M.Y.ROSY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are former and serving employees of the 4th respondent - District Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short), have filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P23 order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as per which, their earlier promotions, granted to them in the years 2004 to 2009, have been found to be irregular and consequential directions, to recover the pecuniary benefits received by them in such promoted post, has been issued. The petitioners say that, as is clear from Ext.P23, the only provision invoked by the Registrar in issuing the said order is Rule 185(8) (h) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('KCS Rules' for short), that the petitioners had not obtained orders of relaxation from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies prior their promotions been effected.

(2.) Sri.M.M.Monaye, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners commenced his submissions by saying that Ext.P23 order is flawed and vitiated for a primary reason namely, that Rule 185(8)(h) has been inserted into the KCS Rules only with effect from 26.11.2014; whereas, the petitioners were all promoted, concedely, between the years 2004 and 2009. He says, therefore, that the rigour of the provisions of Rule 185(8)(h) of the KCS Rules could never have been used against his clients particularly, because at the time when they were promoted, the statutory position was to the effect that an ex post facto ratification of relaxation of qualifications of candidates could have been obtained by the Managing Committee. Sri.M.M.Monaye further submits that at the relevant time his clients were promoted, the then extant provisions contemplated a competitive examination for the purpose of promotion and that subsequently, it was amended to make such examinations only a qualifying one, subject to necessary educational qualifications being acquired by the candidates. He says that in that scenario, it was certainly possible for his clients to obtain an ex post facto ratification of their promotion, especially because, a provision like Rule 185(8) (h) of the KCS Rules had not been included in the Statute books. He therefore, prays that Ext.P23 be set aside.

(3.) Sri.N.Raghuraj, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank, submits that his client intends to file a detailed counter affidavit explaining the reasons that led to the promotion of the petitioners; but adds that they will follow all lawful orders issued by the competent Authorities.