Allowed

K.Baburajan, v. the Kerala State Co-Operative Service Examination Board

Kerala HC18 Mar 2019WP(C)/5266/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court held that the Society lacked jurisdiction to fill the post of Secretary via direct recruitment as it is not under Rule 185(2) and requires promotion. The petition was allowed, directing the Society to consider the petitioner's eligibility for promotion expediently.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent-Society to consider the petitioner's eligibility for promotion as per the applicable Rules, including Feeder Category Rules, expeditiously.

K.Baburajan, Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Service… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5266 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.BABURAJAN, CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, NEDIYENGA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. LL84, CHEPPARAMBA BRANCH, NEDIYENGA P.O., S REEKANDAPURAM VIA., KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 631.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, STATE CO-OP. BANK BUILDING, OVER BRIDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

¶11

2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR 670002.

¶12

3 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NEDIYENGA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, NO. LL84, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 631.

¶13

4 THE NEDIYENGDA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD LL NO 84, CHEMPANTHOTTY P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA) KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS, SC SMT.S.L.SYLAJA, SC. SMT.V.SUSMITHA SRI.BIMAL K.NATH-SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 5266 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner says that he is presently working as the Assistant Secretary in the services of the fourth respondent - Co-operative Society. He says that even though the post of Secretary is not one within the mandate of Rule 185(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short, 'the Rules'), the respondent - Society is attempting to fill up the said post through direct recruitment under the aegis of the first respondent - Service Examination Board. The petitioner says that this action of the Society is illegal and untenable in law.

¶20

The learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent - society, to a pointed question from this Court, conceded that the post of Secretary is not included in Rule 185(2) of the Rules but he says that the Society was constrained to go for direct recruitment for filling up the said post because the society does not trust the petitioner's capability to work as its Secretary.

¶21

The learned standing counsel for the respondent - Examination Board submits that they have conducted the examination only because of the requisition made to them by the Society but they say that, going by Rule 185(2) of the Rules, the post of Secretary is not one to which a direct recruitment can be

¶22

WP(C).No. 5266 of 2019

¶23

¶24

done by the Society. He says that he has nothing further to comment on this and therefore, that this writ petition may be ordered in any manner that this Court deems fit taking note of the statutory provisions.

¶25

Even when I hear the learned standing counsel for the Society as afore, the fact remains that as long as the post of Secretary is not one that is included under Rule 185(2) of the Rules, the respondent - Society will not obtain any jurisdiction or competence to appoint a person by direct recruitment especially when a qualified person makes a claim for promotion. Obviously, therefore, their requisition to the Examination Board for the purpose of filling up of the said post through direct recruitment is also untenable in law. Consequently, the examination now conducted by the said Board is not capable of fructifying into an appointment under the provisions of the KCS Act and Rules, particularly because under Ext.P1 Feeder Category Rules, the post of Secretary can be filled up only by promotion.

¶26

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the fourth respondent - Society to consider the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion as per the applicable and relevant Rules, including the Feeder Category Rules. This shall be done by the competent Authority of the Society as expeditiously as is

¶27

WP(C).No. 5266 of 2019

¶28

¶29

possible, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the resultant order will be communicated to him immediately thereafter.

¶30

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

stu

¶33

WP(C).No. 5266 of 2019

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO CRP 7524/05/K.DIS DATED 27.12.2005 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO 64/18 DATED 16.5.2018 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶40

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT R3 A A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.9 DATED 23/01/2018 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK.

¶42

EXHIBIT R3 B A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, REGARDING CONDUCT OF THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF SECRETARY IN THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK.

¶43

EXHIBIT R3 C A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST.

¶44

EXHIBIT R3 D A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET SIGNED BY THE PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE INTERVIEW.

¶45

EXHIBIT R3 E A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/02/2019.

¶46

//True copy//

¶47

P.A to Judge.

K.Baburajan, v. the Kerala State Co-Operative Service Examination Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Baburajan, v. the Kerala State Co-Operative Service Examination Board

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

Paulose Vs the Joint Registrar for Co-Operative Society(General)

Lalitha P. K. Vs the Joint Director(Audit) of Co-Operative Societies

Shalu M.P. Vs the Pantheerankavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 2110

Sasidharan Vs the State of Kerala

Baiju.P., Vs Authorized Officer

Shibu.C, Vs Authorised Officer