M. RAJESH Vs. THE REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with the non consideration of a resolution, purportedly passed by the Bank, exempting him from the essential qualification of graduation, for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary in the respondent Bank. The petitioner would rely on Ext. P1 and resolution taken as item No. 6, to contend that the Bank has resolved to exempt the petitioner and in such circumstance, the Registrar has to merely grant approval as has been consistently held by this Court in various decisions.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the party respondents however, submits that there is no valid resolution as is discernible from Ext. P1. The Bank merely directed consideration of the representation submitted by Mr. K.K. Anandan and Mr. M. Rajesh for qualification exemption. The resolution was specifically to request the Registrar to consider the representation. That is not the procedure prescribed under Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co -operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules'). It is also pointed out that, as per the proviso, to grant exemption, five years service in the feeder category is mandatory and there should be no person junior to the petitioner in that category, who has graduation and has 20 years service in the Bank; if such minimum service is to be relaxed.

(3.) IN the present case, since the promotion post is one for which graduation is the essential qualification, clause (b) of sub -rule (8) is applicable. An employee who has passed JDC or equivalent and who has a minimum service of five years in the feeder category as also who is not less than 45 years of age is entitled to be considered for exemption by the Managing Committee of the Society. Proviso to clause (b) also enables the Managing Committee to relax the five years service in the feeder category provided the employee for whom such relaxation is granted, is above 53 years of age and there are no graduates in the feeder category who have 20 years of service in the respondent Bank. Petitioner admittedly, going by the facts, is not 53 and hence at the time of passing of the resolution, petitioner has not crossed the age limit as indicated in the proviso to clause (b) of sub -rule (8) of Rule 185 of the Rules.