IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5254 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.P.ANTONY,SECRETARY,MATTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,NO.140,P.O MATTOM, THRISSUR - 680 602. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)THRISSUR. 2. THE MATTOM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.140 P.O MATTOM,THRISSUR-68602,REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5254 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was working in the category of Assistant Secretary in the service of the second respondent with effect from 1.1.2002. On account of the post of Secretary falling vacant on superannuation of the then incumbent, the petitioner was put in charge of the Secretary with effect from 30.11.2005. Thereafter, on 16.6.2006, the committee of the society resolved to request the Registrar to grant relaxation to the Petitioner from acquiring qualification of graduation. In exercise of authority under Rule 185 (8), the Registrar has granted Ext.P2 relaxation with effect from the date of the decision of the committee, i.e., 16.6.2006. This writ petition is filed staking claim that the committee having decided seeking relaxation with effect form 30.11.2005, the petitioner is entitled for such relief and the first respondent cannot peg the date of effect of Ext.P2 to be on the date of resolution. WPC.5254/08 Page numbers 2. Going by the conditions to be satisfied for granting relaxation in terms of Rule 185 (8), the incumbent ought to have five years' of service in the feeder category. This means that the petitioner should have had five years of experience in the category of Assistant Secretary to become the Secretary, with the aid of the relaxation in terms of that Rule. As already noticed, he became Assistant Secretary only on 1.1.2002 and on 30.11.2005, he could not gain five years experience in that category. Therefore, whatever be the validity of the decision in Ext.P2, whereby the first respondent has granted relaxation with effect from the date of the decision of the committee, I do not find that the petitioner has any legal entitlement to insist that it should be dated back to 30.11.2005, the date from which the committee, on its own opinion, decided to have relaxation for the Petitioner and made a request to the Registrar. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.