HARIHARAN Vs. HANEESA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal is filed by respondents 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the WP (C) challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring Ext. P4 provisional order of promotion and Ext. P7 approval by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies granting exemption from degree for promotion, as invalid and issued in violation of R.185(8) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). We have heard Adv. Sri. George Poonthottam appearing for the appellants, Senior counsel Sri. Nandakumara Menon, appearing for the additional 7th respondent, Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent and Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. Strangely respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Appeal who were the petitioners in the WP (C) have not chosen to appear or defend the judgment in spite of notice.

(2.) The facts leading to the dispute raised before the learned Single Judge are the following. The appellants along with 6th respondent and three others joined the service of the 5th respondent - Bank without the qualification of Degree but with SSLC and Junior Diploma Course in Co - operation. After serving for over 25 years, the 5th respondent - Bank taking into account their longstanding blemishless service in the Bank, decided to waive requirement of Degree as a qualification for promotion and recommended to the Registrar for approval in terms of R.185(2), the then existing Rule providing for relaxation of qualification of Society employees for promotion. Even though the said recommendation made through resolution of the Bank was not produced in the case of all the employees involved, one such recommendation is produced in the WP (C) as Ext. P3. After the Bank decided to relax the educational qualification of the appellants and others by way of dispensing with Degree as a qualification for promotion to the post of Branch Manager / Superintendent, the appellants and the other persons involved were promoted temporarily vide Ext. P4 proceedings dated 19/04/2003. On the very same day i.e. 19/04/2003, the Registrar referred the recommendation of the Bank for report by the Joint Registrar and based on his report and after considering the recommendation of the Bank, the Registrar vide Ext. P7 order dated 19/11/2003 approved the waiver of qualification namely, dispensation of Degree for promotion to the appellants with a rider that the promotions, if any, given prior to the Registrar's order will take effect from the date of approval granted by him i.e. 19/11/2003. Respondents 1 to 3 in the Writ Appeal who were graduates waiting for promotion, challenged Exts. P4 and P7 before this Court on the ground that relaxation of educational qualification which is in the form of dispensation of degree as a qualification for promotion by the 5th respondent and the promotion given to appellants and the 6th respondent is against R.185(2) subsequently substituted by R.185(8) of the Rules. Even though approval given by the Registrar for relaxation of educational qualification under Ext. P7 was for 8 persons, challenge was limited to the promotion given to appellants and the 6th respondent. The 7th respondent, though had not challenged the promotions given to petitioners in the WP (C), got impleaded as an additional respondent in this Writ Appeal to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The short question arising for our decision is whether the learned Single Judge was correct on the interpretation given by him on R.185(2) in as much as he has held that the relaxation of educational qualification by the Bank should itself be initiated with the prior approval of the Registrar. In order to consider the question, we have to necessarily refer to the Rule which stood at the relevant time, which is as follows:

(3.) Counsel for the appellants referred to the contents of Ext. P3 which clearly states the reasons which weighed with the Bank to grant relaxation in the Degree qualification for one of the employees who is the first appellant herein. We are told that similar recommendation was made by the Bank for relaxation of Degree qualification for promotion of other appellants as well. It is seen from Ext. P3 that the Bank has taken into account the service of the first respondent for over 26 years in the Bank in various Grades and that he has served the Bank to it's satisfaction and that he was not involved in any irregularity leading to disciplinary proceedings and under Notification GO (P) No. 90/2003 issued by the Government, he is entitled to have the Degree qualification dispensed with under R.185(2) for promotion to the post of Branch Manager / Superintendent. It is this recommendation and similar recommendations in the case of other appellants, 6th respondent and others, that were considered by the Registrar in the proceedings issued as Ext. P7 which was challenged by the respondents 1 to 3, in the WP (C). It is seen from Ext. P7 that prior to approval of the recommendation from the Bank with regard to relaxation of Degree qualification of the employees concerned for promotion to the post of Branch Manager / Superintendent, the Registrar has got report from the Joint Registrar who endorsed the recommendation of the Bank. It is also specifically mentioned in Ext. P7 that promotions to employees in whose cases relaxation of qualification recommended by the Bank is approved by Registrar, will take effect on regular basis only with effect from his order i.e. Ext. P7.