Remanded

C.Jayakrishnan v. Palakkad District Co-Op.Bank

Kerala HC1 Aug 2016WP(C)/3846/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard connected writ petitions regarding the dismissal of an application for exemption from qualification for branch manager posts. Upon subsequent confirmation of vacancies due to temporary promotions, the court directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to reconsider the applications within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside orders passed by Registrar; directed Registrar to reconsider petitions and decide within six weeks.

C.Jayakrishnan Vs Palakkad District Co-Op.Bank — 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

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/10TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3846 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

C.JAYAKRISHNAN,SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, CHERPULASSERY BRANCH, PALAKKAD, P.O.PALAKKAD.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.21, H.P.O.ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.B.NO.21, H.P.O.ROAD, SULTHANPET, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

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

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, PALAKKAD DIST.CO.OP.BANK R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2016,ALONG WITH WPC.NO.19032 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 3846 of 2016 (E)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2 DATED 7.2.2015 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 12.2.2015

¶20

EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SENIORITY LIST.

¶21

EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.9.2015 OF THE REGISTRAR WITH TRANSLATION

¶22

EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2015 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF ONE MR.KANNAN OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.12.2013 IN WPC NO.18999/2013

¶24

EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2013 IN WPC NO.13940/13

¶25

EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 3.12.2013 IN WPC NO.25804/13

¶26

EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 28.1.14 IN WPC NO.773/14

¶27

EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2015 ISSUED IN THE CASE OF SRI.KOOLIKAN.

¶28

EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/5/2016 OF THE ADDITIONAL POST SANCTIONED IN THE CADRE OF BRANCH MANAGER.

¶29

EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 4/2/2015 PASSED IN WPC.NO.760/2015.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶36

W.P.(C)NO.3846 OF 2016 &

¶37

W.P.(C)No.19032 OF 2016

¶38

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

These two writ petitions are relatively connected

¶41

and therefore I propose to pass a common judgment in the same. Subject matter of the writ petitions relates to the dismissal of the resolution moved by the first respondent bank seeking exemption from qualification to the petitioners to the post of branch managers. The application was dismissed on the ground that, there are no vacancies at present in the first respondent bank warranting exemption of qualification of the petitioners especially due to the fact that the vacancy in question is pending consideration before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petitions. However learned counsel for the petitioners

¶42

has brought to my attention an order dated 13.07.2016 issued by the first respondent bank,

¶43

W.P.(C)NO.3846 OF 2016 & W.P.(C)No.19032 OF 2016 2

¶44

whereby senior accountants seven in number of the bank are temporarily promoted as branch managers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said order is a testimony to establish that there are vacancies in the first respondent bank. Learned counsel for the first respondent bank submitted that, there are 10 vacancies in the bank however they are set apart for direct recruitment and therefore the petitioners may not have claim over the same.

¶45

Taking into account the rival submissions made by the respective counsel and learned Government Pleader, I think it is only appropriate that in view of the developments took place subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is directed to re-consider the issue. Therefore, I set aside Exts.P3 and P4 order in the respective writ petitions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and further direct the said

¶46

W.P.(C)NO.3846 OF 2016

¶47

& W.P.(C)No.19032 OF 2016 3

¶48

authority to consider respective applications submitted by the bank in respect of the petitioners in accordance with law and take a decision on the same, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶50

sd/-

¶51

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶52

R.AV

C.Jayakrishnan v. Palakkad District Co-Op.Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Jayakrishnan v. Palakkad District Co-Op.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

Rema.v Vs Vijesh. P.K

Vasudevan.P.v. Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

M.J.Kuriakose Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) Thodupuzha

Jomy Devassy Vs Sadique Ali

National Co-Operative Consumers Federat Vs State of Kerala

Maheem Kannu.M Vs the State Co. Operative Election Commission