Dismissed

Gangadharan P.V. v. Koottumughan Service Co-Operative Bank L

Kerala HC26 Sept 2012WP(C)/14192/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A clerk petitioned for promotion to Internal Auditor, claiming violation of feeder rules due to direct recruitment by the bank while he was on probation. The court held the bank validly used Section 80B as no qualified feeder candidate existed. The petitioner appealed that post-appointment, he cannot disentitlement other candidates. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order to the bank to appoint the petitioner.

Gangadharan P.V. Vs Koottumughan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/4TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 14192 of 2010 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

GANGADHARAN P.V.,SENIOR CLERK,

¶8

KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.C-72, P.O.KOOTTUMUGHAM,SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C-72, P.O. KOOTTUMUGHAM, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KOOTTUMUGHAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C-72, P.O KOOTTUMUGHAM,SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶13

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KANNUR.

¶14

4. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶16

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M/S MADHUBEN

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN,SC,CO-OP.SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS, SC, CO.OP. SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI. K.V., SC, CO.OP. SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

MJL

¶20

WP(C).No. 14192 of 2010 (Y)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1	:	COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 22-9-1984
EXT.P2	:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-6-1999
EXT.P3	:	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI THOZHILVARTHA DATED 231-2010
EXT.P4	:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2-2-2010
EXT.P5	:	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 10-2-2010
EXT.P6	:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P7	:	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 4-3-2010
EXT.P8	:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13-08-2010
EXT.P9	:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-8-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK
EXT.P10	:	COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30-8-2010
EXT.P11	:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30-8-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXT.P12	:	COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.R1(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.

¶26

/TRUE COPY/

¶27

P A TO JUDGE MJL

¶28

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.14192 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 26^th day of September 2012

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is working as a senior clerk with the 1^st respondent Bank as he was promoted to the said post on 01/09/2009. The complaint of the writ petitioner is that the 1^st respondent Bank issued Ext.P3 notification calling for candidates for selection by direct recruitment process through 4^th respondent Examination Board to the post of Internal Auditor when the petitioner was qualified to be promoted to the post and he was the person available for appointment in the feeder category. As per Feeder Category Rules of the 1^st respondent Bank, the post of Senior Clerk is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Internal Auditor/Branch Manager and it is violating the said rules that the notification has been published. The petitioner relies upon Rule 185(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to contend so.

¶32

The 1^st respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that two posts were approved on

¶33

W.P.C.No.14192/2004

¶34

¶35

12/02/2009 of which one was the post of Senior Clerk and other one was for Internal Auditor. Out of the said two posts, the petitioner was appointed as Senior Clerk on 01/09/2009 and in respect of Internal Auditor, since there was no qualified hands for appointment from the feeder category, direct recruitment process was made in January 2010. It is also their case that the petitioner was on probation for a period of one year and until the probation period is over the petitioner cannot claim for the said promotion post.

¶36

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶37

It is not in dispute that as per Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, if selection is to be made by way of promotion on seniority basis as per the feeder category rules, direct recruitment process is not possible. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly on probation and was appointed as Senior Clerk on 01/09/2009 and until the probation period is over he cannot claim to be qualified as a person to be appointed to the next promotion post. In that view of the matter, I do not think that there is anything wrong in the bank approaching the

¶38

W.P.C.No.14192/2004

¶39

¶40

4^th respondent under Section 80B of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for initiating direct recruitment process. Therefore, Ext.P3 notification is valid in law and I do not find any illegality in the stand taken by the respondent/Bank nor the Board for that reason.

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioner however contends that as matters stand today his probation had already been declared and therefore there is no necessity for the Bank to appoint any person on the basis of Ext.P3 order. In fact, this Court had passed an interim order dated 16/06/2010 staying appointment of the Internal Auditor in the 1^st respondent Bank pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. It was clarified that the selection process can go on. It is submitted by learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the selection process is already over and the rank list had been approved by the examination board. In that view of the matter, I do not think that there will be any justification in directing the petitioner to be appointed in the place of the direct recruitee who would have already been qualified for getting the appointment as per Ext.P3 notification. Qualification of the petitioner in the feeder category subsequent

¶42

W.P.C.No.14192/2004

¶43

¶44

to the filing of the writ petition will not enable him to get a right over the candidate who is already selected by recruitment process initiated in terms of Ext.P3. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get any relief. It is open for the 1^st respondent Bank to make appointments from the select list which they have approved in terms of Ext.P3 notification

¶45

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶48

jsr

¶49

W.P.C.No.14192/2004 5

¶50

W.P.C.No.14192/2004 6

Gangadharan P.V. v. Koottumughan Service Co-Operative Bank L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadharan P.V. v. Koottumughan Service Co-Operative Bank L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sureshkumar Vs Karavaram Panchayath Service Co-Op.

Mohan Kumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commisison & Ors.

Dr.C.S.James Vs Kerala Agricultural University

T.C.Money Vs Kel Ltd.

Gangadharan P.V Vs Koottumugham Service Co-Operative Bank

Sujatha Amma and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others