Dismissed

C.G.Narayanan v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/14669/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the direct recruitment of an Accountant in a Cooperative Bank. The bench held that no feeder category sub-rules existed at the time to entitle the petitioner to promotion, and subsequently framed rules did not permit promotion from Junior Clerk to Accountant.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; challenge to the Government order allowing the 4th respondent's appointment rejected.

C.G.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C). No.14669 of 2006 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.G.NARAYANAN, SENIOR CLERK, KOLITHATTU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLITHATTU, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.V.A.ABDUL JALEEL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

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

¶12

KOLITHATTU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.C 406, KOLITHATTU, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

K.V.SHYAMKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT, KOLITHATTU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,

¶14

KOLITHATTU, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABHIJITH LESLIE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C). No.14669 of 2006 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.19.1.1995 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P NO.1630/95 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DTD.1.2.1995.

¶24

P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.1996.

¶25

P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P 19061/1996 OF THE HONOURABLE COURT DTD.2.9.1995.

¶26

P5:- COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 19.11.2005 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

P6:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2006.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶30

R4(A):- COPY OF ORDER NO.CRP/490/96 DTD.19.5.1995 BY R2.

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.V. ASHA, J.

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

¶36

W.P.(C) No.14669 of 2006

¶37

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of June 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioner is a Senior Clerk in the 3^rd respondent Cooperative Bank. The appointment of the 4^th respondent is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same was made by direct recruitment.

¶40

According to the petitioner, the appointment of the 4^th respondent was contrary to Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner submitted a representation, Ext.P1 dated 19.1.1995, before the Joint Registrar requesting to restrain the Bank from making appointment to the post of Accountant by direct recruitment against the vacancy, which arose in January, 1995. In the said representation, the petitioner stated that he was having relevant qualification for appointment to the post of Accountant and the said vacancy was liable to be filled up by promotion. Immediately, after submitting Ext.P1 representation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.1630 of 1995 and by Ext.P2 judgment dated 1.2.1995, this Court directed the first respondent - Joint Registrar to consider the representation and pass orders therein.

¶41

W.P.(C) No.14669 of 2006

¶42

-: 2 :-

¶43

The Joint Registrar, after issuing notice to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent and the Bank, issued Ext.P3 order, by which, the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 7.2.1995 to fill up the vacancy of Accountant by appointing 4^th respondent by direct recruitment was cancelled. The 4^th respondent, thereupon, approached this Court in O.P. No.19061 of 1996 and this Court by Ext.P4 judgment dated 2.9.2005 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner - 4^th respondent herein to approach the Government in appeal and directed the Government to pass orders on his appeal to be filed. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent filed Ext.P5 appeal before the Government.

¶44

The Government, after hearing all the parties, passed Ext.P7 order dated 22.3.2006 setting aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar and allowing the 4^th respondent to continue as Accountant, ratifying the decision of the Bank. The Government found that at the relevant time when the appointment of the 4^th respondent was made by direct recruitment, there was no feeder category sub rule framed by the Bank and on the basis of which, the petitioner could claim promotion. It was further found that the petitioner was only a Junior Clerk and even as per the subsequently framed feeder category rules, the promotion can only be made to

¶45

W.P.(C) No.14669 of 2006

¶46

-: 3 :-

¶47

the immediate higher post of Senior Clerk and that a Junior Clerk cannot be promoted as Accountant. In the above circumstances, the Government found that the appointment of the 4^th respondent as Accountant, who was duly qualified was legal. More over, it was found that at the time when the Government passed orders as per Ext.P7, the 4^th respondent had already completed 10 years of service and it was under the above circumstances, the Government set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Government, contending that the appointment was contrary to Rule 185.

¶48

The 4^th respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that his appointment was made on the basis of the applications called for and after being found suitable in the process of selection and that he was duly qualified for the said post. It is stated that there was no feeder category sub rules at the relevant time and there is no basis for the contention of the petitioner.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

¶50

After considering the contentions on either side, it is seen that there was no feeder category sub rules framed or approved at the relevant time when the appointment of the 4^th respondent was

¶51

W.P.(C) No.14669 of 2006

¶52

-: 4 :-

¶53

made to the post of Accountant. As per Rule 185, which stood at the relevant time, it was provided that the appointment to the higher categories are to be made by promotion. It was also provided that the promotion has to be made from some among feeder categories, based on seniority and the feeder categories are to be fixed as per the feeder category sub rules framed by the Bank and got approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is an admitted fact that at the relevant time, there was no such sub rules. More over, it is found by the Government that even as per the subsequently framed feeder category rules, there is no promotion from the post of Junior Clerk directly to that of the Accountant.

¶54

Under the above circumstances, the contentions raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The writ petition thus, fails and is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/- P.V. ASHA JUDGE

¶56

Jvt/24.6.2016

C.G.Narayanan v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Narayanan v. State of Kerala and Others

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

T.J.Yesudas Vs R.Sunilkumar

Anil Kumar T.V. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission &

Kumaresan Vs District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Jaffar P. Vs the District Collector

Sugunasekhara Vs State of Kerala

T.Ashraf Vs the District Registrar