IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 8766 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE CALICUT CITY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the request NO.CCSVB 124/08 dated 22.1.2008 of the petitioner Ext.P2. True copy of the judgment dated 21.2.2008 in WP(c).No.6090/08 Ext.P3. True copy of the notice NO.CRP.1607/08 dated 14.5.2008 Ext.P4. True copy of the letter No.CCSCB 300/2008 dated 30.8.2008. Ext.P5. True copy of the letter NOC. CCSCB 300/2008 dated 2/9/2008 Ext.P6. True copy of the order N.crp.no.1607/08 dated 10.9.2008 Ext.P7. True copy of the judgment in WP(c).No.28360/08 dated 13.10.2008 Ext.P8. True copy of the representation No.CCSCB 349/2008 dated 4.11.2008 of the petitioner. Ext.P9. True copy of the hearing note No.CCSCB 143/09 dated 5.2.2009 Ext.P10. True copy of the letter NO. CCSCB 163/2008 dated 27.2.2009. Ext.P11. True copy of the order NO.CP(1)43980/2008 dated 28.2.2009 Ext.P12. True copy of the certificate issued by Bureau veritas. // true copy // P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8766 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Co-operative Bank. In this writ petition what they mainly pray for is to quash Ext.P11 order passed by the respondent and to declare that they are entitled to be sanctioned 18 posts of Junior Clerks. 2. According to the petitioner, the Society was registered in 2002 and is an ISO certified one, having about 64 crores in deposit and an annual profit of Rs. 3 crores. The Bank has 9 branches and its working time is from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. It is also stated that considering the number of branches and its classification, the petitioner was already sanctioned 53 posts . 3. According to the petitioner, for the efficient running of its branches, they wanted to increase the number of junior clerks. Accordingly, by Ext.P1, they WP(c).No.8766/09 2 sought sanction for appointment of two junior clerks each in every branch. 4. It is stated that, there was delay in considering their request and therefore they approached this court by filing WP (c).No.6090/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the Joint Registrar to consider the application. The Joint Registrar accordingly, considered Ext.P1 and passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the application, stating that an appeal against the registration of the petitioner society was pending consideration of the Government. This order was again challenged before this court by filing WP(c). No.15621/09. That writ petition was considered along with WP(c).No.31361/07. 5. In the above writ petitions, Ext.P3 and the appeal against the registration of the society mentioned in Ext.P3 were under challenge. By judgment dated 4.8.2008, this court quashed both Ext.P3 order passed by the Joint Registrar and also the appeal that was pending consideration of the WP(c).No.8766/09 3 Government. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar considered the matter and by Ext.P6 order rejected the application on the ground that only the respondent herein has power to consider the request. This order was again challenged by the petitioner in WP(c).No.28360/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the respondent along with a certified copy of the judgment and on that basis, the respondent was ordered to consider the application and pass orders thereon. Complaining that the matter was getting inordinately delayed petitioner submits Exts.P8, P9 and P10 reminders were filed. Finally, the respondents passed Ext.P11 order rejecting Ext.P1. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 6. A reading of Ext.P11 order shows that, according to the respondent, the vacancies that are now sought to be filled up have been created by artificial and illegal means. It is WP(c).No.8766/09 4 stated that in 2006, 8 posts of Junior Clerks were converted as Appraisers and that the Bank made appointment to those vacancies. It is also stated that the Bank has been making appointments to lower posts, which are outside the purview of the selection Board by direct recruitment and giving promotion to the appointees in violation of the regulations. It is on these reasons that Ext.P1 has been rejected. 7. Impugning the validity of Ext.P11 order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, 8 posts of junior Clerks were converted as Appraisers way back in 2006. It is also stated that, in Ext.P11 reference has been made to a report of the DIG of Vigilance. Counsel states that there is no such report in existence. Yet another contention raised is that, in Ext.P11 the Joint Registrar has ignored the fact that the feeder category rules have already approved. It is further stated that the special circumstances, which justify additional posts in the petitioner Bank have not been considered by the Registrar. WP(c).No.8766/09 5 8. Learned Government Pleader invited my attention to Ext.P11 and making extensive reference to the said order sought to justify Ext.P11. 9. As far as this court is concerned, the validity of Ext.P11 has to be adjudicated in the light of the reasons stated in the said order. One of the reasons stated in Ext.P11 is that in 2006, 8 posts of Junior Clerks were converted into Appraisers and therefore there is no justification for the petitioner to ask for the filling up the posts of Junior Clerks now. It is also stated that, the petitioner has been making appointments to posts which could be filled up by direct recruitment and effecting promotions ignoring the regulations in that behalf. 10. However, in my view, the aforesaid reason is unsustainable. In so far as the conversion of the post is concerned, Bank has rightly stated that such conversion has been approved by the Joint Registrar. In so far as the promotions effected, details of which is given in the order WP(c).No.8766/09 6 itself, shows that these promotions have been given without due regard to the minimum experience prescribed in the regulations. However all such promotions have been approved by the Joint Registrar as is seen from Ext.P15 order passed on Ext.P16 application made by the petitioner. If that be so, it is evident that every action of the petitioner for conversion of Junior Clerks to Appraisers and the promotions given in the Bank are with the approval of the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, viz the Joint Registrar. 11. It is not the case of the respondent that subsequent of this, without the approval of the Joint Registrar any conversion or promotion has been effected by the petitioner. If that be so, the respondent cannot find fault with the petitioner for having done something with the approval of the competent authority under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 12. Another aspect of the matter is that the Joint Registrar was exercising the powers of the Registrar. If that be WP(c).No.8766/09 7 so, if anybody is aggrieved, the remedy against the order passed by the Joint Registrar is under Section 83(1) of the Act and the Registrar cannot sit in judgment over the Joint Registrar's orders. Further Ext.P15 order of approval passed by the Joint Registrar, it is stated that the monetary and other attendant benefits consequent on the promotion will be extended to the promotees only on their satisfying the requirements laid down in the regulations. Respondent has no case that violating that condition imposed by the Joint Registrar in the order of approval, the petitioner has extended any benefits. Therefore the above reasons stated in Ext.P11 are unsustainable and I cannot sustain the same. 13. A reading of Ext.P11 further shows that reference has been made to a report allegedly submitted by the DIG of vigilance. However, Ext.P13 reply given by the Information Officer from the office of the respondent itself shows that there is no such Vigilance Enquiry or report. If that be so, it is evident that the Registrar was referring to a non-existent WP(c).No.8766/09 8 report and for that reason also the order is vitiated. In this order, the Registrar has proceeded as if the petitioner has not get feeder category regulations approved. Incorrectness of this finding is evident from Ext.P14, which shows that the feeder category regulations have been approved by the Joint Registrar as early as on 30.8.2005. Therefore, this justification is also unsustainable. 14. Referring to Ext.P18, a certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on 20th November, 2009, counsel submitted that, in special circumstances societies could be sanctioned additional staff required to attain the additional work after examining in detail the necessity justifying the same. In ground (j) of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that, the Act stipulates special treatment to the banks that has turn over in excess of 15 crores and these banks have been given preferential treatment in the matter of staff strength and that one additional post is given for each crore upwards from 10 crores. It is stated that if this yardstick WP(c).No.8766/09 9 is adopted the Bank is entitled to have a staff strength of 198 as against the present strength of 53. However, Ext.P11 does not reflect consideration of this aspect also. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied that Ext.P11 has been rendered on irrelevant consideration and therefore the order has to be set aside and I do so. 16. Having regard to the fact that, this is a fourth round of litigation arising out of Ext.P1, I do not think that there is any justifiable reason to direct reconsideration of the matter. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to sanction the 18 additional posts of Junior Clerks to the petitioner Bank, on the production of a copy of this judgment, as requested in Ext.P1. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.8766/09 10