IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14330 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.PUSHPALATHA, INTERNAL AUDITOR, KALLUR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.227, HEAD OFFICE, KALLUR, THRISSUR, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALLUR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LIMITED NO.R 227, P.O.KALLUR VIA, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14330 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an Accountant working in the 1st respondent Bank. With effect from 01/04/2003, she was promoted as Internal Auditor. This was on the basis of resolution dated 17/02/2003, passed by the Bank relaxing the qualification subject to the approval of the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P1, granted approval only with effect from the date of the order, namely 05/03/2005, and appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order resulted in its rejection, by Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed, and the petitioner claims that she is entitled to the benefit of the relaxation with effect from the date of promotion i.e. 01/04/2003. 2. The petitioner rightly relied on the judgment of this Court in Dasan v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2007(1) KLT 581), where after detailed consideration of this very issue, this WP(C) No.14330/2009 -2- Court has held that an employee like the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of relaxation as resolved by the Committee. 3. If that be so, Exts.P1 & P3 giving the benefit of relaxation with effect from the date of Ext.P1 order is erroneous and for that reason, Ext.P1 order to that extent and Ext.P3 order rejecting the appeal deserve to be set aside and I do so. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of declaring that the petitioner is eligible to have the benefit of relaxation as resolved by the Committee with effect from 01/04/2003. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg