RAJESH KUMAR Vs. K P S C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Writ Petitions the challenge is against the Notification dated 3.8.2004 issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Branch Manager in District Co-operative Banks in the Districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha, Idukki, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Palakkad, Kannur and Wayanad. IN W.P.(C).No.36121/2004 the Notification (Ext.P2) is challenged on the ground that R.186 (1)(IA)(i) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules as it stood at the time of publication of the notification is unconstitutional in so far as it does not prescribe Higher Diploma in Co-operation or equivalent qualification along with graduation, which is an essential qualification for the lower posts which are feeder categories for promotion to various posts up to Branch Manager in the quota prescribed for promotion, and therefore, the said Notification issued on the basis of such invalid qualifications, is liable to be quashed. IN W.P.(C).No.27180/2004 the very same notification is challenged both on the abovesaid ground and also on the ground that since under R.187 in appointments to Apex Societies or Central Societies, 50% of the vacancies shall be reserved for the employees of the member societies of the respective Apex Societies or the Central Societies as the case may be and the entire vacancies have been notified for selection in the 50% general quota for direct recruitment the notification is liable to be quashed. IN W.P.(C).Nos.33119/2004 and 36498/2004 the very same notification is challenged on the second ground in W.P(C).No.27180/2004 alone. IN W.P. (C).No.36279/2004 the notification is not challenged, but the petitioners therein seek a direction to advise candidates to 50% of the vacancies from among the employees of member societies of the Central Society who have undergone the selection process.

(2.) WHILE the Writ Petitions were pending, the Government, by S.R.O.No.617/2005 amended R.186(1)(IA)(i) by including HDC or equivalent qualification as an essential qualification for direct recruitment under R.185(2). The petitioners therefore have raised an additional ground that since this amendment is curative in nature to remove the earlier anomaly, the same is retrospective by necessary implication and the notification without prescribing the additional qualification as incorporated by the amendment is bad.

(3.) SINCE although on different grounds, the same notification is the subject matter of these Writ Petitions, I am disposing of these Writ Petitions by this common judgment.