IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30930 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- U.S.LIBISHA, BRANCH MANAGER (IN CHARGE), MUTHOLAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.140, ELANJI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30930/2008-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 21/06/07 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER. EXT.P.2, P.3 & P.4: COPIES OF THE ORDERS DTD. 13/08/97, 16/11/01, 30/04/02 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR DTD. 20/09/08. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDERS S.R.O. NO. 31/07 DTD. 10/01/2007, S.R.O NO. 46/07 DTD. 15/01/2007, S.R.O NO.47/07 DTD. 15/01/2007, S.R.O. NO. 48/07 DTD. 15/01/2007, & S.R.O. NO. 49/07 DTD. 15/01/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 20/07/08. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/08/08 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30930 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an employee of the Mutholappuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.140. She joined service as a Junior Clerk and was granted promotion from time to time. Thus, she is now working as an Accountant. The next promotion post of the petitioner is that of a Branch Manager. However, as per Rule 186 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the qualification from the post of Branch Manager is graduation with JDC. The petitioner is not a graduate. Therefore, as per resolution dated 21.6.2007, the Managing Committee of the bank requested the second respondent to grant exemption to the petitioner from acquiring the qualification of graduation for promotion to the post of Branch Manager. 2. As per Rule 185(8) of the Rules, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is empowered to relax the qualification for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases on the request of the Society where the incumbent wpc No.30930 of 2008 2 has passed JDC or equivalent has a minimum service of 5 years in the feeder category and is not less than 45 years of age. Since the petitioner has not completed 5 years in the feeder category and has not completed 45 years of age, she sought exemption from all the three conditions stipulated by Rule 185(8) of the Rules. Her case was recommended by the Society which passed a resolution seeking relaxation of the qualifications by invoking the powers of the Government under Rule 181 of the Rules. As per Ext.P5 communication, the petitioner was informed by the first respondent that her request for relaxation had been rejected. The order rejecting her request is Ext.P8. The petitioner challenges Exts.P4 and P8 in these proceedings. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has now completed 45 years of age and has also acquired the qualification of five years service in the feeder category. Therefore, at present she requires only relaxation of the qualification of graduation. The counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P6 series, the Government Orders by which other similarly placed wpc No.30930 of 2008 3 persons have been given relaxation from all the three stipulations contained in Rule 185(8) of the rules. Therefore, he attacks Exts.P5 and P8 as unsustainable and liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.Mohammed Hashim also. 4. As per judgment dated 30.6.2010 in WPC No.31167 of 2009, I have disposed of a similar writ petition. After considering the circumstances under which the petitioner therein was denied relaxation in similar circumstances. I have found in the judgment that the Government have been granting relaxation from all the requirements to various other persons. In the above circumstances, there is no justification for denying the same relief to the petitioner. In fact Ext.P8 does not contain any reason for denying the same benefits to the petitioner. In the light of the judgment referred to above, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed. Ext.P8 order rejecting the request of the petitioner is therefore set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass fresh orders on the application for relaxation submitted by the petitioner in the light of wpc No.30930 of 2008 4 the judgment of this Court referred to above. Orders as indicted above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/