Allowed

Ajith Kumar K.G v. Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016WP(C)/11478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Branch Managers sought to remain in post until the Registrar approves additional posts. The Court directed the Registrar to consider the pending resolution within six weeks and directed that petitioners not be reverted pending the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Registrar to consider the resolution and take a decision within six weeks; petitioners not reverted pending orders.

Ajith Kumar K.G Vs Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11478 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AJITH KUMAR K.G., BRANCH MANAGER/SUPERINTENDENT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

2. SREEDEVI T.N., BRANCH MANAGER, THIRUVALLA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

3. PUSHPAKUMARI D., BRANCH MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA MAIN BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI SRI.H.MAHADEVAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA PIN - 689 645.

¶13

2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.

¶14

3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX, SC R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

WP(C).No. 11478 of 2016 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2015 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶22

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ORDER DATED 25.9.2013 OF THE REGISTRAR ALONG WITH POSTS SANCTION

¶23

P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2016 OF THE REGISTRAR SANCTIONING BRANCH AT THENGAMAM

¶24

P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 22.1.2016 ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL POSTS SANCTION WITH TRANSLATION

¶25

P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT REPORTED IN 2000 (3) KLT 389.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE FOR APPOINTMENT BEARING NO.PTA VI(1) 931/10 DTD.21.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE PSC TO THIS RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NON-AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.PTA IV(1) 931/10 DRD.25.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE PSC TO THIS RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C). No.11478 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioners are Branch Managers of the 1^st respondent bank, evident from Ext.P1. As per Ext.P2, bank is working in class III category. First and second respondents requested the Registrar to classify the bank in class II category with additional posts. Now PSC advised 9 candidates to the post of Branch Managers to be filled from open market and from employees quota. Presently there are 5 vacant posts of Branch Managers. According to the petitioners, the Managing Committee is taking steps to revert the petitioners to accommodate PSC hands in the light of Ext.P2 reclassification. However, bank has submitted Ext.P4 resolution seeking additional posts by making suitable amendments to Appendix III, which is pending consideration. According to the petitioners, four 'C' grade branches will be changed to 'A' grade branches category and therefore, there will be four additional posts. That apart it is contended that, for making appointments in the above posts, there is no need for sanction of posts as it

¶37

W.P.(C). No.11478 of 2016 2

¶38

is sanctioned in Appendix III. In terms of Ext.P8 judgment of this court, there is no need or permission of the department for sanction of the posts, is the contention. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

First respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands made by the petitioners and also contending that at present the bank is classified as category III. Even though Ext.P4 resolution is placed before the Registrar, no orders are passed on the same. Therefore, unless and until Ext.P4 is approved by the Registrar, petitioners are not entitled to make any claim contending that petitioners are entitled to be appointed in view of additional posts.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent bank and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. On a perusal of documents, it is categoric and clear that, the categorization of bank to category II is not so far approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, even though Ext.P4 resolution is

¶42

W.P.(C). No.11478 of 2016 3

¶43

forwarded by the bank and pending consideration before the Registrar.

¶44

In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that, a direction is issued to the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 resolution forwarded by the 1^st respondent bank and take a decision on the same in accordance with law. The contention raised by the petitioners that they are occupying posts of Branch Managers is not disputed by the counsel for the 1^st respondent bank. Therefore, since Ext.P4 is pending, I think it is only appropriate that till such time orders are passed on Ext.P4 petitioners are not reverted from the post of Branch Managers. In that view of the matter and reckoning the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶48

smv 06.08.2016

Ajith Kumar K.G v. Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Kumar K.G v. Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Rajudheen Vs State of Kerala

Joshy.P.R Vs State of Kerala

Ashokkumar a Vs Joint Regional Transport (Officer)

Gangadharan Vs K. Ramachandran

Hussain Vs Nilambur Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Asokan.K.K Vs the Kanjirappally C0-OPERATIVE Agricultural and Rural Development Bank