Dismissed

Dr. Aji Raj v. Managing Director, Milma

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020WP(C)/15529/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by veterinary officers seeking promotion. It held that disputes regarding promotion and seniority between officers of Co-operative Societies must be decided by the Cooperative Arbitration Court under the Co-operative Societies Act, excluding the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court.

Dr. Aji Raj Vs Managing Director, Milma — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15529 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONERS :

¶7

1 DR. AJI RAJ, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. A.RAJAN PILLAI, WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER, P AND I OFFICE, TRCMPU LTD., KUTTIYIL JN, (MILMA), MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622, RESIDING AT PANAMPALLIL HOUSE, PATHIYOOR EAST P.O. (VIA) KEERIKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 508.

¶8

2 DR.ANITHA RAM, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O SANEESH KUMAR, WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER, TRCMPU LTD., KOLLAM DAIRY, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM-691 009, RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN, THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 502.

¶9

3 DR.GIREESH KRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. C.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER, TRCMPU LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA DAIRY, NARIYAPURAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 513, RESIDING AT KOTTARATHUNKAL HOUSE, KALLOORKULAM P.O., EDAMULA, KOTTAYAM-686 503.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.A.V.VIVEK SHRI.GODWIN JOSEPH SMT.APARNA CHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILMA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.

¶13

2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.

¶14

WP(C).No.15529 OF 2020(M)

¶15

¶16

3 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶17

4 DIRECTOR,DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶18

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.

¶19

6 SHRI.E.R. SANTHOSH KUMAR, ASSISTANT MANAGER ( P AND I) TRCMPU LTD., KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004

¶20

SRI K.P HARISH SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT LATHA ANAND, STANDING COUNSEL

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No.15529 OF 2020(M)

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to effect promotion to the petitioners as Assistant Manager (P&I) in preference over 6th respondent with all consequential benefits and also for a direction commanding the said respondents to refrain from regularising the promotions overlooking the claim of the petitioners.

¶26

I have heard Sri V. Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K.P. Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶27

Section 69(2)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act provides that any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servant of the different class of societies specified in sub section (1) of Section 80 including their promotion and inter se seniority are to be decided by the Cooperative Arbitration Court. Section 69 of the Act also excludes the jurisdiction of any Court or authority to deal with a dispute as is referred to in that section. Though in exceptional circumstances, a writ can be entertained despite there being an equally efficacious remedy, the petitioners have not been able to show that any such circumstance exists, warranting interference. At any rate, a writ petition in respect of the service matters of the Co-operative Society cannot be entertained by this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

WP(C).No.15529 OF 2020(M)

¶29

¶30

In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional forum constituted under Section 69 of the Act. The writ petition therefore fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional forum for appropriate reliefs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Sru/17.9.2020

¶35

WP(C).No.15529 OF 2020(M)

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
	PROCEEDINGS PROMOTING THE 6TH RESPONDENT
	TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT MANAGER ( P AND
	I) ISSUED AS PER ORDER NO.
	TRU/PER/5/2019/1647 DATED 14.08.2019 BY
	THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO. TRU/PER/2/2013/2744 DATED 11.09.2013 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO.TRU/PER/4/2014/3740 DATED 27.11.2014 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PROMOTING THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF MILK PROCUREMENT OFFICER ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO.TRU/PER/5/2013 4191 DATED 04.12.2013 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROMOTION POLICY ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO. H3-15600-97 (R.DIS) DATED 26.09.1997 ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH MANAGER (P AND I) ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY MANAGER (P AND I) DATED 30.08.2019.

¶42

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO.164/2014/AD DATED 02.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,AGRICULTURAL (DAIRY) DEPARTMENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER
	NO.TRU/PER/1-A/2019 DATED 05.08.2019
	ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
	PETITIONER.

¶44

WP(C).No.15529 OF 2020(M)

¶45

¶46

EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF HE NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 11/10/2012.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.MS NO.101/90/AD DATED 28.03.1990 ISSUED ON THE BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS)NO.35/83/AD DATED 15.02.1983 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)64/85/AD DATED 21.02.1985.
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO (RT) NO.1431/2011/AD DATED 08.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER D3/7169/2012 DATED 28.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO. (RT)NO.489/2006/AD DATED 31.03.2006 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1/10818/2006 DATED 30.03.2007 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(RT) NO.1631/08/AD DATED 21.08.2008 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3/5428/09 DATED 17.09.2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(RT) NO 962/2010/AD DATED 27.05.2010,ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19 OF MILMA DOWNLOADED FROM THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P21 RESPONDENT (S)	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FEDERATION. EXHIBITS : NIL

Dr. Aji Raj v. Managing Director, Milma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Aji Raj v. Managing Director, Milma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joby T.J Vs the District Police Chief

Binu S., Vs C.G.Vinod

Jose Moothedan, Vs Shri. David John

Asha Reji Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sherlinkumari R. Vs State of Kerala

Hashim a. Vs the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority Cum the Regional Transport Officer