{"id":6724,"date":"2010-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-29T16:17:13","modified_gmt":"2016-10-29T10:47:13","slug":"mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 22352 of 2010(T)\n\n\n1. MOHANDAS M.K., JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,\n\n3. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE\n\n4. JOY JOSEPH, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT,\n\n5. THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE\n\n6. TENSY SCARIA, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF,SC,KOLLM DISTRICT CO-\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :16\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J\n                        ...........................................\n                 WP(C).Nos.22352 & 22888 OF 2010\n                        ............................................\n         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                       `C R’<\/p>\n
       Are mutual transfers permissible between two different District<\/p>\n
Co-operative Banks ? This is the question that arises for determination<\/p>\n
in these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Both these writ petitions challenge the transfer                   granted<\/p>\n
mutually to an employee of the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank<\/p>\n
Ltd and an employee of the Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd.<\/p>\n
The proceedings are attacked as unsustainable in law and liable to be<\/p>\n
set aside. The service regulations that permit such transfer are also<\/p>\n
assailed as being violative of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies Act, 1969 (`the Act’ for short) and the Rules thereunder.<\/p>\n
Since the issues that arise for consideration are common, these writ<\/p>\n
petitions are considered and disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
The short facts necessary for the purpose are summarised hereunder.<\/p>\n
      3. The petitioner in WP(C)No.22352 of 2010 is working as a<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Junior Accountant in the third respondent Bank, viz, the Kottayam<\/p>\n
District Co-operative Bank Ltd. He joined service as a Clerk\/Cashier<\/p>\n
on 14.7.1995. He was sanctioned the grade of a Junior Accountant on<\/p>\n
17.4.2005 and was promoted to the post on 22.12.2007.<\/p>\n
      4. The fourth respondent Sri Joy Joseph, had joined service as a<\/p>\n
Clerk\/Cashier in the Kollam District Co-operative Bank only on<\/p>\n
21.2.2001 that is, six years after the appointment of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
However, he was promoted as a Junior Accountant on 7.3.2005 and as<\/p>\n
a Senior Accountant on 12.2.2009.\n<\/p>\n
      5. While so, the 6th respondent, Smt.Tensy Scaria and Sri Joy<\/p>\n
Joseph submitted a joint application for mutual transfer among<\/p>\n
themselves. The request was considered by the Board of Directors of<\/p>\n
the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank and a resolution was passed<\/p>\n
to the effect that the Bank does not have any objection to the mutual<\/p>\n
transfer and also resolved to post the 4th respondent, Sri Joy Joseph as<\/p>\n
the junior-most Senior Accountant in the Bank. Since the transfer and<\/p>\n
posting could be permitted only with the consent of the Registrar of<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies, such consent was also sought for. The Board of<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                3<\/span><\/p>\n
Directors of the Kollam District Co-operative Bank also resolved to<\/p>\n
permit the transfer that was sought for. In the above circumstances, the<\/p>\n
petitioner in WP(C)No.22352 of 2010 filed WP(C) No.16741 of 2010,<\/p>\n
challenging the resolution of the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank.<\/p>\n
The writ petition was disposed of by this court as per judgment dated<\/p>\n
1.6.2010, Ext.P10 in WP(C)No.22352 of 2010, directing the Registrar<\/p>\n
of Co-operative Societies to consider the grievance of the petitioner<\/p>\n
also while passing orders in the matter. Pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment,<\/p>\n
the matter was considered by the Registrar and Ext.P12 order has been<\/p>\n
passed, which is the order under challenge in both these writ petitions.<\/p>\n
A copy of the said order has been produced in WP(C)No.22888 of<\/p>\n
2010 also, marked as Ext.P1. Pursuant to the impugned order,<\/p>\n
Smt.Tensy Scaria and Sri Joy Joseph have been relieved, but they have<\/p>\n
not been able to join duty in the respective posts to which they have<\/p>\n
been transferred, because an interim order of “status quo”issued by<\/p>\n
this Court is in force. Therefore, it is submitted that a break in service<\/p>\n
would be the consequence, unless appropriate orders regarding the<\/p>\n
manner in which their period of absence is to be treated, are issued in<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
these proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The petitioners in WP(C)No.22888 of 2010 are also persons<\/p>\n
who are working as Junior Accountants in the Kottayam District Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank Ltd. They too claim to be persons who were recruited<\/p>\n
along with Smt.Tensy Scaria and Sri Joy Joseph. However, the said<\/p>\n
persons have been promoted over them. In the above writ petition also,<\/p>\n
identical contentions as in the other writ petition are raised. For the<\/p>\n
sake of convenience, the documents are referred to hereinafter, in the<\/p>\n
order in which they are marked as exhibits in WP(C)No.22352 of 2010,<\/p>\n
unless specifically referred to otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 4,<\/p>\n
5 and 6, opposing the prayers in the writ petition. According to the<\/p>\n
respondents, the petitioners are not at all persons who come within the<\/p>\n
scope of the expression, `persons aggrieved’ so as to entitle them to<\/p>\n
challenge Ext.P12 proceedings. It is pointed out that the petitioners in<\/p>\n
both these cases are only Junior Accountants whereas the mutual<\/p>\n
transfer is effected to the higher post of Senior Accountant. Therefore,<\/p>\n
they have not suffered any injury by virtue of such transfer. Further, it<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                5<\/span><\/p>\n
is pointed out that since the Rules permit mutual transfer, the same is<\/p>\n
not liable to be interfered with.     No chances of promotion of the<\/p>\n
petitioners would be affected for the reason that the person who has<\/p>\n
been transferred to Kollam, viz Tensy Scaria, is younger than Sri Joy<\/p>\n
Joseph. Therefore, since Joy Joseph would retire on a date earlier to<\/p>\n
that of Smt Tensy Scaria, it is pointed out that no prejudice is caused<\/p>\n
to the petitioners. On the contrary, the retirement of Sri.Joy Joseph on<\/p>\n
an earlier date would provide more opportunities for promotion to the<\/p>\n
juniors. In view of the fact that Ext.P12 has been issued in due<\/p>\n
compliance with all the procedural requirements that are stipulated by<\/p>\n
the service regulations, it is submitted that, Ext.P12 suffers from no<\/p>\n
infirmity whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
      8. According to Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
in WP(C)No.22352 of 2010, Section 80(3) of the Kerala Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies Act (`the Act’ for short), provides that the service conditions<\/p>\n
of the employees of the third respondent Bank are to be governed by<\/p>\n
the Rules made in consultation with the State Co-operative Union.<\/p>\n
However, no rules have been so framed. Instead, the Government have<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
issued Ext.P1 Service Regulations. Ext.P1 has been amended by Ext.P2<\/p>\n
dated 18.12.1989, incorporating Clause 11 B(2)(c) providing that inter<\/p>\n
bank transfer of employees of the same category of posts may be made<\/p>\n
if mutually agreed upon by the Board of Directors of the respective<\/p>\n
Banks. Later on, sub-section 3A to Section 80 of the Act was<\/p>\n
introduced by which, it is provided that all appointments of officers to<\/p>\n
the District Co-operative Banks for which direct recruitment is resorted<\/p>\n
to, is to be made from a select list to be furnished by the Kerala Public<\/p>\n
Service Commission(KPSC).         Pursuant to the above, the KPSC<\/p>\n
initiated steps for conducting selection to the post of Clerk\/Cashier in<\/p>\n
various District Co-operative Banks. In order to facilitate such<\/p>\n
selection, model regulations were framed by the KPSC, which is<\/p>\n
Ext.P3.    In the meanwhile, the Government issued an order dated<\/p>\n
26.2.2008 amending clause 11 B(2)(c) of Ext.P1 providing for inter<\/p>\n
bank transfer where the same is mutually agreed upon by the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors of the respective Banks, provided that the person so<\/p>\n
transferred would be the junior most in the category in which he\/she<\/p>\n
joins, and that the basic pay drawn by the said employee in the Bank<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                7<\/span><\/p>\n
shall be protected by the Bank to which he\/she is transferred. It is also<\/p>\n
provided that the transfer should be in consultation with the KPSC and<\/p>\n
that the Bank from which such transfer is made should report the<\/p>\n
resultant vacancy to the KPSC for fresh advice.\n<\/p>\n
      9. On the basis of the above directions, it is contended that there<\/p>\n
is no provision for a mutual transfer, since the provisions referred to<\/p>\n
above speak only of transfer of       an individual employee and for<\/p>\n
reporting of the resultant vacancy to the KPSC. When a mutual transfer<\/p>\n
is granted, there cannot be any resultant vacancy, and therefore it is<\/p>\n
contended that such a mode of transfer is not envisaged by the Rules. It<\/p>\n
is also contended that since the mode of recruitment to the post of<\/p>\n
Senior Accountant is by promotion, by permitting mutual transfer, a<\/p>\n
mode of appointment not contemplated by the Rules is being resorted<\/p>\n
to, without any statutory authorisation. For the above reason, it is<\/p>\n
contended that Ext.P12 is liable to be set aside. It is further pointed out<\/p>\n
that the person who has been transferred to the Kottayam District Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank, being a person who has become senior to the<\/p>\n
petitioners taking advantage of the better promotional avenues<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                8<\/span><\/p>\n
available in his parent Bank, would now be placed above the<\/p>\n
petitioners resulting in loss of avenues of promotion to them. Yet<\/p>\n
another contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since what<\/p>\n
is contemplated is that the person who gets the benefit of the transfer<\/p>\n
should be permitted to join duty only as the junior most in the category<\/p>\n
in which he\/she joins, the fourth respondent should be permitted to join<\/p>\n
only as the junior most in the category of Accountants and not as the<\/p>\n
junior most Senior Accountant. Reliance is also placed on Ext.P8<\/p>\n
communication issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
to the effect that the question of finalising the norms regarding the<\/p>\n
Service Regulations permitting inter district transfers of employees<\/p>\n
was only under consideration. Since Ext.P8 is issued after the issue of<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 Government order, it is contended that the issue is still alive and<\/p>\n
pending consideration of the authorities. It is also contended that<\/p>\n
Ext.P12 is not permissible in law for the reason that no provision of<\/p>\n
law enables the issue of such an order.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Mr.Ashok Shenoy, who appears for the petitioner in WP(C)<\/p>\n
No.22888 of 2010, raises an additional contention to the effect that the<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                9<\/span><\/p>\n
amendments to the Service Regulations themselves are ultra vires the<\/p>\n
Act and the Rules. According to the counsel, Section 80(3) of the Act<\/p>\n
confers power on the Government to make Rules in consultation with<\/p>\n
the   State   Co-operative    Union,     regulating   the   qualification,<\/p>\n
remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of the officers<\/p>\n
and servants of the different classes of societies. Section 109 confers a<\/p>\n
general power on the Government to make Rules for carrying out the<\/p>\n
purposes of the Act. In exercise of the above powers, the Kerala Co-<\/p>\n
operative Service Rules have been framed. Particular reliance is placed<\/p>\n
on Rule 182(3) which provides that the Committee shall appoint<\/p>\n
employees from the select list of candidates furnished by the KPSC. As<\/p>\n
per Sub rule 5 of the said rule, with respect to societies and posts not<\/p>\n
governed by Section 80(3A) and Section 80 B of the Act, appointments<\/p>\n
shall be made by the Committee after conducting a written test and<\/p>\n
interview as per the guidelines issued by the Registrar. As per Rule<\/p>\n
185(1), appointments to the categories of posts in a society other than<\/p>\n
those mentioned in sub rules 2, 3 and 4 thereof shall be made by<\/p>\n
promotion on the basis of seniority in the feeder category. The posts<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                10<\/span><\/p>\n
mentioned in sub rules 2, 3 and 4 are supervisory posts made mention<\/p>\n
of in the said provision. The post of a Senior Accountant is not<\/p>\n
enumerated in any one of the said provisions. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
appointments to the post of Senior Accountant has to be made by<\/p>\n
promotion from the feeder category.         Rule 185 A provides for<\/p>\n
appointment by way of deputation or on contract basis for a specified<\/p>\n
period not exceeding five years. According to the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, the above being the only      provisions that provide for<\/p>\n
appointment to the various posts, any mode of appointment not<\/p>\n
stipulated by one of the above provisions is impermissible.<\/p>\n
Appointment by transfer from one district to another or by mutual<\/p>\n
transfer is not stipulated by any provision of the Act or the Rules.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is contended that the mutual transfer that has been granted<\/p>\n
is liable to be set aside. The counsel also places reliance on the<\/p>\n
Recruitment Rules for District Co-operative Banks, 1998, which are<\/p>\n
Model Rules adopted by the third respondent Bank. The Rules are<\/p>\n
produced as Ext.P5 in WP(C)No.22888 of 2010 and have been adopted<\/p>\n
by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P6. It is pointed out that Rule 3 of<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                11<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P5 does not contemplate an appointment by transfer. Therefore, it<\/p>\n
is contended that by permitting the mutual transfer, the above<\/p>\n
provisions are violated.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Adv.Moly Jacob, who appears for the Kollam District Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank points out that the Service Regulations have been in<\/p>\n
existence from the year, 1986 onwards with a provision for inter bank<\/p>\n
transfer and that the amendment that permits inter district transfer was<\/p>\n
introduced in 1989        by Ext.P2 in WP(C)No.22352 of 2010.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, the provision was amended as per            Ext.P4 dated<\/p>\n
26.2.2008, providing for a consultation with the KPSC as an additional<\/p>\n
condition for such transfer. However, the provisions were not<\/p>\n
challenged by anyone though they have been on the statute book for the<\/p>\n
past two decades. It is further pointed out that the employee who is<\/p>\n
transferred would join only as the junior most in the category to which<\/p>\n
he is transferred and therefore, no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the<\/p>\n
other employees of the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
      12. Adv.T.A.Shaji, who appears for the Kottayam District Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank relies on Section 101 of the Act to submit that the<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10               12<\/span><\/p>\n
Government has the power to exempt societies from any of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act and is therefore, sufficiently empowered to permit<\/p>\n
transfers as in the present case by the grant of such exemption. It is<\/p>\n
further submitted that Rule 185 of the Rules is not violated for the<\/p>\n
reason that in the present case, there is neither an appointment nor<\/p>\n
promotion, there is only a transfer. It is also submitted that the KPSC<\/p>\n
was consulted in the present case as required by the Rules.<\/p>\n
      13. Adv.P.V.Asha who appears for the 6th respondent, Tensy<\/p>\n
Scaria also supports the contentions of the other counsel and submits<\/p>\n
that in the present case, there is no appointment but only a transfer.<\/p>\n
Adv. Joby Thamby who appears for the fourth respondent also supports<\/p>\n
the contentions of the other counsel. It is submitted that he was relieved<\/p>\n
from the parent society on 16.7.2010 and that he has not been able to<\/p>\n
join duty in the service of the society to which he has been transferred<\/p>\n
for the reason that the interim order of this court has prohibited him<\/p>\n
from doing so. It is submitted by the fourth and sixth respondents that<\/p>\n
the impugned order does not cause any prejudice to the petitioners<\/p>\n
since the sixth respondent who is younger in age has been transferred<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
out and an older person has taken her place. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
petitioners are in fact benefited by the transfer.\n<\/p>\n
      14. I have heard the counsel for the respective parties in detail. I<\/p>\n
have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.<\/p>\n
      15. On     facts, it is worth noticing that the sixth respondent<\/p>\n
Smt.Tensy Scaria is a person who was            admittedly recruited into<\/p>\n
service along with the petitioners in 1995 to the post of Junior<\/p>\n
Clerk\/Cashier. They also become Junior Accountants at about the same<\/p>\n
time. However, Smt.Tensy Scaria was promoted as a Senior<\/p>\n
Accountant and is admittedly working in the said post. The petitioners<\/p>\n
have not challenged her promotion. Nor do they have any grievance<\/p>\n
against the same. Smt.Tensy Scaria has been transferred to Kollam<\/p>\n
District Co-operative Bank and Sri Joy Joseph has been transferred to<\/p>\n
her place in the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank by Ext.P12<\/p>\n
proceedings. Sri Joy Joseph being a person older to Smt.Tensy Scaria<\/p>\n
would retire earlier and therefore no prejudice is caused to the<\/p>\n
petitioners by his transfer to the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank.<\/p>\n
In fact, as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondents, such<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                14<\/span><\/p>\n
transfer would only enure to the benefit of the petitioners by providing<\/p>\n
them    with better prospects for promotion. Since the position of<\/p>\n
Smt.Tensy Scaria above the petitioners is not being disputed or<\/p>\n
questioned, the transfer of Sri Joy Joseph to her position cannot cause<\/p>\n
any prejudice or detriment to the petitioners as contended. Further, in<\/p>\n
the present case, Sri Joy Joseph is to join as the junior most Senior<\/p>\n
Accountant in the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank. Even if it is<\/p>\n
assumed that there are no Senior Accountants in the bank who are<\/p>\n
junior to Smt.Tensy Scaria, the petitioners cannot be said to have<\/p>\n
suffered any prejudice by the transfer of Sri Joy Joseph to her place.<\/p>\n
Therefore, technically, the petitioners are not aggrieved by Ext.P12<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
      16. The next contention of the petitioners is that there is no<\/p>\n
provision either in the Act or the Rules enabling the respondents to<\/p>\n
permit a mutual transfer as authorized in Ext.P12. However, it is<\/p>\n
admitted by the petitioners that the Service Regulations adopted by<\/p>\n
both the banks permit transfer of employees from one bank to another<\/p>\n
as well as from one district to another. If transfer of an employee from<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                15<\/span><\/p>\n
one bank to another is permissible, a mutual transfer among two<\/p>\n
employees is also equally permissible. This is for the reason that<\/p>\n
instead of transferring one person from one bank to the other, and vice<\/p>\n
versa, a mutual transfer only combines together two individual<\/p>\n
transfers. The same is resorted to only by consent. Therefore, I do not<\/p>\n
find any force in the objections against the same.\n<\/p>\n
      17. Reference is made to the Service Regulations to contend that<\/p>\n
the impugned transfer amounts to appointment, which is not<\/p>\n
permissible by adopting the device of transfer. It is to be noted that the<\/p>\n
Service Regulations clearly permit transfer of an employee from one<\/p>\n
bank to the other. When such inter bank transfers are permitted, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that such transfers amount to appointment that is not<\/p>\n
permissible. If a posting by transfer does not amount to appointment<\/p>\n
when it is a one way transfer, it cannot become anything more, when it<\/p>\n
is a mutual transfer. This is for the reason that in the case of a mutual<\/p>\n
transfer the persons transferred occupy respectively, the very same post<\/p>\n
that was earlier occupied by the other.\n<\/p>\n
      18. The further contention of the petitioners that inter bank<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10                16<\/span><\/p>\n
transfers are not supported by the provisions of the Act or Rules also<\/p>\n
lacks substance for the reason that neither the Act nor the Rules contain<\/p>\n
any prohibition against such transfer. Since power has been granted to<\/p>\n
the Government to frame rules and regulations regarding service<\/p>\n
conditions, by Section 80(3) of the Act, the Government has the<\/p>\n
necessary powers to frame rules permitting transfer of employees. It is<\/p>\n
also worth noticing from the provision for transfer in the Service<\/p>\n
Regulations that transfer is permissible only in cases where the<\/p>\n
respective Board of Directors of the transferor as well as the transferee<\/p>\n
bank resolves to permit the same. Further, the person who gets the<\/p>\n
benefit of the transfer joins the service of the transferee bank, only as<\/p>\n
the junior most in the category to which he\/she is transferred. Thereby,<\/p>\n
the interests of the persons who are already in the service of the bank<\/p>\n
are also protected.\n<\/p>\n
      19. The next contention of the petitioners is that the methods of<\/p>\n
appointment contemplated by Rule 182, 185 and 185A are only direct<\/p>\n
recruitment, promotion and deputation. Therefore, an appointment by<\/p>\n
transfer is violative of the Rules. The contention cannot be accepted for<\/p>\n
Wpc 22352 & 22888\/10               17<\/span><\/p>\n
the reason already stated above that transfer is not a mode of<\/p>\n
appointment but only a mode of regulating the posting of employees.<\/p>\n
Since the KPSC was also consulted before the impugned proceedings<\/p>\n
were issued, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the same.<\/p>\n
      20. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions fail and they are<\/p>\n
therefore dismissed. Since it is pointed out that Smt.Tensy Scaria and<\/p>\n
Sri Joy Joseph who were relieved on 16.7.2010, have been out of<\/p>\n
service, they shall be permitted to join duty pursuant to the impugned<\/p>\n
proceedings without any break in service. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                   K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 22352 of 2010(T) 1. MOHANDAS M.K., JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, 3. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE 4. JOY […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-29T10:47:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T10:47:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3307,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T10:47:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-29T10:47:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T10:47:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010"},"wordCount":3307,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010","name":"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T10:47:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-m-k-vs-state-of-kerala-on-16-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohandas M.K. vs State Of Kerala on 16 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}