IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27607 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. N.I. POULOSE, S/O. ISSAC, BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, KALLOOR BRANCH, THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. N.V. PATHROSE, S/O. VARGHESE, BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, H.O BRANCH, THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. K. SASIDHARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, POOMALA BRANCH, THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SULTHAN BATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. -2- ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 4. GOPAKUMAR, SENIOR CLERK SULTHAN BATHERI SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT 5. JAYA K., SENIOR CLERK SULTHAN BATHERI SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 AS PER ORDER DT. 25/11/2009 IN I.A. 14624/2009) R1 & 2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R3 SRI.P.N.MOHANAN FOR ADDL. R4 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SOCIETY RELATING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2: -DO- 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3: -DO- 3RD PETITIONER EXT.P4: -DO- OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO: 12904/2007 DT.12/4/2007 EXT.P5: -DO- OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DT. 10.5.2007 EXT.P6: -DO- 2ND PETITIONER DT. 10.5.2007 EXT.P7: -DO- 3RD PETITIONER DT. 10.5.2007 EXT.P8: -DO- OF THE S.R.O. 126/2007 DT. 12.1.2007 EXT.P9: -DO- S.R.O.127/2007 DT. 25.1.2007 EXT.P10: -DO- OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO: 24450/2007 DT.20.8.2007 EXT.P11: -DO- OF THE ORDERS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DT. 29.10.2007 EXT.P12: -DO- 2ND PETITIONER DT. 29.10.2007 EXT.P13: -DO- 3RD PETITIONER DT. 29.10.2007 EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P15: -DO- ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P16: -DO- ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER jj /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 27607 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioners are employed in the category of Head Clerk/Accountant under the third respondent society. They are holding charge of the posts of Branch Managers. As per SRO 869/2005 five years' experience in the feeder category is necessary apart from graduation, for being appointed to the post of Branch Manager. Rule 185(8) (g) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 permits the grant of exemption from the qualifications prescribed. Since the petitioners were not possessed of the required qualifications, exemption from the qualifications was sought for as per Exts.P1, P2 and P3 resolutions of the third respondent. However, the requests were rejected as per Exts.P5, P6 and P7. The rejection of their requests for the grant of exemption was challenged by the petitioners in W.P(C)24450/2007. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court as per judgment dated 20.8.2007. As per the judgment of this Court, it was directed that the application of the Society for exemption shall be considered by the first respondent and a decision taken thereon, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to WPC 27607/2008 2 the society within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy thereof. It has been further clarified that if an application had not been submitted to the Government, a fresh application could be submitted and a decision thereon would have to be taken after hearing the society also. 2. The petitioners had challenged Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P7 in appeals filed before the government also. The said appeals were pending before the government. As per Exts. P11, P12 and P13, the first respondent directed the Registrar to consider the appeals and to pass final orders thereon. Accordingly Exts.P14, P15 and P16 orders have been passed by the second respondent-Registrar informing them that their requests for exemption could not be considered since the very same requests had been rejected by the first respondent. The said proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. As per order in I.A.14624/2009 additional respondents 4 and 5 have got themselves impleaded. According to them, they are employees who are qualified to be considered for promotion by the bank. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties and have considered their rival contentions. WPC 27607/2008 3 4. Though, as per Ext.P10 judgment, this Court had directed the government to consider the question of granting exemption to the petitioners and to take a decision in the matter, the said direction has not been complied with. Exts.P5, P6 and P7 are proceedings issued prior to Ext.P10 judgment. It was, in the face of Exts.P5, P6 and P7, that this Court had directed the government to consider the question of granting exemption to the petitioners and to pass fresh orders thereon. It has further been clarified by this Court that if an application had not been submitted by the society, the society could submit such an application and thereafter the same should be considered by the Government. Exts.P14, P15 & P16 are proceedings issued by the Registrar dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners. The said proceedings are not in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment. Further, I notice from the said proceedings of the second respondent that the said authority has proceeded to reject the requests for exemption submitted by the petitioners for the only reason that the government had decided to decline such requests earlier. It is, therefore, clear that the direction issued by this Court has not been taken into account by any of the authorities concerned. I also notice from Ext.P10 that the direction of this Court was issued since WPC 27607/2008 4 it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, that the Government had only directed that exemption need not be considered at present and that if an application is made by the Society, appropriate decision in accordance with law would be taken. 5. The above being the position, Exts.P14, P15 and P16 cannot be said to be in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment. Since the proceedings of the second respondent are also without proper application of mind, they are liable to be set aside. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that they now possess the five years' experience that is contemplated by the rules. The above change in circumstances also necessitate a fresh consideration of the entitlement of the petitioners to the exemption that is sought. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: I) Exts.P14, P15 and P16 are quashed. II) The first respondent is directed to consider the request of the third respondent in Exts.P1, P2 and P3 afresh in the light of the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment and the relevant provisions of law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon as WPC 27607/2008 5 expeditiously as possible, after hearing the third respondent society as well as the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. III) Till such decision is taken by the first respondent, the interim order granted in this writ petition shall continue to be in force. 7. The above directions will not stand in the way of the bank considering the claims of additional respondents 4 and 5 for promotion to the other vacancies, if any, in existence. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj