IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21065 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ A.AMBUJAKSHI, AGED 58, W/O. SETHU MADHAVAN, SETHU VIHAR, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 636. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE THENHIPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.D-1969, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE THENHIPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. D-1969, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21065 OF 2009 (C) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, a matriculate with JDC, joined the service of the 3rd respondent on 4/1/79 as Junior Clerk. She was promoted as Senior Clerk on 20/7/84, as Accountant on 1/1/2002 and as Internal Auditor w.e.f. 01/04/2002. 2. In terms of the qualifications prescribed under Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, for the post of Internal Auditor, Degree is an essential qualification. As the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification of Degree, the 3rd respondent passed resolution dated 20/5/2004, resolving to relax the qualification subject to the approval of the Registrar. The matter was taken up with the Registrar by letter dated 22/9/2004. The request for approval was rejected on the basis that the petitioner had not completed 5 years of service in the category of Accountant to be promoted as Internal Auditor. Appeal filed against the said order was rejected by the 1st respondent. 3. In the meantime, petitioner also retired from the WPC 21065/09 :2 : service in June, 2009. Thereupon, WP(C) No.37004/08 was filed challenging the order passed by the Registrar and the Government, and that writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 19/6/09. One of the grounds, on which relief was declined to the petitioner was that Ext.P2 circular No.22/89 dated 12.4.89 provided for five years residency in the lower post to claim exemption from educational qualification for promotion to the higher post and that this condition was not satisfied. It is pointed out that WA No.1635/09 filed against Ext.P1 judgment has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 28/7/09. 4. In this writ petition, what is sought to be challenged is Ext.P2 Circular No.22/89 dated 12/4/89, which according to the petitioner is illegal and the Registrar had no power to have issued the same. 5. In my view, this contention has no substance. Circular has been issued under Section 66A of the Act, which enables the Registrar to issue general direction and guidelines to the Co- operative Societies in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. WPC 21065/09 :3 : Evidently, it is to achieve uniformity in the matter of requests for exemption and also for ensuring efficiency in service, circular has been issued by the Registrar exercising the aforesaid power. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that Registrar has no power to issue the same. Further, the circular having been issued way back in 12/4/89 , I am not persuaded to entertain a challenge against the same at this distance of time. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp