IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8429 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.G.MANIKUTTY, W/O. KARUNAKARA PILLAI, KOCHUPARAMBIL, WEST CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. 3. THE WEST CHALAKUDY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8429/2007-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 DTD. 05/09/1994 OF THE R.2. SOCIETY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2 DTD. 05/09/1994 OF THE R.2. SOCIETY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 3 DTD. 05/09/1994 OF THE R.2. SOCIETY. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR DTD. 20/12/2003. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.11 DTD. 22/03/2004. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REQUEST ADDRESSED TO THE R.1. DTD. 28/04/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.12 DTD. 27/10/2004 OF THE R.2. SOCIETY. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 21/12/2004. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 08/06/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 6364/2005. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 27/12/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.8429 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P5 would show that, following the existence of a vacancy of Secretary, the committee of the third respondent society resolved to promote the petitioner to that post and also to seek prior sanction for exempting her from possessing the qualification prescribed by the statute. At that point of time, going by the Rules as it then stood, such course was open. But, the request was not dealt with, since the third respondent was yet to bring out its feeder category rules. The matter stood returned to the employer, the third respondent. Later, on the feeder category rules being made and approved by the competent authority, the request, following the promotion given to the petitioner in 1994 as Secretary, was again taken up before the Joint WPC8429/07 -:2:- Registrar. However, that was negatived without stating any reason. This Court virtually found merit in the contention of the petitioner that the request for retrospective approval with effect from 5-9-1994 requires to be considered. Hence, Ext.P9 judgment was issued, quashing the earlier decision of the Joint Registrar and relegating the parties for re-consideration of the issue. The decision, declining approval to the promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 5-9-1994, was quashed by this Court and re-consideration of the issue was ordered after holding that there is every justification to have re-consideration of the decision to the extent it was then against the petitioner. The said order was essentially one of remit because, what ought to have been exercised was the statutory power and this Court only showed the course rather than doing it by itself. But, what has been done as per the impugned order is just to reiterate the earlier view. This is WPC8429/07 -:3:- obviously on the assumption that, in the absence of prior sanction, approval for exemption from qualification could never be granted. As already noticed, in terms of law, as it then stood, exemption was a matter with the committee of the society; which is to be exercised with the prior approval of the Registrar. In a given case like the one in hand, particularly when it is a matter of record that the employer, the third respondent society, had, as a matter of fact, applied, even in 1994, for prior sanction, there is no reason why ex-post facto sanction cannot be granted, since that is essentially a curative device to take care of administrative situations like the one in hand. Under such circumstances, the impugned order, which does not flow against the petitioner on any ground other than the reason that prior approval was not obtained, has no legal foundation. The official respondents have no case, expressed in the impugned order, that, had prior approval been sought for, WPC8429/07 -:4:- there were reasons to refuse that. Hence, it has necessarily to be concluded that the case in hand is one where the decision of the committee to exempt the petitioner from acquiring the qualification from which she was exempted by the committee ought to have approved with effect from 5-9-1994. Not only that, it also needs to be noticed that, with effect from 5-9-1994, she had discharged her duties and responsibilities attached to the post of the Secretary. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decision, to the extent it is against the petitioner, is quashed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the decision of the third respondent (Ext.P2) promoting her to the post of Secretary. Following this declaration, the second respondent is directed to issue necessary orders granting approval of Ext.P2 resolution with effect from 5-9-1994. All WPC8429/07 -:5:- necessary consequences on the basis of this declaration and direction shall follow and shall be made available to the petitioner within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.15.9.