The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent-Society, who is aggrieved by the rejection of exemption from educational qualification, granted by the Managing Committee of the Society by a valid resolution; resulting in denial of promotion.
2. The petitioner, admittedly, was an employee of the respondent-Society, who was promoted to the post of Branch Manager, the qualification for which was graduation. To the post wherein qualification is prescribed as graduation, Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 [for brevity “the Rules”] prescribes for exemption, which has to be granted by the Managing Committee of the Society by a valid resolution. Such exemption can be granted only when the employee who is sought to be exempted satisfy the three conditions in the said Rule, namely:-
“i) should have passed JDC or equivalent;
ii) should have a minimum service of five years in the feeder category; and
iii) should not be less than forty-five years of age.
WP(C).No.5999 of 2011 - 2 -
Admittedly the petitioner complies with all the aforesaid conditions when the Managing Committee of the Society took a valid resolution on 28.04.2010 to promote the petitioner as Branch Manager by granting exemption from educational qualification. The promotion was also effected.
3. The application for approval having been forwarded through proper channel, the same was received by the Registrar on 14.09.2010, as evidenced in Exhibit P5. The Registrar thought it fit to reject the approval on the ground that the petitioner would retire on 30.09.2010.
4. The factum of superannuation would not be a ground which could result in rejection of an approval of resolution, made validly by the Society at its Managing Committee meeting. This Court, when the unamended Rule 185 of KCS Rules was in force, in Dasan v. Registrar of Co- op. Societies [2007 (1) KLT 581] held that though prior approval is a condition, it need not be insisted upon. Reference may also be made to Hariharan v. Haneesa Beevi [2010 (2) KLT 144]. Subsequent to the amendment, what is required is a valid resolution, which has to be WP(C).No.5999 of 2011 - 3 -
forwarded to the Registrar. The power of the Registrar has been well defined by binding precedents of this Court.
5. Taking into consideration all the above factors, Exhibit P5 is set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the basis of the exemption, which has been allowed by the respondent-Society by a valid resolution. The Registrar shall issue the approval order expeditiously and the petitioner shall be entitled to all attendant benefits from the date of resolution.
The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )