USHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext. P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06/11/2000 under the provisions of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Attender in the 3rd respondent society was declined approval being violative of R.185 of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, 1969, and affirmed by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P8 order, in appeal. Facts encapsulated for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner entered service under the 3rd respondent Co - operative Bank as Part - time sweeper on 02/05/1995, and promoted to the post of Attender by the Bank with effect from 13/12/1999. On 09/09/1997, petitioner was made permanent in the post of sweeper in the pay scale of Rs.370 + DA with effect from 01/07/1997. On 19/12/1999, petitioner was appointed by promotion to the post of Attender subject to approval of the 2nd respondent. On 06/11/2000, 2nd respondent issued Ext. P3 impugned order directing to cancel petitioner's promotion and to recover the salary already received by her in the post of Attender. Being aggrieved, on 22/11/2000, petitioner filed O.P.No.32763 of 2000 before this Court challenging Ext. P3 order, and this Court stayed the reversion of the petitioner. However, on 25/01/2006, the said O.P. was disposed of, directing the petitioner to pursue appeal remedy before the 1st respondent. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext. P6 appeal before the 1st respondent on 15/03/2006. However, as per Ext. P8 order dated 04/05/2007, appeal was dismissed.

(3.) According to the petitioner, she is innocent in the subject - matter and the recovery should not have been ordered against the salary paid to the petitioner in the post of Attender. It is an admitted fact that there was no feeder category rules for effecting the promotion at that point of time and the qualification was not prescribed at all. Petitioner has completed only 7th Standard, and the qualification later prescribed for promotion to the post of Attender is pass in 7th Standard. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Bank had promoted the petitioner to a vacancy arose, and the petitioner has executed the obligations cast upon her in the post of Attender, and since the work is carried out in the promoted post, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not discharged her duties and therefore, the recovery sought to be effected against the salary for the period the petitioner worked as an Attender cannot be recovered.