IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7517 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- HAMSA NAHA.K., ACCOUNTANT TIRURANGADI SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES (GENERAL) MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TIRURANGADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,TIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7517/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3842/86/CRP DT. 21.6.1986 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION 7.9.88. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 14.11.06. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DT. 1.1.07. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.EM(3)32256/07/K.DIS DT. 9.7.07 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CRP. (2)/514/07/L.DIS DT. 16.10.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7517 OF 2008 (T) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The issue raised in this writ petition is as to whether the Registrar of Co-operative Societies acted illegally in refusing to grant exemption to the petitioner from acquiring the qualification of graduation for being promoted to the category of Branch Manager. Apart from the fact that he is not a graduate, the undisputed situation is that he does not possess JDC. In the impugned Exhibit P5, the Registrar has stated that in the absence of the petitioner possessing the statutory basic qualification of JDC, no exemption can be considered at all particularly, in view of the amendment dated 10-8-2005 to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, in short “Rules”. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P1 in answer to this situation whereby, on 21-6-1986, the Joint Registrar had granted an order exempting the petitioner permanently from the training qualification under Rule 185(2) of the Rules. The petitioner was then Junior Clerk cum Cashier and was permanently exempted from acquiring the qualification of W.P.(C) No.7517/2008 - 2 - JDC, as sought for, for promoting him as a Senior Clerk, to which post he was actually promoted even before Exhibit P1 order. Before the amendment of 1988, Rule 185(8) of Rules provided for granting exemption of relaxation of qualification. This has to be done by the committee of the society “for the purpose of promotion in deserving case, with the prior approval of the Registrar, and for reasons to be recorded” in writing. The amendment of 1988 with effect from 1-1-1974 sustained the same power with the committee enlarging the beneficiaries. Therefore, even when the petitioner was granted benefit of Exhibit P1, there was no concept of “permanent exemption or permanent relaxation” because the question of relaxation in qualification has to be considered in deserving case, for the purpose of promotion. Such consideration would arise only on case to case basis and only as and when a question of promotion arises. It is the exercise of such discretion, that calls for the approval of the Registrar and further, that the Registrar has to record reasons. So much so, Exhibit P1, as of now, is of no avail to be treated as a permanent exemption though the Joint Registrar who issued it, had described it to be so. As and when W.P.(C) No.7517/2008 - 3 - the question of promotion to the post of Branch Manager arose, Rule 185(8) of the Rules, as it now stands, has fallen in place and therefore, the Registrar is justified in issuing the impugned order. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/23/9 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.