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. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank does not join issue. The resolution as indicated in Ext.P1 is not one passed under Rule 185(8). Sub-rule (8) of Rule 185 of the Rules specifically speaks of exemption from qualification for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases, by the Registrar only, on a request made by the Society by passing a resolution for which conditions are prescribed under sub-clause (a) to (e). Hence, a resolution has to be passed by the Society granting exemption from educational qualification, in deserving cases and on such a resolution being forwarded to the Registrar, the Registrar is bound to approve the same, provided it satisfies the conditions under sub-rule (8) of Rule 185.
4. 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.
5. Further, the seniority list of employees has been produced by the party respondents which is marked as Ext.R5(a). On a mere perusal of the seniority list, it is clear that there are graduates in the feeder category who have more than 20 years of service in the Bank and in such circumstances, no relaxation in educational qualification can be given to the petitioner even by the Managing Committee of the Bank. It is admitted that the petitioner does not have five years service in the feeder category since admittedly he acquired the qualification for being promoted to the post of Assistant Secretary in the year 2013.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//