IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8582 of 2010(W)
1. K.V.SUSHAMA, BRANCH MANAGER, CHENGAMANAD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. CHENGAMANAD PANCHAYAT SERVICE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :04/08/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) Nos. 8582 & 9641 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge
Exts.P4 and P9 orders, by which requests of the petitioners
for relaxation of the educational qualification prescribed
under Rule 185(8)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short), have
been declined.
2. The nature of the challenge in both these writ
petitions is the same and hence, they are being considered
together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8582 of 2010 entered
the service of the third respondent bank on 26-11-1997,
after passing S.S.L.C., J.D.C. and Diploma in Electronics
from Vanitha Polytechnic, Ernakulam. She was promoted as
Senior Clerk on 1-2-3003 and thereafter as Branch
Manager with effect from 1-5-2005. As per the Feeder
Category Rules, the next promotion of the petitioner is to
W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 2
the post of the Assistant Secretary. As per Rule 186 of the
Rules, the qualification for the post of Assistant Secretary is
graduation.
4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9641 of 2010 is a person
who had entered the service of the third respondent as a Peon
on 6-5-1981. He was promoted as Junior Clerk on 6-12-1985,
Senior Clerk on 12-2-1987 and later as Accountant with effect
from 1-4-2008. His next promotion is as Branch Manger. As
per Rule 186 of the Rules, the qualification for the post of
Branch Manager is graduation.
5. Since the petitioners in both these writ petitions do
not possess the qualification of graduation, the Managing
Committee requested the Government to grant exemption to
them from the said qualification. According to the Managing
Committee, the petitioners in both these cases are efficient,
well experienced and suitable for being promoted to the next
higher post. According to the Managing Committee, the
petitioners are valuable assets of the society and their services
would enhance the progress of the society. However, by the
W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 3
impugned orders, Exts.P4 and P9, the exemption sought for by
the Managing Committee has been rejected by the
Government without assigning any reason.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P.(C) No. 8582
of 2010, wherein it is pointed out that the petitioner in the said
writ petition is only aged 39 years. Exemptions have been
granted only in cases where the incumbents had completed 45
years of age. If the petitioner is granted the relaxation that has
been sought, that would result in denying the chances of
promotion to various other employees who were older to her.
It is pointed out that it was for the said reason that the request
of the petitioners for relaxation of qualification was declined.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective
petitioners, the learned counsel for the society and the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
8. Rule 185(8) (b) of the Rules stipulates certain
conditions that are required to be satisfied for the grant of
exemption from the educational qualification. The provision
stipulates three conditions, which which are the following:-
W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 4
1) The incumbent should have passed J.D.C. or
equivalent.
2) The incumbent should have a minimum service of five
years in the feeder category post.
3) The incumbent should not be less than 45 years of age.
9. Since the application for relaxation submitted by the
petitioners in these cases are for relaxation of the basic
qualification; the same can be granted only by the Government
under rule 181 of the Rules. Therefore, the matter was
considered by the Government and orders have been issued
rejecting the request, as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P9 orders
in both these cases.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
rejection of the request of the petitioners is not supported by
any reasons. Since the petitioners have been recommended
by the Managing Committee, the Government erred in not
accepting the same. It is also submitted that similarly placed
persons have been granted relaxation of all the three
requirements stipulated under rule 185(8) of the Rules.
W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 5
Therefore, it is contended that the rejection of the request of
the petitioners for exemption is without any basis.
11. Exts.P5 series Government Orders show that in
other similar cases relaxation has been granted with reference
to all the conditions stipulated by rule 185(8) of the Rules. As
per G.O.(P) No.5/2007/Co-op dated 4-1-2007 (Ext.P5(35)), one
Sri.P.S. Sabu was granted relaxation in age as well as the
condition regarding five years’ service in the feeder category
post. Similarly, in G.O.(P) No.14/2007/Co-op. Dated 5-1-2007
(Ext.P5(56)) one Smt. P.Sheela was also granted relaxation of
the age limit of 45 years as well as the condition regarding five
years’ service in the feeder category. These Government
Orders would show that both the above conditions were
relaxed by the Government to the benefit of the incumbents
therein. However, in the present cases, similar requests of the
petitioners have been rejected without any valid reasons. If the
recommendations of the Managing Committee are not
acceptable to the Government, proper reasons should have
been given, which is conspicuously absent in the impugned
W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 6
orders. The petitioners have also placed reliance on a
judgment dated 30-6-2010 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 31167
of 2009 to contend that in similar circumstances, this Court
had set aside the rejection order and directed the Government
to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
12. Resolutions of the Managing Committee in both
these cases show that the petitioners are efficient,
experienced and competent and that according to the
Managing Committee their services were necessary in the
interests of the concerned society. The petitioner in W.P.(C)
No. 8582 of 2010 is the senior most employee in the service of
the society while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9641 of 2010 is
not only the senior most employee but also a person aged
more than 55 years. It was in the said circumstances that
relaxation was sought for by the Managing Committee. Ext.P5
series show that similarly placed persons have been granted
exemption. There is no reason as to why the requests of the
petitioners for exemption have been rejected by the impugned
orders. No materials have been placed before me to come to a
W.P.(C) No. 8582/2010 & con. case. 7
conclusion that the case of the petitioners are in any way
different. Hence, I find that the rejection of the petitioners’
request in these cases is without any basis. Therefore, Exts.P4
and P9 in both these cases are liable to be set aside.
13. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are
allowed and Exts.P4 and P9 in both these cases are set aside.
The first respondent in both these cases is directed to consider
the matter afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in
accordance with law. A fresh decision, as indicated above,
shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE.
mn.