This writ petition challenged the Co-operative Tribunal judgment affirming an Arbitration Award denying the petitioner promotion and monetary benefits as Secretary. The court dismissed the petition, holding the Tribunal Acted correctly in denying relief based on the feeder category rules and lack of requisite service years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2016/22ND ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 32290 of 2009 (E)
PETITIONER :
M.KRISHNAN, SON OF MADAVAN, AGED 66, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF EDAKODE SERVICE CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2523, RESIDING AT MAKAYIRAM, EDAKODE.PO, KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR SRI.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. EDAKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2523, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAKODE.P.O, KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE PRESIDENT, EDAKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2523, EDAKODE.PO, KIZHUVILAM,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.32290/2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to
quash Exts.P8 and P9 award and judgment of the Arbitration Court and the Co-operative Tribunal respectively and for other related reliefs.
are thus:-
Petitioner while working as Secretary in-charge at first respondent Bank was suspended from service under false charges and reinstated into service to the post of Assistant
Secretary. On denial of promotion and relaxation of educational qualification petitioner submitted ARC 631/1999 before the Assistant Registrar for declaration of
promotion and entitlement of monitory benefits. Thereafter, on constitution of Co-operative Arbitration
Court ARC was renumbered as ARC 31/2003. As per
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
2
order dated 22.10.2007 Arbitrator dismissed the said ARC
on the ground that, petitioner is not entitled for relaxation of educational qualification in the promotion to the post of Secretary since superannuated from service on 31.8.2000 and therefore, not entitled for monitory benefits. According to the petitioner, since petitioner joined in service on 21.9.1966, that is, prior to the commencement of the Kerala Co-operative Act and Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Act' and “the Rules”), petitioner is entitled to relaxation of educational qualification under Rule 200 of the Rules. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Co-operative Arbitration Court without adverting to the factual and legal circumstances dismissed ARC 31/2003 as per order dated 11.9.2006. The said order of the Arbitrator was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.27543/2006 and secured Ext.P7 judgment by which the order passed by the Arbitration Court was set aside
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
3
and remitted the matter for re-consideration. It was
thereupon that, the Co-operative Arbitration Court has passed Ext.P8 award.
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
4
sustainable. The former Secretary one K. Raveendran
Nair, who joined in the society as a Salesman on 9.3.1964 was promoted as Clerk on 01.05.1965 and thereafter, he
was appointed as the Secretary on 15.7.1966 and continued to occupy the post of Secretary till 30.6.1994, the date of his retirement. It is also contended that his qualification was SSLC and JDC. That part it is also urged that, he was appointed before 1.1.1974 as Secretary and there was no question of further promotion and relaxation of qualification also. It is also contended that, the petitioner was given charge of the Secretary from 1.7.1994 while he was working as Accountant. The feeder category to the post of the Secretary is Assistant Secretary and not from the post of the Accountant. The petitioner can claim promotion from 1.7.1994 only if he
was working as Assistant Secretary. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Secretary only on 1.7.1997 and he was suspended from service pending enquiry on
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
5
18.8.1997 and the charge of the Secretary was given to one Rajesekharan Nair, who is the present Secretary.
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
6
service of 5 years in the feeder category (iii) should not be less than 45 years of age.
could claim promotion only after securing promotion as
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
7
Assistant Secretary and cannot claim promotion with effect from 1.7.1994 since he was not promoted as Assistant Secretary which is the feeder category of Secretary. Therefore, it is contended that as alleged by the petitioner, petitioner was not discriminated by the first respondent in any manner.
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
8
qualification of five years in the feeder category to secure promotion as a Secretary prior to his retirement. First respondent has also produced Ext.R1(d) feeder category Rules dated 10.5.1997. According to the petitioner, there is no rule as Ext.R1(c) dated 10.11.1988 and according to his knowledge the only feeder category rule that came into force was Ext.R1(d) dated 10.5.1997. Neither Ext.R1 (c) nor Ext.R1(d) was the subject matter of consideration before the Arbitration Court or the Co-operative Tribunal. Even though, petitioner has a contention that Ext.R1(c) is a fabricated document there are no enabling, or even circumstantial evidence available before this Court to entertain such a doubt expressed by the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even though an application under the Right To Information was submitted in the office of the Joint Registrar it was noted that there are no records available in the office, pertaining to Ext.R1(c). Therefore, I am of
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
9
the considered opinion that since it is a document
produced by the first respondent Bank, which is a statutory body functioning under the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, I have no other option than to consider the same as a legally acceptable document. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if Ext.R1(c) is accepted, as genuine documents petitioner will not succeed in the case projected before the Arbitration Court, or in the appeal, or in this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
10
that, except the contention raised by the petitioner with respect to Exts.R1(c) and R1(d), all other points were considered by the Co-operative Tribunal. I do not find anything illegal or illogical in the findings entered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the findings rendered by the Arbitration Court and reappreciated the same. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal preferred against Ext.P8 award. In my considered opinion petitioner has not made out any ground to exercise the power of judicial review conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart as I have already pointed out Ext.R1(c) is brought into force by the Bank on and with effect from the approval of the same by the Joint Registrar on 10.12.1988. Therefore, the feeder category rule came into force by which the feeder category for the post of Secretary is Assistant Secretary. Admittedly, petitioner
W.P.(C). No. 32290 of 2009
11
was appointed as Assistant Secretary on and with effect from 1.7.1997 and the petitioner has not acquired necessary qualification of five years in the feeder category post so as to enable the petitioner to secure the post of Secretary before his retirement on 31.8.2000.
Therefore, writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE
dlk/14/7/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal affirming the Arbitration Court award denying the petitioner promotion and exemption from educational qualificati
Whether the petitioner qualifies for relaxation of educational qualification for promotion to Secretary given his timeline in the feeder category post.
Whether the promoter-to-Post regulations (feeder category rules dated 1988) are validly applicable to exclude relaxation claims for officers erstwhile government employees.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M. KRISHNAN
EDAKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2523
THE PRESIDENT, EDAKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2523
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
