IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13332 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL KUMAR.S,PART TIME SWEEPER, KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HEAD OFFICE, KOLLAM. RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KEEZHANNOOR,PEZHUMMOODU,VALAVUPACHA.P.O,CHITHIRA VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL),COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM. 2. THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE PRESIDENT,KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,HEAD OFFICE,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R2-3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13332 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had while he was working as Driver on daily wages in the second respondent bank filed O.P.No.6287 of 2002 in this Court praying for a direction to bank to regularise him in service. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 1.3.2002, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the bank to consider the representation produced and marked as Ext.P5 in that writ petition, with notice to the petitioner and to take appropriate action within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The part time Administrator of the bank considered the said representation and passed Ext.P2 order dated 11.7.2002 rejecting his request. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 by filing W.P.(C) No.20378 of 2003 in this Court. While the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner filed a representation dated 6.11.2004 requesting the bank to engage him as Part-time Sweeper. W.P.(C) No.20378 of 2003 was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 23.11.2004 with a direction to the bank to consider the representation dated 6.11.2004 submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law. When W.P.(C) No.20378 of 2003 was heard, the petitioner did not pursue the main W.P.(C) No.13332 of 2010 2 relief sought in the writ petition, but only sought a direction to the bank to consider his representation dated 6.11.2004, wherein he had sought engagement as Part-time Sweeper. 2. As directed by this Court, the bank considered the said representation and passed Ext.P4 order dated 15.3.2005 appointing the petitioner as Part-time Sweeper. He was later posted on working arrangement as Driver in the Head office until alternate arrangement is made, by Ext.P5 letter dated 9.6.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated nil before the third respondent stating that Sri.Vijayan Pillai, who was engaged as Part-time Sweeper was later appointed as Peon taking into account his past services on daily wages, and hence he is entitled to be appointed as Driver and accommodated in the existing vacancy. He thereafter submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 13.3.2010 before the first respondent seeking regularisation of his services as Part-time Sweeper and to grant further promotions that are due to him. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent and the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 representations respectively and take an appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously and within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. W.P.(C) No.13332 of 2010 3 3. It is evident from Ext.P4 order that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, the bank appointed the petitioner as Part-time Sweeper. Under the feeder category rules, the post of Driver is a post to which Peons/Watchers in the service of the bank can claim promotion. The claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service as Driver was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 11.7.2002. The said order has become final. Though the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.20378 of 2003 challenging Ext.P2, he gave up the challenge and did not pursue the writ petition. When the writ petition was finally heard, he only sought a disposal of the representation dated 6.11.2004 that was produced and marked as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.20378 of 2003. In that representation, he had sought engagement as Part-time Sweeper. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioner was appointed as Part-time Sweeper. By Ext.P4 order dated 15.3.2005, he accepted the said appointment also. Years later, on working arrangement basis, he was directed to work as Driver. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioner was engaged to work as Driver on working arrangement basis cannot be a reason to overlook the claims of eligible persons for promotion to the category of Driver. The W.P.(C) No.13332 of 2010 4 request made by the petitioner in Exts.P6 and P7 cannot therefore be granted. Such being the situation, no purpose will be served by directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation or by directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the authorities who are bound by the feeder category rules to act in violation of the said rules or ignoring the said rules and direct consideration of a request which runs counter to the feeder category rules. The petitioner who did not succeed in his attempt to claim regular appointment as Driver and he was able to secure regular employment in the bank as Part-time Sweeper cannot seek appointment as Driver to the detriment of persons working as Peons/Watchers in the second respondent bank. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.