the examinations provided for promotions and the pass in the said examinations are stage wise. The promotion to the post of Regional Manager is from the post of Deputy Manager. The further promotion of Regional Manager is to the post of Administrative Officer and equivalent posts. Therefore, for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, a person in the lower category is required to appear for the examination as provided under Rule 185(3)(ii). The examinations provided therein are required for promotion to the higher posts at every stage." They also stated therein that though 6th respondent-Smt.Aparna Prathap applied to appear for the examinations the said request was W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 50 declined as she was then holding the post of Administrative Officer and as there was no post to which she could further be promoted. It is also stated therein that promotions given to the 6[th] respondent to the post of Deputy Manager in the year 2003, to the post of Regional Manager on 16.4.2008 and also to the post of Administrative Officer on 6.2.2012 were never challenged by anyone. If this is the line of argument of the 4[th] respondent why the promotions given to the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019 and several others who were promoted by 6[th] respondent in her capacity as the Managing Director were interfered with and the promotees were reverted without any specific challenge against their promotions and when there was no specific decisions in Ext.P1 judgment to revert them. In this context, it is relevant to note that as per Ext.P1, the challenge against the appointments made by 6[th] respondent in her capacities as General Manager and Regional Manager were left open to be considered by the appropriate authority, if and when the petitioners in those cases choose to approach them with an appropriate representation/petition. It is a fact that as per Ext.P1 judgment this Court left open all contentions of the 6[th] respondentSmt.Aparna Prathap, with respect to the qualifications of the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.14792 of 2017 and 36878/2018, to enable W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 51 her to pursue them. But, it is also a fact that despite being given such a liberty she had not chosen to take action in that regard. At the same time, in the additional counter affidavit dated 23.10.2019 filed by the 6th respondent in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019, to be precise in paragraph 6 therein, she would admit the fact that both the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019 had appeared for the qualifying examination in the year 2015 and acquired the eligibility for promotion as Administrative Officers/CIO/Principal ITM. As relates the first petitioner therein viz., Abdul Shukur Naha, in the last sentence in the said paragraph it is stated thus:- "1st petitioner has applied for the first time only in 2014 and did not even apply for the test conducted in 2013. He later passed the qualifying test for getting promotion to the post of Administrative Officer only in 2015." Obviously, the other stand taken by her in paragraph 7 of the additional counter affidavit is that the question of her passing the qualifying examination was considered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in an enquiry conducted under Section 65 of the Act and in Ext.R6(a), which is the result of the enquiry, it was found that she was not liable to get a pass in the qualifying examination and that it was never challenged by anyone. Ext.R6(a) is the true copy of the relevant pages of the report No.CLT(3)17780-2018 dated 11.12.2018. Thus, even W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 52 according to the 6[th] respondent, it is only the true copy of the report of the enquiry under Section 65 dated 11.12.2018 and therefore, how it can be relied on when this Court left open to be considered the question as to the post to which she is entitled to hold on reversion, to the Managing Committee. That apart, in paragraph 5 of her counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019 the 6[th] respondent-Smt.Aparna Prathap, after stating that Ext.P1 common judgment was passed on 2.7.2019 and W.A.No.1706/2019 filed by her against the said judgment was dismissed on 29.7.2019, stated thus:- " It is also submitted that in compliance of the direction in Ext.P1 judgment an enquiry under Sec.65 of the Cooperative Societies Act has been ordered, in which I have also submitted my grievances. The said enquiry has been completed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the true copy of the relevant pages of the report No.CLT 317780-2018 dated 11.12.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R6(a). The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in the enquiry has considered the question of promotion and seniority issue and concluded that promotion cannot be given to the post reserved for Direct Recruitees." We do not understand how the 6[th] respondent could contend that Ext.R6(a) is a report of the enquiry ordered and conducted in compliance with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment when the indisputable fact is that Ext.P1 judgment is dated 2.7.2019 and Ext.R6(a) report is W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 53 dated 11.12.2018. We do not think that anything more is to be said about the said contention of the 6[th] respondent. In short, in view of the specific direction in Ext.P1 judgment the Managing Committee should have considered the question directed to be considered with application of mind. Instead of complying with the direction in the manner it was directed what was actually done, as is evident from the materials on record which were analysed by us, was that the President of the Bank claimed to have issued direction to the 6[th] respondent to take into account the legal opinion obtained pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.R6(a) report dated 11.12.2018 to pass orders on her own reversion. Despite our careful scanning of the materials on record we could not find anything which would reveal consideration of the question as to the post to which the 6[th] respondent is entitled to hold on reversion from the post of General Manager by the Managing Committee pursuant to the direction in Ext.P1 judgment. That apart, despite the issuance of Ext.P2 order of reversion, admittedly, she was put back in charge of General Manager by the President of the Bank by issuing separate proceedings. The aforesaid facts would justify the observation made by us earlier that Ext.P2 order of reversion of the 6[th] respondent from the post of General Manager is nothing but an eye W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 54 wash and in fact, it is nothing but a ruse to escape a possible initiation of proceedings for contempt of Court. Though the action is an indirect attempt to overreach the decision of this Court, in view of the present position, we are not now, proposing to initiate any action against the President of the Bank. 17. In view of the aforesaid factual position obtained we are constrained to hold that the result of the twin indiscreet actions, as noted above, on the part of the President of the Bank virtually, led to a situation of violation of the salutary principle under the maxim " _Nemo debit Esse Judex in propria sua causa_ ", which means,- "No man can be a Judge of his own cause". Whether on her own or direction by the President of the Bank, ignoring the fact that the specific direction to pass appropriate orders reverting Smt.Aparna Prathap from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold was issued by this Court to the Managing Committee, the 6[th] respondentSmt.Aparna Prathap herself had issued Ext.P2 order, without stating anything therein as to why she should be reverted to the post of Administrative Officer, that too, by reverting the first petitioner in W.P. (C)No.21914/2019, who filed W.P.(C)No.36878/2018 which led to her reversion from the post of General Manager of the Bank. There can be W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 55 no doubt that reason for an order should reflect in the order itself and it cannot be assigned subsequently by way of affidavits. Having said thus, taking into account the well-nigh settled position we will look into the reason assigned in the counter affidavit of the 6[th] respondent only to bring out its untenability. It is stated therein that the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 was promoted as Administrative Officer in the vacancy occurred consequent to her promotion as General Manager and hence, naturally, on her reversion from the post of General Manager the persons who got promotions consequential to her promotion, including the first petitioner, were to be reverted. A careful scanning of Ext.P2 would reveal that as per the same, the 6[th] respondent ordered for her reversion to the cadre of Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM and reverted the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 to the cadre of Regional Manager and then posted him as Regional Manager at Regional Office, Kasaragod with immediate effect. There is absolutely nothing in Ext.P2 or in the pleadings of both the 4[th] and 6[th] respondent to show that there existed no other clear vacancy, other than that of the one held by the first petitioner, in the cadre of Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM for accommodating the 6[th] respondent on her reversion. In this context, it is relevant to note that even according to W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 56 the 6[th] respondent, the first petitioner has passed the qualifying examination for promotion to the cadre of Administrative Officer in the year 2015, as revealed from her own statement in the additional counter affidavit, and when indisputably she was lacking the said qualification of passing the qualifying examination prescribed under Section 185 at the time of passing of Ext.P2 how can it be left to the 6[th] respondent to decide on the question of her eligibility or right to hold a post in the Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM in preference to the first petitioner? In the context of the contentions it is also relevant to refer to Ext.R4(h). It is marked in the additional affidavit filed by the 4[th] respondent as the true copy of the agenda note in respect of the proposal and decision to revert the 6[th] respondent. Though it is described as such, a perusal of the same would reveal that it is in troth, the request for ratifying the action taken in and vide proceedings No.E1/FRV/2018 dated 29.7.2019 reverting Smt.Aparna Prathap from the post of General Manager to the cadre of Administrative Officer and consequently, reverting the first petitioner in W.P.(C)NO.21914/2019 to the cadre of Regional Manager and posting him, as such, at Regional Office, Kasaragod and transferring and posting Smt.Rajani.K.V., Administrative Officer as Chief Inspecting Officer (NZ), Kannur, made W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 57 by Smt.Aparna Prathap herself in her capacity as Managing Director(i/c). It is stated therein thus:- "Considering the urgency of the matter, the President of the Managing Committee after consulting and getting authorisation from all the Directors, directed Smt.Aparna Prathap, Managing Director (i/c) to implement the judgment in accordance with the legal opinion. Accordingly orders were issued vide proceedings No.E1/FRV/2018 dated 29.7.2019. 1. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 2. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx The Board may kindly consider the above and may ratify the action taken by the Managing Director(i/c) in issuing the above orders based on the judgment in W.P.(C) 38679/2017, 36878/2018 & 14792/2017. Sd/- MANAGING DIRECTOR(I/C).” As noticed earlier, the decision in Ext.P1 was virtually, over-reached on the very date of alleged compliance with Ext.P1 judgment by the President of the Bank by issuing Proceedings No.E1/FRV/2018 dated 29.7.2019 giving the 6[th] respondent full additional charge of General Manager of the Bank. According to the 4[th] and 5[th] respondents the said action was also ratified. How, can such actions be given stamp of approval by this Court? W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 58 18. Now, we will consider whether the contention of the 6[th] respondent that Ext.P3 is inconsequential and inapplicable as relates her. One of the reasons assigned to support the said contention is that Ext.P3 deals with 'competitive examination' which was the qualification prescribed under Rule 185(6) of the K.C.S. Rules prior to the coming into force of Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2010 and as per the amendment brought to it under the Amendment Act, with effect from 2.11.2010 it stands substituted by the words 'qualifying examination'. This contention is bereft of any basis. Sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 185 of the K.C.S Rules are different and distinct. The original Rule 185 itself, which was having only two sub-rules, was substituted on the whole with more sub-rules, including sub-rules (5) and (6) subsequently as per G.O.P.No.68/99/Co-op. dated 19.4.1999. As per the said G.O., sub rules (5) & (6) of Rule 185 of the K.C.S Rules, in so far as it is relevant, read thus:- “(5) Selection of candidates to the posts to be filled up by promotion under sub-rule (2) shall be made from the feeder category in accordance with merit and ability to be assessed through a competitive examination: xxxxx xxxxxxx (6) Selection of candidates to the posts to be filled up by promotion under sub-rule (3) and to all the higher posts, if any, in between the posts mentioned under subrule (2) and sub-rule (3) shall be made from among those who have passed the qualifying examination in W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 59 accordance with the seniority in the feeder category.” It would reveal that even before the year 2000 in the substituted new Rule 185 the qualification mentioned in sub-rule (6) was 'qualifying examination' and the words 'competitive examination' was not there though the qualification then mentioned under sub-rule (5) was 'competitive examination'. Thus, it can be seen that by virtue of amendment brought into Rule 185 with effect from 2.11.2010 substitution of the words 'competitive examination' occurred only in sub-rule (5) of Rule 185 of the K.C.S Rules and there occurred no amendment in sub-rule (6) as contended by the 6[th] respondent. In fact, there was no necessity to substitute the words ' qualifying examination' in sub-rule (6) as from the very inception of the said sub-rule qualification mentioned thereunder has been 'qualifying examination'. In fact, the very document produced by the 6[th] respondent would reveal that the substitution of the words 'competitive examination' occurred only in sub-rule (5) and in sub-rule (6), of Rule 185. However, this position would throw light upon the applicability of Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019. A perusal of Rule 185 would reveal that requirement of passing of examination, be it competitive or qualifying, was mentioned only under sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 185 and when Ext.P3 was W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 60 issued the position with respect to Rule 185(6) was the same. In other words, prior to the date of Ext.P3 and even now, the requirement of qualification under 185(6) has been the same and obviously, taking note of this position that even when Ext.P13 order of promotion was issued in respect of the 6[th] respondent and the others Ext.P3 was also made applicable. It was in the said circumstances that her promotion to the post of Administrative Officer was made only provisionally. She had never challenged the said condition in Ext.P13 despite the grant of provisional promotion subject also to Ext.P3. The fact is that though belatedly, now, she has also acquired the said prescribed qualification, but only subsequent to the acquisition of that qualification required for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/ 2019. 19. Now, we will deal with the reversion of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019. We have already found that though as per Ext.P1 judgment all contentions of the 6[th] respondent with respect to the qualifications of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36878/2018 viz., the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019, was left open to be pursued she has not availed that liberty. The right to challenge the appointments made by the 6[th] respondent was not left to her as per Ext.P1 judgment. W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 61 In other words, the appointments made by her which were assailed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos. 36878/2018 and 14792/2017 alone were left to be considered by the appropriate authority. This is evident from paragraph 6 of Ext.P1 judgment. This is evident from the following paragraph in the operative portion of Ext.P1 judgment:- ”The other contentions of the petitioners in W.P. (C)No.14792 of 2017 and W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2018, relating to the post to which Smt.Aparna Prathap must be accommodated after her reversion from the post of General Manager and the challenge against the appointments made by her while acting in such capacity or as the Regional Manager, are left open to be considered by the appropriate Authority, if and when the petitioners in these cases choose to approach them with an appropriate representation/petition. I also leave open all contentions of Smt.Aparna Pratap, with respect to the qualifications of the petitioners in the afore two cases, so as to enable her to pursue them, if it is so required in future.” In short, besides the direction to revert Smt.Aparna Prathap from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold there was no specific direction for reverting the petitioners in the other writ petitions, including the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36878/2018 viz., the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21914/2019 - Chief Inspecting Officer and Administrative Officer belong to the same cadre. This is indisputable and the fact that one holding one of the said posts could be transferred and posted in the other post is evident from Ext.P2 itself W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 62 whereby Smt.Rajani.K.V. who was holding the post of Administrative Officer was transferred and posted as Chief Inspecting Officer(CIO), (North Zone) at Kannur. Ext.P2 would reveal that upon the so called reversion from the post of General Manager to the cadre of Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM the 6[th] respondent posted herself as Administrative Officer, Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram. Evidently, the first petitioner was then working as CIO (South Zone), of course, in the Bank's Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram. His reversion was ordered as a consequence of her reversion to the Administrative Officer/CIO/Principal ITM cadre, in fact, as Administrative Officer as can be seen from her counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit, firstly, without verifying the vacancy position in the said cadre and secondly, without considering her entitlement to that post in preference to the first petitioner. In this context, it is to be noted that admittedly, even during the pendency of the writ petitions which culminated in the impugned judgment the 6[th] respondent was lacking the prescribed qualification of passing the qualifying examination under Rule 185 whereas, even according to her, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. 21914/2019 had acquired the said qualification in the year 2015. When none possesses the prescribed qualification of passing a qualifying W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 63 examination and when going by the orders of exemption the exemption was only till the period mentioned in the orders or till publication of the result of the qualifying examination how can a senior merely based on seniority claim right of promotion ahead of a junior who acquired the said qualification earlier than the senior. In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary the right of such a junior cannot be defeated. True that the 6[th] respondent-Smt.Aparna Prathap got a case that though applied for appearing for the qualifying examination the application was rejected by the Managing Committee holding the view that she had already reached the post of Administrative Officer and her application for permission to appear for the qualifying examination was rejected by the Managing Committee. This position is virtually admitted by the 4[th] respondent. However, the fact is that the 6[th] respondent had never complained of the said action. Still, a perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Single Judge had taken note of the said position and gave due weight to it and issued appropriate relief to the 6[th] respondent. At the same time, we are of the firm view that the said aspect cannot be a reason for holding that possession of the qualification under Rule 185(5) or (6) prescribed for promotion is not at all required in the light of Ext.R4(m) to Ext.R4(o). In such W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 64 circumstances, we do not think that the 6[th] respondent is entitled to anything more than what is granted by the learned Single Judge under Paragraph 18(iii) of the impugned judgment. As noticed hereinbefore, though belatedly, the 6[th] respondent has also acquired the qualification, but only later than the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019. It is to be noted that the appellant in W.A.No.707/2020 has also specifically stated in paragraph 8 of the appeal that she had passed the qualifying examination only in the year 2020. As held earlier, when juniors and seniors were not qualified on the ground of lacking pass in the qualifying examination and were given provisional promotion taking note of the non-conduct of the examination by the Board, but evidently with a condition that the promotees should acquire the qualification at the first opportunity, the appellants or the party respondents merely because of seniority cannot claim better right than the juniors who acquired the prescribed qualification earlier than the seniors in the matter of promotion against vacancies set apart for promotion. We may hasten to add that going by the general position of rule the senior can be preferred only if he has also acquired the qualification of pass in the qualifying examination on the date of occurrence of the vacancy against W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 65 which he is entitled to be considered. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that after effecting her reversion in the manner mentioned hereinbefore, the 6[th] respondent could not have reverted the petitioners from the cadre of Administrative Officer to the cadre of Regional Officer when the 6[th] respondent herself conceded the position that they have passed the qualifying examination in the year 2015 under Exts.P2 and P4. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the learned Single Judge has also noted that there is no case for the Bank that there are no vacancies to accommodate the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019. As relates the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21914/2019 she was provisionally promoted taking note of the dearth of staff especially in the senior level, along with several others. It was in the said circumstances that promotions were effected provisionally against vacancies reserved for direct recruitment on condition that such promotees would be reverted as and when direct recruits through PSC join duty. Admittedly, it is not such a situation that led to the reversion of the 2nd petitioner. In such circumstances, when, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the learned Single Judge made the conclusion that the action in reverting the said W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 66 petitioners is nothing but abuse of power (wrongfully conferred, according to us) and vindictive in nature, we do not find any reason to differ. In the above circumstances, we found no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **N.NAGARESH Judge** TKS W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 67 ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2491/2019** ## **APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 31.05.2013.** **ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2013.** - **ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 06.06.2013.** - **ANNEXURE IV** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR PERTAINING TO RESPONDENT NO.1.** - **ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR PERTAINING TO RESPONDENT NO.2.** - **ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2013 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR PERTAINING TO RESPONDENT NO.7.** **TKS** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 68 ## **APPENDIX OF WA 707/2020** ## **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURE** **ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/01/2020 REVERTING THE APPELLANT FROM THE POST OF CHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PUBLISHED ON 24/04/2020 WHEREIN THE APPELLANT IS FIGURING AS SL. NO.27. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS/MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK NO.15/05/2020.** W.A.No.2491/2019 & Conn. Cases 69 ## **APPENDIX OF WA 2525/2019** **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURE** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/10/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.18658/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **ANNEXURE II** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.M(4)54006/2013 DATED 29/11/2013 OF THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES.** **ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION NO.8/2019 DATED 24.04.2020 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** TKS