IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31167 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.C.ABHILASH,BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, ARACKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LTD NO.1858, ARACKAL,EDAYAM.PO,VALAKOM(VIA), KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTELD BY ITS SECRETARY,CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ARACKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,LTD NO.1858, ARACKAL,EDAYAM.P.O,VALAKOM(VIA), KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMED HASHIM R2 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31167/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE WITH CONNECTED DOCUMENTS. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2008(1) KLT 478. P3:- COPIES OF SUCH ORDERS WITH DATES ARE AS FOLLOWS GO(P) NO.199/08/CO.OP. DTD. 1.9.08, GO(P) NO.4/08/CO.OP. DTD. 2.1.08 G.O.(P) NO.205/08/CO.OP. DTD. 3.9.08, GO (P) NO.207/08/CO.OP. DTD. 3.9.08, GO(P) NO.197/08/CO.OP. DYD. 30.8.08, GO(P) NO.198/08/CO.OP. DTD. 30.8.08, G.O.(P) NO.200/08/CO.OP. DTD. 2.9.08 GO(P) NO.208/08/CO.OP. DTD. 3..08, GO(P) NO.210/08/CO.OP. DT. 3.9.08 , G.O.(P) NO.159/08/CO.OP. DTD. 28.6.08 G.O.(P) NO.11/07/CO.OP. DTD. 4.1.07, G.O.(P) NO.8/07/CO.OP. DTD. 4.1.07 G.O.(P) NO.17/08/CO.OP. DTD. 7.1.08 , GO(P) NO.62/07/CO.OP. DTD. 15.2.07, GO(P) NO.29/07/CO.OP. DTD. 8.1.07, GO(P) NO.30/07/CO.OP. DTD. 8.1.07 GO (P) NO.5/07/CO.OP. DTD. 4.1.07, GO(P) NO.12/07/CO.OP. DTD. 4.1.07, GO(P) NO.203/06/CO.OP. DTD. 22.12.06, G.O.(P) NO.07/07/CO.OP. DTD. 4.1.07, GO(P) NO.28/07/CO.OP. DTD. 8.1.07, GO(P) NO.26/07/CO.OP. DT. 8.1.07 GO(P) NO.16/8/CO.OP. DTD. 7.1.08, GO(P) NO.18/08/CO.OP. DTD. 7.1.08, GO(P) NO.5/08/CO.OP. DTD. 2.1.08, GO(P) NO.3/08/CO.OP. DTD. 2.1.08, GO(P) NO.14/07/CO.OP. DTD. 5.1.07, GO(P) NO.9/7/CO.OP. DTD. 4.1.07, GO(P) NO.209/08/CO.OP. DTD. 3.9.08 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22.6.09 IN WP. (C) NO.17102/09. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.10.09 OF THE GOVERNMENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.31167 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as an Accountant holding charge of the Branch Manager in the service of the second respondent, Co-operative Bank. The petitioner had joined the service of the Bank after passing SSLC and JDC. As per Ext.P1, the Managing Committee requested the Government for relaxation of the academic qualification of graduation that is required for promotion as a Branch Manager. As per Rule 185 (8)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules' for short), a candidate is required to satisfy the criteria stipulated therein. The rule reads as under:- “185(8) - It shall be competent for the Registrar of Co- operative Societies to relax the qualification, other than basic qualification, and pass in the competitive examination specified in sub-rule (5) of an employee, for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases, on the request of a society by passing a resolution subject to the following conditions:- a)xxxxxx Wpc 31167/2009 2 b)Where the academic qualification prescribed is graduation and above, exemption from acquiring the said qualification may be, considered if the incumbent satisfied the following conditions, namely - i)should have passed JDC or equivalent; ii)should have a minimum service of five years in the feeder category; and iii) should not be less than forty five years of age”. 2. As per the above provision, the incumbent should have passed JDC or equivalent, should have a minimum 5 years' service in the feeder category and should not be less than 45 years of age. The petitioner is aged 37 years and he has only less than 5 years in the feeder category. In such a case, Sub rule 8 of Rule 185 permits the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to relax the qualification in deserving cases, on the request of a Society by passing a resolution. Accordingly, as per Ext.P1 resolution, the Managing Committee has recommended the petitioner's case as a deserving case. Since the petitioner's request is for relaxation of the basic qualification, the same could be granted only by the Government under Rule 181 of the Rules. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the Government and by Wpc 31167/2009 3 Ext.P5, the request of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Government has rejected the request for relaxation of the petitioner, without any valid reason. When the Society has recommended the petitioner as a suitable candidate who is entitled to the relaxation in qualification, it is submitted that the Government erred in not accepting the said finding as correct. It is pointed out that the finding in Ext.P5 that the petitioner was not qualified academically, professionally and practically is not supported by any material or evidence. Therefore, rejection of the request for relaxation is submitted to be whimsical and unsustainable. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, K.S.Muhamed Hashim submits on instructions that the application of the petitioner was considered on the merits and was rejected only because the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria that are required to be satisfied for the grant of promotion as a Branch Manager. He has neither satisfied the criterion regarding age nor regarding practical experience. He also does not possess a Degree. Consequently, what was required was the relaxation of all the qualifications prescribed for appointment as a Branch Manager, which the Government did not think fit to grant, in Wpc 31167/2009 4 the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also pointed out that the Society being a Class I Special Grade type bank, its Branches require the handling of innumerable transactions for which a person without proper experience would be unsuitable. 5. The counsel for the petitioner points out that in the Government Oder produced as Ext.P3(series), there were a number of instances where relaxation has been granted from all the requirements stipulated by the relevant Rule. Particular reliance is placed on Ext.P3 (35)(G.O(P)No.5/07/Co.op. Dated 4.1.2007) and Ext.P3(56)(G.O(P) NO.14/07/Co.op dated 5.1.2007). In both the above Government Orders, the condition regarding completion of 45 years of age as well as 5 years of experience in service have been cumulatively relaxed to benefit the incumbents therein. Having done so, in the said cases, it is pointed out that the request of the petitioner has been rejected without any valid reasons. If the Government do not accept the recommendations of the Managing Committee, proper reasons for the same had to be given, which is evidently absent in Ext.P5. 6. I have gone through the records of the case and considered the rival contentions anxiously. The request of the petitioner has been rejected in Ext.P5, in the following words:- Wpc 31167/2009 5 “ Though Shri.N.C.Abhilash is the senior most in the seniority list for promoting as Branch Manager he has not qualified academically, professionally and practically. He does not possess ample experience for handling Branches of Class I Special Grade type bank where innumerable transactions are to be carried out. Hence he is not qualified to be promoted as Branch Manager. An employee posted in a supervisory cadre must have adequate knowledge, experience and academic qualification. Govt. have considered and analysed all the above aspects. Shri.N.C.Abhilash has not completed 5 years of service in the feeder category and he has not attained 45 years of age”. 7. Ext.P1 shows that the Managing Committee has found the petitioner to be a person of efficiency and knowledge in the work that he had been doing for the Bank. According to the Managing Committee, the petitioner is a person with good knowledge of accounts, leadership quality, good conduct and efficiency. Therefore, the Managing Committee found the petitioner to be a suitable person to be promoted as its Branch Manager. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the senior-most person in the feeder category. It was in the above circumstances, that a relaxation of the qualifications was sought Wpc 31167/2009 6 for by the Society. 8. There is no doubt that the recommendation of the Committee is not binding on the Government. Nevertheless, when the Government decides to reject the recommendations of the Managing Committee, it has to state clear and cogent reasons for rejecting the recommendation. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, it was not possible for the Government Secretary who has passed Ext.P5, to have personally assessed the professional and practical qualifications or efficiency of the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, it is not clear on what basis the conclusions arrived at in Ext.P5 are based. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to point out any material justifying the above conclusion. Therefore, the conclusion in Ext.P5 that the petitioner is not entitled to the relaxation that was sought for cannot be sustained. Ext.P5 has proceeded to reject the request for the grant of exemption to the petitioner, without any justification. I also notice that in the Government Orders relied on by the petitioner, produced as Ext.P3, innumerable exemptions have been granted by the Government to others in similar circumstances, particularly, Ext.P3(35) and (56). If that be so, one fails to understand why the case of the petitioner has been considered differently. For the above reasons, Wpc 31167/2009 7 Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. 9. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the application afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. A fresh decision as indicated above shall be taken 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 lgk