Disposed

Muliyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024WP(C)/33699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court reviewed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued by the Joint Registrar regarding irregularities in employee promotions and increments. The court held that final orders on the matter should not be passed without hearing the parties involved and directed that promotions be subject to the finalization of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. Final orders on the show cause notice shall be passed after hearing the petitioners and affected parties. Promotions are subject to the finalization of proceedings.

Muliyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Joint… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
AGED 57 YEARS
NO.F.F.76, KANATHOOR P.O, MULIYAR (VIA)
KASARAGOD P.O REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SASIDHARAN NAIR A.K, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O KANNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT POINACHI,
KASARAGOD., PIN - 671542
2MANIKANDAN.E
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR.M, SENIOR CLERK
MULIYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.F.76,
KANATHOOR P.O, KASARAGOD P.O, PIN - 67154
BY ADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN
C.P.SABARI
AMRUTHA SURESH
GILROY ROZARIO

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR POST
OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN CODE, PIN - 671123
2K.DAMODARAN NAIR
VANATHINKAL HOUSE, KANATHOOR P.O, MULIYAR (VIA)
KASARAGOD, PIN - 671542
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
T.R.HARIKUMAR
ARJUN RAGHAVAN(K/1277/2012)

¶10

GP SMT PRINCY XAVIER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶13

¶14

BASANT BALAJI , J. -----------------------------W.P.(C) No.33699 of 2023

¶15

Dated this the 14th day of March 2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioners herein are the Secretary and Branch Manager respectively of the Muliyar Service Co-operative Bank (the bank, for short). The second petitioner joined the service of the bank as a Nightwatchman/Peon on 01.02.2013. He was promoted as Junior Clerk on 1.3.2017 and as Senior Clerk on 03.8.2020. While so, a vacancy of Branch Manager arose due to the retirement of the then incumbent and, the 2nd petitioner, though working as Senior Clerk, was given promotion on the basis of the relinquishment letter issued by one Madhavan who was holding

¶18

the post of Accountant in the feeder category. Being aggrieved by that, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint dated 15.6.2022 before the 1st respondent, the Joint Registrar objecting the promotion given to the 2nd petitioner as Branch Manager. But, without giving a copy of the complaint

¶19

to the 2nd respondent or without hearing him, the 1st respondent has

¶20

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶21

¶22

passed Ext.P4 and directed the bank to show cause why proceedings could not be initiated against the bank for not complying with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The said letter was issued on 17.8.2023. It is in the said

¶23

circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

i) Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P4 and quash the

¶25

same, as it is issued without jurisdiction, by issuing a writ of

¶26

certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

¶27

ii) Declare that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to

¶28

interdict with the service matters of the employees of the society

¶29

since the constitution of the Arbitration Court in the light of

¶30

Ravindran Vs. State of Kerala reported in [2007 (3) KLT 558].

¶31

iii) Declare that the short term training as contemplated in

¶32

Rule 185(1) is only a directory one as it is not an obligatory

¶33

qualification for appointment.

¶34

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent

¶35

wherein it is contended that as per Rule 185(1) fourth proviso, no employee

¶36

of the society shall be promoted to the next higher post if he has not

¶37

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶38

¶39

successfully completed a short time training program/course conducted by

¶40

the institutions prescribed in the proviso. It is stated that no annual increment shall be sanctioned to the employee (after the expiry of 4 years) if he has not attended the training program. It is also stated that the 2nd petitioner did not attend the training program as stipulated in Rule 185 before granting promotion to the post of junior clerk and senior clerk. The 2nd petitioner was subsequently promoted as Accountant in supernumerary post on 01.6.2022 and on that day itself he was promoted as Branch Manager. It is contended that in order to get promotion to each post, the employee has to attend a short term training program as it is stipulated in

¶41

Rule 185 and, the 2nd petitioner did not attend the short term training program. As per Ext.P5, the 2nd petitioner has attended a training program from 08.11.2021 to 12.11.2021. The 2nd petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk, Accountant and Branch Manager without attending any training program. Pointing out this illegality, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint Ext.R2(a) wherein it is pointed out that

¶42

the 2nd petitioner obtained a certificate from the Annamalai University issued on 18.4.2022 for the examination held in May, 2021. Ext.R2(b) is a

¶43

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 20235

¶44

public notice issued by the University Grants Commission dated 25.3.2022 wherein it is stated that the Annamalai University was only recognised to offer any programme in ODL mode till Academic Year 2014-2015 and no further recognition has been accorded to it to offer any programme through ODL mode.

¶45

A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is contended that the respondent being the district authority to monitor the functioning of the Co-operative Societies have to act upon a complaint made by an “A” class member of the society and has power to interfere and supervise under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is also stated that the Joint Registrar has the authority to look into the official functioning of the society as it is the official responsibility to ensure transparency and correctness in the working of the society.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since this being a service issue the remedy of the 2nd respondent was to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar who has passed Ext.P4 does

¶47

not have the jurisdiction to issue such a direction or show cause notice.

¶48

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶49

¶50

In response, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent argued that under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar shall supervise or cause to be supervised by a person authorised by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf, the working of every society as frequently as he may consider necessary. Section 66A deals with the power of the Registrar to give directions and guidelines. Accordingly, Ext.P4 has issued invoking Section 66 and Section 66A of the Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, there is no illegality.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned

¶52

Government Pleader and Sri. T.R. Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent.

¶53

Ext.P4 is only a show cause notice issued to the bank as some irregularities have been found regarding the promotions as well as barring of increments. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, there have been findings entered by the 1st respondent regarding his promotion as Senior Clerk as well as Branch Manager and also in granting increments. The respondents do not have a case that the said findings have entered after giving notice to the 2nd petitioner and after giving an opportunity of

¶54

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶55

¶56

hearing. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the Joint Registrar has issued an order interdicting the promotion given to the 2nd petitioner. Ext.P4 contains other anomalies also. Therefore any final orders on Ext.P4 shall be passed after

¶57

hearing the petitioners as well as any affected parties including the 2nd respondent. Further promotion of the 2nd petitioner shall be subject to the

¶58

finalization of the proceedings initiated under Ext.P4.

¶59

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶60

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE

¶61

¶62

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 20238

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33699/2023

¶64

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER` `P1`	`EXHIBITS` `TRUE COPY` `BY THE ANN`	`OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `AMALAI UNIVERSITY`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 18.0`	`OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER` `5.2022 OF MR.MADHAVAN`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `20/05/2022`	`OF THE RESOLUTION NO.13 DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `THE JOINT`	`OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 OF` `REGISTRAR`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `CO-OPERATI`	`OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE` `VE TRAINING INSTITUTE`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY` `02.09.2022` `COMMISSION`	`OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED` `OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY` `STATE OF` `558`	`OF THE JUDGMENT OF RAVINDRAN VS.` `KERALA REPORTED IN 2007 (3) KLT`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY` `JOINT REG` `199`	`OF THE JUDGMENT OF PRAKASINI VS.` `ISTRAR REPORTED IN 2006 (1) KLT`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY` `ASSISTANT` `445`	`OF THE JUDGMENT OF JAYARANI V.` `REGISTRAR REPORTED IN 2016 KHC`
`RESPOND`	`ENT`	`ANNEXURES`
`R1(a)`		`REPRESENTA` `RESPONDENT`	`TION DATED 15/06/2022 BY THE 2ND`
`R1(b)`		`COMMUNICAT` `RESPONDENT`	`ION DATED 25/03/2022 BY THE 1ST`
`R1(c)`		`NOTIFICATI` `GRANT COMM`	`ON DATED 25/03/2022 BY UNIVERSITY` `ISSION`

¶65

WP(C) NO. 33699 OF 2023

¶66

¶67

`Exhibit-R2(a)`	`A TRUE` `15.6.20` `THE 1`^ST	`COPY` `22 FILED` `RESPONDE`	`OF THE COMPLAINT DATED` `BY THE 2`^ND`RESPONDENT BEFORE` `NT.`
`Exhibit-R2(b)`	`A TRUE` `03-2022` `COMMISS`	`COPY OF` `ISSUED` `ION`	`THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 25-` `BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS`
`Exhibit-R2(c)`	`A TRUE` `OF THE` `SOCIETI`	`COPY OF` `ASSISTAN` `ES (GENER`	`THE REPORT DATED 06-08-2022` `T REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE` `AL), KASARAGOD`
`Exhibit-R2(d)`	`A TRU` `NO.C.R.` `THE 1ST`	`E COPY` `P693/2022` `RESPONDE`	`OF THE COMMUNICATION` `DATED 23-08-2022 ISSUED BY` `NT`
`Exhibit-R2(e)`	`A TRUE` `OF THE` `SOCIETI`	`COPY OF` `ASSISTAN` `ES (GENER`	`THE REPORT DATED 20-12-2022` `T REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE` `AL), KASARAGOD`
`Exhibit-R2(f)`	`A TRUE` `02-2023`	`COPY OF` `ISSUED B`	`THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16-` `Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-R2(g)`	`A TRUE` `08-2023`	`COPY OF` `ISSUED B`	`THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17-` `Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT`

Muliyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muliyar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar.C Vs the Union of India

Dr Sangeetha.P Vs State of Kerala

Nandini K Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Suresh, Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Manoharan.C Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality