Dismissed

Vasanthakumary T.O. v. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Tvm

Kerala HC2 Sept 2016WP(C)/6015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Vasantakumary T.O. challenged a recruitment notice for the post of Peon, seeking 25% reservation for deposit collectors under the Kerala State Government Circular No.87/2015. The Court found the petitioner inadequate regarding collection targets and dismissed her claim to the post, though it directed the Registrar on the implementation of the reservation policy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; directions issued to First Respondent to implement Circular No.87/2015 within three months.

Vasanthakumary T.O. Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Tvm — Property and Title | 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 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6015 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VASANTHAKUMARY T.O.

¶8

W/O. B. MOHANAN, POYKAYIL VEEDU, CHERUVAKKAL P.O., AYUR, KOLLAM - 691 533.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.T.K.USHA RANI

¶10

SRI.A.D.SHAJAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.-691001

¶14

3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTARAKKARA - 691 506.

¶15

4. ELAMAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. Q 382, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELAMAD P.O, KOLLAM- 691 533.

¶16

R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶17

SRI.P.E.SAJAL

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE.M

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 6015 of 2016 (B)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

P1TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 7447 DATED 07/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P1

¶25

P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/12/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶26

P2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P2 REPRESENTATION

¶27

P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/01/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT

¶28

P3(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P3

¶29

P4TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 03/02/2016 IN THE JANAYUGAM NEWS PAPER.

¶30

P4(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P4

¶31

P5TRUECOPY OF CRP/4189/2012 DATED 18.4.2012 PREPARED BY UNIT INSPECTOR BINU.K.SAM

¶32

P6TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.7.2015

¶33

P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶34

P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶35

P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.8.2016

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 4.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶42

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶43

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2016

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

In this writ petition petitioner raises a question

¶46

in respect of the reservation to the post of Peon to the

¶47

Co-operative Societies on the basis of Circular No.87/2015 dated 15.7.2015 issued by the State Government, and seek to quash Ext.P4 advertisement inviting applications for the post, and other related reliefs.

¶48

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶49

Petitioner is a deposit collection agent in the 4^th respondent, which is a 'C' Class Primary Co-operative Bank. Petitioner belongs to Hindu Viswakarma included in the backward community in the State of Kerala and is aged 43 years old. Petitioner joined the 4^th respondent as daily wage employee on 17.6.2001 and continued till April, 2004. Thereafter, she was re-appointed on several times and since 27.11.2007 onwards appointed as deposit

¶50

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶51

¶52

collection agent on commission basis. Petitioner has collected Recurring Deposits and Home Safe deposits from members of the 4^th respondent. At the time of appointing as collection agent, petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards security, on 7.12.2007, evident from Ext.P1.

¶53

While matters being so, State Government issued Circular No.87/2015 dated 15.7.2015 to revise the pay and service conditions of deposit/loan collectors and appraisers working on commission basis in the co-operative society. It is evident from the said Circular, 25% of the vacancies in the post of Peons in Primary Co-operative societies shall be reserved to deposit/loan collection agents and appraisers subject to other qualifications prescribed thereunder. Qualifications prescribed are minimum service of 5 years, collection of Rs.20,00,000/- annually towards deposit/loans, and appraisers should have examined gold worth Rs.50,00,000/ annually.

¶54

According to the petitioner, petitioner has completed 8 years of service as deposit collection agent

¶55

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶56

¶57

under commission basis and therefore, as per the circular she is eligible to be appointed to the post of Peon in the 4^th respondent Bank. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 4^th respondent on 22.12.2015, however, same was not considered by the 4^th respondent. It is also stated that, 4^th respondent has issued a reply that there are only two vacancies of Peons existing in the 4^th respondent Bank and in order to consider 25% reservation as per the aforesaid circular there must be at least 4 vacancies existing. That apart it is stated, 4^th respondent has no manner of power or authority to interpret the circular to suit their conveniences. It is further submitted, claim was also declined on the ground, amounts collected by the petitioner to qualify for the post did not reach Rs.20,00,000/- and that the petitioner could collect only a maximum amount of Rs.10,007,449/- during the year 2014-15. It is also stated, 4^th respondent did not allow the petitioner to collect loan amount or chitty amount and if an opportunity is given to collect the said amounts, petitioner's collection amount can be enhanced above Rs.20,00,000/-

¶58

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶59

¶60

and the petitioner is always ready and willing to to do the said work also.

¶61

Accordingly, in the constrained circumstances, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the second and third respondents. However, same remained without consideration. Matters being so, 4^th respondent has now invited application to the post of Peon as per Ext.P4 advertisement, and according to petitioner attempt of the 4^th respondent is to overlook, the reservation secured as per Circular No.87/2015 dated 15.07.2015. It is in this background seeking appropriate reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

¶62

4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claims and demands made by the petitioner and contends that petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the Circular specified above. Even according to the petitioner, she did not have sufficient qualification as per the provisions of the said Circular. That part it is also contended that, since there are only two posts, petitioner cannot claim appointment to the existing two vacancies and that no

¶63

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶64

¶65

reservation can be provided by the society as well. It is also stated, yearly collection of the petitioner is less than Rs.13,00,000/- and the averments that the petitioner was not permitted to collect the loan amount or chitty amount is incorrect. It is also stated, 4^th respondent has already furnished a detailed explanation to the Assistant Registrar in reply to Ext.P3 complaint/representation filed by the petitioner. Therefore it is contended, the writ petition has no merit and it is liable to be dismissed,

¶66

Petitioner has filed a reply reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and also produced Circular No.87/2016 as Ext.P6. Based on Ext.P6 it is contended by the petitioner that, as per Clause 4 of the circular, petitioner is entitled to get appointment to the post of Peon under the 25% reservation provided to the deposit collectors. In the reply, it is stated, apart from completing 8 years of service petitioner has collected an amount of Rs.28,62,196/-. That apart it is also submitted, 25% of the vacancy to the post of Peon in the Primary Co-operative Societies are reserved for deposit/loan collection agents and appraisers, and therefore,

¶67

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶68

¶69

the contention of the 4^th respondent that only if 4 posts are available, petitioner is entitled to get 25%, cannot be sustained. Petitioner has also produced the representation submitted before the 4^th respondent as Ext.P7 and a representation submitted before the second respondent and reply thereto as Exts.P8 and P9 respectively. That part it is denied, that the three other deposit/loan collectors, referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent are seniors to the petitioner. Their qualification is also disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition.

¶70

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Bank and perused the documents on records and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶71

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and analising the attendant situation based on documents, in my considered opinion the sole question to be decided is whether petitioner has sufficient qualification to seek appointment in the 4^th respondent to the

¶72

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶73

¶74

post of Peon by virtue of the provisions of Ext.P6 Circular No.87/2015, dated 15.7.2015. An immediate reference to Clause 4 of the said circular shows that in order to seek appointment to 25% of the post of Peon earmarked to deposit/loan collection agents, petitioner should have 5 years minimum service and petitioner should have collected minimum of Rs.20,00,000/- against deposit/loan collection per year. Even according to the petitioner, petitioner could not attain the collection of minimum amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in accordance with the pleadings put forth in the writ petition. There, the complaint of the petitioner is that, petitioner could not attain the said target because, petitioner was not permitted by the 4^th respondent to collect loans outstanding. It is also stated in the writ petition that, if sufficient opportunity is provided to the petitioner to collect loans outstanding, petitioner could attain the target prescribed under the circular.

¶75

However, in the reply affidavit it is submitted that, petitioner has collected more than Rs.28,00,000/- and therefore, petitioner is entitled as of right to seek

¶76

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶77

¶78

appointment to the post of Peon and therefore, the notification issued by the 4^th respondent inviting application to the two posts of Peons cannot be sustained. The exact point of defence put forth by the 4^th respondent is that, petitioner is not having sufficient qualification in terms of the circular to seek appointment to 25% prescribed under the circular for the deposit/loan collection agents. Accordingly, petitioner has also not produced any document to establish his claim on account of qualification, especially when it is disputed by the 4^th respondent. That apart, the pleading in respect of the vital aspect to decide the issue is inconsistent and contradictory, thus disabling this Court to repose confidence in the pleadings put forth by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no case established by the petitioner, enabling this Court to invoke the power of discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I find force in the contention advanced by the 4^th respondent and therefore, hold that petitioner is not qualified enough to claim on account of the reservation and thereby lacks locus standi to challenge Ext.P4 notification issued by the Bank. So

¶79

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶80

¶81

also petitioner is not an aggrieved person.

¶82

So far as the question raised by the 4^th respondent with respect to the availability of 4 posts without which reservation cannot be implemented I am unable to subscribe to the said argument, since the classification of the bank if not changed, there cannot be any enhancement of the staff strength by providing staff pattern to Appendix III of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, the contention so put forth by the 4^th respondent cannot be sustained. In order to achieve the reservation policy to deposit/loan collection agents as provided under the circular in question, taking into account the existing staff pattern, it can only be done by rotation of the appointment, until such time the staff pattern is improved. Therefore, it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to the 4^th respondent to ensure that the circular is implemented in its letter and spirit without insisting that 25% reservation earmarked to the category in question can only be done after the staff pattern is changed from 2 to 4. This is more so, when the intention of the State Government is appreciated, ensuring to

¶83

W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2016

¶84

¶85

accommodate the collection agents etc., etc., to the post of Peons.

¶86

Reckoning the facts and circumstances, analising the fact situations, taking into account the provisions of Circular No.87/2015 I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to succeed in the writ petition since she is not sufficiently qualified as provided under Clause 4 of the circular to secure the post, as per the reservation provided thereunder. However, the question with respect to application of 25% of the reservation provided thereunder is to be considered by the first respondent in accordance with the directions made above and issue necessary directions/clarification, at the earliest and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of of a copy of this judgment.

¶87

Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶88

Sd/-

¶89

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶90

dlk/3/9/

Vasanthakumary T.O. v. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Tvm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanthakumary T.O. v. Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Tvm

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

Santhosh Joseph Vs the Managing Director Ksrtc

Ambika Amma G. Vs Karunagapally Co-Operative

Ajeesh N.K Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs Sajjad

V.J.Sebastian Vs Sri.Mohanan Nambiar

James Josson Vs the Muvattupuzha Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd.