IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 37134 of 2004(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.P.MOIDEENKUTTY, ATTENDER, WORKING AS JUNIOR CASHIER-IN-CHARGE, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. T.P.ABDUL GAFOOR, ATTENDER, WORKING AS JUNIOR CASHIER-IN-CHARGE, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 4. KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VALANCHERRY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR FOR R4 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 37134/04. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.30.9.96. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1.2.97 BY R3. P2A. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.10.97 BY R1. P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.1423/98 OF THIS COURT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.11.04 BY R3. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.11.04 BY R3. P6. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.22.3.89 BY R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 37134 of 2004 ================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Sub Staff of the 4th respondent co-operative society. They aspire for promotion to the post of Junior Cashier. But they did not have the qualification prescribed for the same at the relevant time, viz, September, 1996. But the Committee, by Ext.P1 resolution dated 30.9.1996, decided to request the 3rd respondent to grant approval for exemption to the petitioners from the prescribed qualification. However, the 3rd respondent rejected the claim for exemption, by Ext.P2, holding that the Government has issued direction not to grant exemption to any employee from acquiring SSLC qualification. An appeal filed before the Government was also rejected by Ext.P2(a) order relying on Ext.P6 Government order. That order was challenged by the society before this Court in O.P.No.1423/98. By Ext.P3 judgment therein, this Court quashed Ext.P6 Government order and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter uninfluenced by Ext.P6 Government order. Pursuant to that judgment, Exts.P4 and P5 orders have been passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the petitioners again rejecting the request for exemption. One of the grounds for rejecting the exemption was that in circular No.22/89 dated 12.4.1989, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has w.p.c.37134/04 2 prescribed standards for giving exemption and exemption sought for is against that circular. Ext.P7 is that circular. The petitioners' contention is that Ext.P7 circular was issued based on Ext.P6 Government order which was quashed by this Court . Therefore, when the basis of Ext.P7 circular itself goes, Ext.P7 circular does not have any independent existence. Therefore, the submission is that Exts.P4 and P5 orders of the 3rd respondent relying on Ext.P7 circular is clearly vitiated and against Ext.P3 judgment of this Court. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He would strenuously try to convince me that that circular is not the only reason for rejection the claim for exemption. But he could not dispute the fact that in view of quashing of Ext.P6 following the order by this Court by Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P7 circular does not have any independent existence. Since the 3rd respondent has primarily relied on that circular for the purpose of passing Exts.P4 and P5 orders, I am of opinion that those orders cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P5 orders are quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the question of exemption of the petitioners from acquiring qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Cashier without reference to Ext.P7 circular, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well w.p.c.37134/04 3 as the 4th respondent. Needless to say, such consideration shall be in accordance with law as obtaining on the date of the resolution of the 4th respondent society in respect of the relaxation in qualification for the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge