IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23529 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ABDUL GAFARKHAN.A., ACCOUNTANT/HEAD CLERK, MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.94, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (G), KOLLAM. 2. MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.94, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 23529 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as an accountant under the second respondent Bank. He is aspiring promotion to the post of Branch Manager/Internal Auditor. The qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Branch Manager/Internal Auditor in terms of Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules(in short 'Rules') is a degree in Commerce. Relevant portion of Rule 186 reads thus:- A. A degree in Commerce or Masters degree in Arts of a recognised University, with Co-operation as special subject. or B. B.A, B.Sc., or B.Com. degree of recognised University ad ii. Higher Diploma in Co-operation (or higher diploma in Co-operation and Business Management) H.D.C of State Co-operative Union of Kerala or H.D.C and H.D.C.M. of the National Council for Co-operative Training or successful completion of the Subordinate (Junior) Personnel Co-operative Training Course (Junior Diploma in Co-operation) 2. The petitioner is a graduate in Commerce. He is also possessing JDC. According to the petitioner he is possessing the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of Branch Manager/Internal Auditor. One vacancy each in the category of Branch Manager and Internal Auditor is available under the WPC.23529/2010 : 2 : second respondent Bank. However, the second respondent declined to consider the petitioner for promotion assigning the reason that the degree obtained by the petitioner from Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation University is not a recognised one. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the 2nd respondent claiming promotion. When the respondents refused to act upon his representation, the petitioner has preferred WP(C) No.2126/2010. After its institution the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 representation before the first respondent to redress his grievances relating denial of promotion. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment. As per Ext.P9 the first respondent - the Joint Registrar was directed to consider Ext.P7 representation referred thereunder(Ext.P8 herein) and to pass orders thereon after hearing the petitioner as also the second respondent bank. In purported compliance with the direction in Ext.P9 the Joint Registrar has passed Ext.P10 order. As per Ext.P10, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce any document before the first respondent that the WPC.23529/2010 : 3 : degree possessed by him is one conferred by a recognized University. It is challenging Ext.P10 order of the first respondent and seeking consequential reliefs that this writ petition has been filed. 3. A statement has been filed in this writ petition by the second respondent. In essence, the contention raised thereunder is that the petitioner lacks the educational qualification prescribed under Rule 186 of the Rules. According to the second respondent, the degree obtained by the petitioner is not one recognized by the Universities of Kerala. I am of the considered view that the second respondent cannot assign the said reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court reported in Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala(2005(1) KLT 680). Going by the law laid down thereunder as also in the light of the relevant provisions under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act and Rules, the 2nd respondent cannot sustain the aforesaid objection. Admittedly, there is nothing in Rule 186 which would suggest that the degree in question would be one recognised by the Universities of Kerala. That WPC.23529/2010 : 4 : apart, the degree obtained by the petitioner is a prescribed qualification therein. Therefore, the question is whether Ext.P3 would show that the Vinayaka Mission University has been recognized by the University Grants Commission. Ext.P4 would reveal that degrees/ diplomas awarded through Distant Education by the Universities like Vinayaka Mission University stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services provided it has been approved by the Distant Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi. In view of the said notification, the fact whether the very degree/diploma awarded to the petitioner has been approved by the Distant Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi is to be looked into. In the absence of such approval by Distant Education, IGNOU any degree or diploma awarded by Vinayaka Mission University like the present which was conferred on the petitioner cannot be recognized. In this case, it is evident that the petitioner did not produce the degree certificate obtained from Vinayaka Mission University before the first respondent. He had only produced Ext.P2 mark list. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner WPC.23529/2010 : 5 : submitted that subsequently, the petitioner had produced the degree certificate itself before the second respondent bank. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, I am of the view that Ext.P10 order requires a re-consideration. 4. As already noticed, in view of the relevant rules the question whether the degree possessed by the petitioner is one which is recognized by any of the Universities of Kerala is not at all relevant in the context of the case. What is relevant is whether the University that conferred the degree to the petitioner is a recognized University. However, in the light of Ext.P4 the first respondent is also bound to look into the question whether the degree or diploma awarded through distant education by Vinayaka Mission University has approval from the Distant Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said question cannot be looked into by the first respondent in view of the decision in Mujeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala(2005 (1) KLT 680). and that the only question which can be looked into is whether the University in question viz., Vinayaka Mission University is a recognized University or not. WPC.23529/2010 : 6 : I am afraid, I cannot countenance with the aforesaid contention for the reason that the very document produced by the petitioner viz., Ext.P4 to show that the University is a recognized one virtually calls for such a probe. As per Ext.P4 any degree or diploma awarded through the distant education by Universities like Vinayaka Mission University would stand automatically recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services only if it is approved by the Distant Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi. In other words, in the absence of such an approval by the distant education council a degree awarded by Vinayaka Mission University cannot be recognized at all for any employment purpose going by Ext.P4. Therefore, according to me, the eligibility of the petitioners for promotion depends upon such an approval by the Distant Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi. Therefore, the first respondent shall look into the question whether such an approval has been given by the Distant Education Council, IGNOU, New Delhi as enjoined in Ext.P4. Needless to say that if such an approval has been granted by the Distant Education Council, IGNOU for the degree WPC.23529/2010 : 7 : conferred by Vinayaka Mission University possessed by the petitioner the fact that the said degree has not been recognized by any of the Universities of Kerala cannot be assigned a reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the first respondent is to directed to reconsider Ext.P8 representation. To enable the first respondent to consider the same, Ext.P10 is set aside. This shall be done by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order dated 14.10.2010 will continue till such a decision is taken by the first respondent on Ext.P8 . Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge