IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 8582 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V.SUSHAMA, BRANCH MANAGER, CHENGAMANAD PANCHAYAT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.E.176, PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.P.O., PIN-683585. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) ERNAKULAM. 3. CHENGAMANAD PANCHAYAT SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, LTD. NO.E.176, PUTHUVASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.P.O., PIN-683585. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9641 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 8582/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DTD. 15.12.2008. P2:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DTD. 4.7.2009. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 20.3.2009 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19.2.2010 OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. P5: SERIES:- COPIES OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT GRANTING EXEMPTION TO VARIOUS EMPLOYEES OF CO-OPERATIVE SECTOR. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2008 (1) KLT 478. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2008 (4) KLT S.N. 45. P8:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR 54/82. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.2.2010 OF THE GOVERNMENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) Nos. 8582 & 9641 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge Exts.P4 and P9 orders, by which requests of the petitioners for relaxation of the educational qualification prescribed under Rule 185(8)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), have been declined. 2. The nature of the challenge in both these writ petitions is the same and hence, they are being considered together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8582 of 2010 entered the service of the third respondent bank on 26-11-1997, after passing S.S.L.C., J.D.C. and Diploma in Electronics from Vanitha Polytechnic, Ernakulam. She was promoted as Senior Clerk on 1-2-3003 and thereafter as Branch Manager with effect from 1-5-2005. As per the Feeder Category Rules, the next promotion of the petitioner is to W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 2 the post of the Assistant Secretary. As per Rule 186 of the Rules, the qualification for the post of Assistant Secretary is graduation. 4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9641 of 2010 is a person who had entered the service of the third respondent as a Peon on 6-5-1981. He was promoted as Junior Clerk on 6-12-1985, Senior Clerk on 12-2-1987 and later as Accountant with effect from 1-4-2008. His next promotion is as Branch Manger. As per Rule 186 of the Rules, the qualification for the post of Branch Manager is graduation. 5. Since the petitioners in both these writ petitions do not possess the qualification of graduation, the Managing Committee requested the Government to grant exemption to them from the said qualification. According to the Managing Committee, the petitioners in both these cases are efficient, well experienced and suitable for being promoted to the next higher post. According to the Managing Committee, the petitioners are valuable assets of the society and their services would enhance the progress of the society. However, by the W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 3 impugned orders, Exts.P4 and P9, the exemption sought for by the Managing Committee has been rejected by the Government without assigning any reason. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) No. 8582 of 2010, wherein it is pointed out that the petitioner in the said writ petition is only aged 39 years. Exemptions have been granted only in cases where the incumbents had completed 45 years of age. If the petitioner is granted the relaxation that has been sought, that would result in denying the chances of promotion to various other employees who were older to her. It is pointed out that it was for the said reason that the request of the petitioners for relaxation of qualification was declined. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, the learned counsel for the society and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 8. Rule 185(8) (b) of the Rules stipulates certain conditions that are required to be satisfied for the grant of exemption from the educational qualification. The provision stipulates three conditions, which which are the following:- W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 4 1) The incumbent should have passed J.D.C. or equivalent. 2) The incumbent should have a minimum service of five years in the feeder category post. 3) The incumbent should not be less than 45 years of age. 9. Since the application for relaxation submitted by the petitioners in these cases are for relaxation of the basic qualification; the same can be granted only by the Government under rule 181 of the Rules. Therefore, the matter was considered by the Government and orders have been issued rejecting the request, as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P9 orders in both these cases. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the request of the petitioners is not supported by any reasons. Since the petitioners have been recommended by the Managing Committee, the Government erred in not accepting the same. It is also submitted that similarly placed persons have been granted relaxation of all the three requirements stipulated under rule 185(8) of the Rules. W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 5 Therefore, it is contended that the rejection of the request of the petitioners for exemption is without any basis. 11. Exts.P5 series Government Orders show that in other similar cases relaxation has been granted with reference to all the conditions stipulated by rule 185(8) of the Rules. As per G.O.(P) No.5/2007/Co-op dated 4-1-2007 (Ext.P5(35)), one Sri.P.S. Sabu was granted relaxation in age as well as the condition regarding five years' service in the feeder category post. Similarly, in G.O.(P) No.14/2007/Co-op. Dated 5-1-2007 (Ext.P5(56)) one Smt. P.Sheela was also granted relaxation of the age limit of 45 years as well as the condition regarding five years' service in the feeder category. These Government Orders would show that both the above conditions were relaxed by the Government to the benefit of the incumbents therein. However, in the present cases, similar requests of the petitioners have been rejected without any valid reasons. If the recommendations of the Managing Committee are not acceptable to the Government, proper reasons should have been given, which is conspicuously absent in the impugned W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 6 orders. The petitioners have also placed reliance on a judgment dated 30-6-2010 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 31167 of 2009 to contend that in similar circumstances, this Court had set aside the rejection order and directed the Government to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 12. Resolutions of the Managing Committee in both these cases show that the petitioners are efficient, experienced and competent and that according to the Managing Committee their services were necessary in the interests of the concerned society. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8582 of 2010 is the senior most employee in the service of the society while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9641 of 2010 is not only the senior most employee but also a person aged more than 55 years. It was in the said circumstances that relaxation was sought for by the Managing Committee. Ext.P5 series show that similarly placed persons have been granted exemption. There is no reason as to why the requests of the petitioners for exemption have been rejected by the impugned orders. No materials have been placed before me to come to a W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 7 conclusion that the case of the petitioners are in any way different. Hence, I find that the rejection of the petitioners' request in these cases is without any basis. Therefore, Exts.P4 and P9 in both these cases are liable to be set aside. 13. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed and Exts.P4 and P9 in both these cases are set aside. The first respondent in both these cases is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. A fresh decision, as indicated above, shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mn.