Dismissed

Abdul Rasheed K.K v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019RP/265/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench of Kerala HC dismissed review petition challenging judgment conferring exemption eligibility on second respondent. Court held no error apparent on face and dispute already adjudicated elsewhere. Petitioners free to pursue pending remedies.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no preclusion on other pending remedies.

Abdul Rasheed K.K Vs Government of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

RP.No.265 of 2015 IN WA. 2020/2009

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-09-2012 IN WA 2020/2009

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/NOT PARTIES:

¶10

1 ABDUL RASHEED K.K S/O.ABOOBAVCKER, KODIYANKUNNATHU HOUSE, THRIKANDIYUR,TIRUR, (BRANCH MANAGER, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERTIVE BANK LTD NO.M.729, KUTTIPURAM P.O., 679 571 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).

¶11

2 P.P.ABDUL GAFOOR S/O.KUNHIMOHAMMED P.P.C, POTTEMMEL PADINHARETHIL EDACHALAM, PERASANOOR POST-679 571 (BRANCH MANAGER, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERTIVE BANK LTD NO.M.729, KUTTIPURAM P.O., 679 571 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).

¶12

3 ABDUL AZEEZ K.P.

¶13

S/O.KAMMUNNY ALIAS BAVA, KORATH PULIKKATHODI HOUSE, SOUTH BAZAR, KUTTIPURAM ROAD, (BRANCH MANAGER, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERTIVE BANK LTD NO.M.729, KUTTIPURAM P.O., 679 571

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

2 LEELA P.P. BRANCH MANAGER - IN CHARGE, KUTTIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.M-729, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 571.

¶18

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

GP-SRI.SYAMJI RAM

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RP No.265/2015

¶23

-2-

¶24

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶25

R.P No. 265 OF 2015

¶26

DATED THIS THE 3^rd DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Abdul Rehim, J:

¶29

The review petitioners are not parties in the writ appeal. The review petition was filed after seeking leave of this court.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent herein, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.6877 of 2008, had approached this court, seeking declaration that she is entitled to get exempted from acquiring the qualification of graduation for promotion to the post of Secretary, by relaxing the conditions contained in Sub-Rule (8) (b)(ii) and (iii) of Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') based on Ext.P2 exemption granted by the Government in exercise of the power vested under Rule 181 with respect to a former Secretary of the Kuttippuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.M729.

¶31

The said writ petition was disposed of through the judgment dated 23^rd May,2008. This Court found that in view of

¶32

RP No.265/2015

¶33

-3-

¶34

a judgment passed in another case (W.P.(C) No.31218 of 2007), the exemption granted under Ext.P2 will inure to the benefit of all the employees of the Kuttippuram Service Co-operative Bank No.M-729.

¶35

The Government have challenged the above said judgment in W.A No.2020/2009. Similar other judgments of the Single Judge were also under challenge in various writ appeals. Through a common judgment passed by the Division Bench on 07-09-2007, a batch of writ appeals were disposed of by making it clear that, the exemption orders will be limited only to the party respondents therein and shall not be applied in other's cases. It was noticed by the Division Bench that, on the basis of the exemptions allowed, the promotions already effected by the respective societies were regularised by the Government. Therefore it was found that the Government is not entitled to challenge eligibility of the respondents in those cases, who were already promoted.

¶36

The Review Petitioners are contending that, the 2^nd respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, lacks basic qualifications required for getting exemption from Rule 185 (8) (b)(ii) and (iii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore the

¶37

RP No.265/2015 -4-

¶38

contention is that, the judgment in W.P (C) No.6877/2008, which was confirmed through the judgment in the writ appeal impugned herein by which benefit of Ext.P2 exemption was extended to the 2^nd respondent, is illegal.

¶39

We take note of the fact that the benefit of Ext.P2 exemption was extended to the 2^nd respondent through the judgment in the writ petition, as early as on 23^rd May, 2008. Evidently the 2^nd respondent was promoted as Secretary of the Society concerned within a short time and the Government have approved the promotion. Thereafter the Government had challenged the judgment in the writ appeal filed as early as in 2009. The writ appeal was also disposed of in September, 2012. Contention of the Review Petitioners that they were not aware of all these developments till the year 2015, cannot be accepted because they are the employees of the very same society. Further contention that they were not made parties in the writ petition or in the writ appeal also cannot be countenanced because the dispute agitated was one relating to eligibility of the 2^nd respondent herein for getting exempted from acquiring the requisite qualifications for promotion to the post of Secretary. If the review petitioners were aggrieved by such promotion, they

¶40

RP No.265/2015 -5-

¶41

could have challenged it at the appropriate time. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioners contended that, since the promotion was effected on the basis of the judgment in the writ petition, they were precluded from challenging the promotion granted on the basis of order of the Government granting exemption, the benefit of which was made available to the 2^nd respondent. But, as observed above, the Review Petitioners have not taken any steps even at the time when the promotion was effected to get the judgment in the writ petition reviewed or challenged in appeal.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent had pointed out that, with respect to the issue pertaining to her promotion, there was a dispute raised by the Review Petitioners, which was adjudicated by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode. Annexure-R2 (e), produced along with counter affidavit, is the Award passed by that court in ARC No.71/2011. It is pointed out that an appeal filed against the said award by the present Review Petitioners was dismissed by the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.44/2012, through judgment dated 26^th August 2013. Therefore, contention of the 2^nd respondent is that, the challenges raised with respect

¶43

RP No.265/2015

¶44

-6-

¶45

to eligibility of the 2^nd respondent to be promoted as Secretary, stands already negatived by the appropriate authority/court.

¶46

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Review Petitioners contended that, the appellate judgment of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge before this court in a writ petition filed as W.P (C) No.25573/2013, which is pending disposal before this court. It is also submitted that there exists another dispute with respect to seniority of the employees of the Co-operative society concerned, which is pending adjudication before this court in yet another writ petition filed by the 2^nd respondent, W.P (C) No.29807/2014.

¶47

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner could establish any ground for seeking review of the judgment in the Writ Appeal. We are of the considered opinion that, there exists no error apparent on the face of the judgment, nor there is any omission committed by the Division Bench while disposing the Writ Appeal, with respect to consideration of any material facts or provisions of law.

¶48

Hence the review petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, we make it clear that dismissal of the Review Petition will not in any manner preclude the petitioners

¶49

RP No.265/2015

¶50

-7-

¶51

herein to pursue their remedies in other litigations which are pending before this court.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

JUDGE

AMG

RP No.265/2015

-8-

APPENDIX

REVIEW PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶63

ANNEXURE-A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SERVICE BOOKS ANNEXURE-A2 - TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION No.6 DATED 08-07-2008 ANNEXURE-A3 - TRUE COPY OF lLr. No.E.M. (3)45548/08 DATED 21-10-2008. ANNEXURE-A4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-A5 - TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF OBJECTION DATED 15-11-2008 ANNEXURE-A6 - TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 24-02-2012 IN ARC 71/11. ANNEXURE-A7 - TRUE COPY OF APPEAL No.44 OF 2012. ANNEXURE-A8 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25-05-2012 ANNEXURE-A9 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08-05-2013 IN WPC No.816/2013. ANNEXURE-A10 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21-03-2013 IN RP No.267/2013

¶64

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶65

NIL

¶66

AMG

Abdul Rasheed K.K v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rasheed K.K v. Government of Kerala

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/S.Hal International Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Everest Plywoods Vs State of Kerala

Everest Plywoods Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Saji Markose

Saji Markose Vs State of Kerala

M.I.Francis Vs the District Collector