MANI Vs. TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to promote the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager in the light of Ext. P6 provisional degree certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Open University and also for a declaration that the degree obtained from the Tamil Nadu Open University being approved by the University Grants Commission is sufficient for the purpose of promotion in terms with R. 186 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred as the Act). The facts as disclosed would indicate that the petitioner joined as a Junior Clerk in the 1st respondent bank on 28.1.1986. His qualification was S.S.L.C. and J.D.C. He was promoted as a Senior Clerk on 23.12.1996 and as Accountant on 01.12.2006. The next promotion post is that of Branch Manager. According to the petitioner, since he did not have the requisite qualification at the relevant time, the Committee, by Ext. P1 recommended to grant exemption to the petitioner for acquiring the said qualification for graduation. The said recommendation is pending consideration before the department. In the meantime, the petitioner passed the degree examination held in January 2012 as evident from Ext. P6 dated 10.04.2012, the provisional certificate issued by the Comptroller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Open University. According to the petitioner, when he approached the Bank for being selected to the next promoted post from the Feeder Category of Accountant, the Bank had taken a stand that the Degree obtained from outside Universities are required to be certified by any of the Universities in the State of Kerala as equivalent to the qualification prescribed.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the reasons stated for denying him promotion is totally baseless as R. 186(1) only indicates that the candidates should be a degree holder from a recognised University. Reliance is placed on Exts. P13, P14 and P15 judgments as well. According to the petitioner, he is the senior most person in the post of Accountant and is entitled to be promoted to the post of Branch Manager.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent inter alia contending that in so far as the petitioner has obtained a certificate from the Tamil Nadu Open University which is based on a distance education programme, unless it is recognised as a proper course by any of the Universities in the State of Kerala, the same cannot be accepted. Reference is made to R. 186 to indicate that in respect of Distance Education Programme, specific provisions had been made in the Rule itself for accepting the same as equivalent qualification. Since degree obtained from Distance Education Programme is not considered to be a proper qualification under the Rules, unless the Government specifically clarifies that such Degrees can also be taken into consideration for the purpose of giving promotion to persons who had obtained Degrees by adopting the Distance Education course, the petitioner is not entitled to get any such direction or declaration as the case may be.