M. S. RAMACHANDRA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question that calls for determination in this Original Petition is the validity and scope of amended R.185 and 200,and the newly added R.201 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules,1969(for short 'the Rules ')

(2.) PETITIONERS and respondents 6 to 51 are the employees of the 5th respondent Cooperative Society which was registered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act,1969(for short 'the Act ').Respondents 6 to 41 were holding various posts in the society as on 1st January 1974.S.80 of the Act provided for the classification of Societies and for making rules regulating the qualification,remuneration,allowance and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of different classes of Societies.Even though the Act came into force in 1969,the rules under S.80 were framed and brought into force only with effect from 1st January 1974.The said rules are contained in Chap.15 of the Rules as Rules '182 to 200.R.186 of the rules fixed the qualification for appointment.Ext.P1 is the copy of the bye laws 34 and 35 of the Society.Bye law 34(1)provides that the 5th respondent shall not appoint any person as paid officer or employee in any category of service,unless he possesses the qualification and also furnishes security.Bye law 34(2)enjoins that the bank shall not retain in service any employee if he does not acquire the qualification,unless the Registrar relaxes the provisions of sub clause(1)of the bye laws.Before the promulgation of the aforesaid statutory rules,the bank had adopted and was following the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank and therefore,that was the rules which governed the conditions of service,qualifications for holding different posts and other matters relating to service in the bank.Though the bank had approved another set of service rules on the model recommended by a committee constituted by the Government to go into the question of preparation of service conditions of employees of the District Cooperative Banks,the same did not get the sanction by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as required under clause '35(2)of the bye laws.Therefore,according to the petitioner the service rules of the employees of the bank immediately before the coming into force of the Statutory Rules was the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank.In the petition the petitioner has given a comparative table as to the qualification under the said Rules and Statutory Rules as follows: "Sl.No. Name of Post Qualification under the rules in force prior to Ist January 1974 Qualification under the statutory rules with effect from Ist January 1974 (1) (2) (3) (4)

(3.) ACCORDING to the first respondent by the amendment dated 17th June 1988 the employees who were in service prior to the introduction of the rules under S.80 of the Act are also eligible for promotion to the higher posts as per R.185(2)read with R.200 in relaxation of the qualification.The 5th respondent;respondents 11,12,22,27,28,29,38,41,46 and 49,and respondents 30 to 34,42 and 45 have also filed counter affidavit.According to them the O.P.itself is not maintainable and the case of the petitioner that before the statutory rule came into force on 1st January 1974 the rule regulating the qualification and service conditions of the officers of the 5th respondent was the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank is not correct;but rule applicable was Ext.R5(c)rules which was approved by the Director Board.As per the said rule they were qualified to be promoted to the post which they hold and their right for promotion is saved by R.200 of the Rules.Therefore even though their promotions were after 1st January 1974,they are entitled to hold the post.It was alternatively contended that by virtue of the amendment to R.185,200 and the addition of new R.201 their promotions are valid.Consequently the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the O.P.