High Court Kerala High Court

P. Anithakumari vs Government Of Kerala on 24 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
P. Anithakumari vs Government Of Kerala on 24 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2866 of 2008(N)


1. P. ANITHAKUMARI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. CALICUT NORTH SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

4. M. SUMATHI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :24/01/2008

 O R D E R
              THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

                      ---------------------------------

                       W.P(c)No.2866 OF 2008

                    ------------------------------------

              Dated this the 24th  day of January, 2008


                                JUDGMENT

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not

persuaded to act on any of the proceedings shown on record,

either as orders of the Government or as decisions of the

Registrar. However Ext.P1 request of the society is stated to have

been placed before the appropriate authority. In Ext.P5 judgment

I have clearly held that while the power to grant relaxation may

be with the Registrar, the power of exemption is with the

Government and that the power of exemption can be exercised

only in favour of the institution as a whole. The power of

relaxation from qualification is to be considered on individual

basis, subject to satisfaction of the conditions imposed by the

legislature.

In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing

anything on merits as regards the request in Ext.P1, this writ

petition is disposed of directing that the competent authority will

take up Ext.P1 and render a decision thereon in accordance with

WPC.No.12866/08 2

law. The employer society and the petitioner, if she desires will be

given an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing in the matter. All

other questions are left open. Any dispute between the

petitioner and the fourth respondent relating to promotion is a

matter that would fall for arbitration. Hence no directions are

issued herein regarding that.

THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGE

sv.