Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. The petitioner is a cooperative bank and the challenge is against Ext. P8 order of the Government. Submission is that it is passed not in consonance with the directions that it is passed not in consonance with the directions that had been there in Ext. P6 judgment and as it is technically irregular and incapable of being complied with, the same deserves to be set aside. 2. A provision had been incorporated in the Co-operative Act and Rules for conferring compassionate appointment to dependants of deceased employees in certain circumstances. One P.P. Sumathi, who became widow due to demise of her husband who was working as Chief Accountant, had been appointed as Junior Clerk in the petitioner bank under the said scheme. Sumathi who is the 3rd respondent herein did not possess the basic qualifications of Junior Diploma in Co-operation (JDC). Such cases are specifically taken notice of by Rule 186 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules dealing with the qualifications. In view of SRO 1340/90 dated 25/9/1990 it had been incorporated in the Rule as following: “The dependents of employee dying in harness seeking employment assistance under R. 188A and who are likely to be considered for appointment to posts other than those requiring technical qualifications shall be given relaxation from possessing the co-operative training qualification mentioned inR.186, for a period of three years from the date of appointment. Appointments made in relaxation of co-operative training qualifications will be purely provisional until they acquire the said qualification within the prescribed period for which relaxation is given.” Third respondent had joined duty on11-1-1997. Therefore, going by the Rules, the date upto which she could have been provisionally engaged was 10-1-2000. During the last phase of the above period, as authorized, the petitioner had underwent a course of cooperative training. The duration was of six months and thereafter, she had rejoined on 29-5-2000, as permitted. But thereafter the bank took a stand that from 1-6-2000 she cannot be granted salary. The representation for review had not been taken notice of and ultimately she had made a representation to the Government requesting for extension of the period of exemption so as to get her tenure regularized. As far as the bank was concerned, it self that she was continuing without legal sanction. Evidently they had decided to deal with the situation. The representation for review had not been taken notice of and ultimately she had made a representation to the Government requesting for extension of the period of exemption so as to get her tenure regularized. As far as the bank was concerned, it self that she was continuing without legal sanction. Evidently they had decided to deal with the situation. While the issue was pending before the Government, the bank had terminated her services on 19-7-2000 on the plea that she had not secured the minimum qualification within the period prescribed. Third respondent had thereupon filed O.P. No. 2961/2000. By Ext. P6 judgment a direction was issued to the Government that the representation of the petitioner for granting exemption from qualification should be taken notice of and appropriate orders are to be passed. The learned Judge had made specific reference to Rule 181 of learned Judge had made specific reference to Rule 181 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, which gives the Government the power to exempt any registered society or class of societies from any of the registered society or class of societies from any of the provisions of the Rules. 3. The Learned Judge had also indicated that Rule 181 of the Rules conferred such powers and therefore Rule 186 also could be invoked. This has regularized in Ext.P8 order. The Government held that as the petitioner could not acquire the JDC qualification for no fault of her, the bank could have approached the Joint Registrar for a further extension to enable the person to complete the course. It was also suggested by the above said order that the termination should not have been resorted to, and if so advised, it should have been possible for the bank to revert the petitioner and accommodate her to a lower post which does not require the JDC qualification, till the issue got regularized. 5. Sri George Poonthottam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this direction is not in consonance with statutory prescription and it should have been impossible for the Government Order. The operative portion of the government Order reads as following: “From the facts stated above it is seen that the decision of the respondent bank to terminate the service of the appellant is against natural justice and contrary to the very intention of Rule 188 (A) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The operative portion of the government Order reads as following: “From the facts stated above it is seen that the decision of the respondent bank to terminate the service of the appellant is against natural justice and contrary to the very intention of Rule 188 (A) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. In the above circumstances the respondent bank is directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with immediate effect and Registrar of co-operative Societies is directed to move for extension of time, for acquiring the junior Diploma in Co-operation qualification by the petitioner for two years.” It was in this context the O.P. was filed by the Bank praying for interference with the order. This was stated as an attempt so as to compel the government to pass orders in consonance with the judgment and statute. 6. I heard the learned government pleader as also the 3rd respondent. It is submitted by the 3rd respondent that immediately after joining duty in the bank, inspite of her attempt to acquire the qualification, she did not get admission in the Cooperative Training college. She got admission in 1999-2000. This position has also been made mention of by the Government Order, Ext.P8. The applications for admission to the JDC course are considered by the State Co-operative Union only on the basis of service seniority. As such it was impossible for the petitioner to complete the JDC training inspite of her willingness. 7. Perhaps, the Rule ought to have taken care of this situation but as there was no specific clause for extension, the Learned Judge in the earlier proceedings had directed the Government to look into the matter and do the needful. The claims and counter claims have to be examined so as to whittle down the effect of substantive statutory prescriptions and annual the benefits consciously conferred, and the attempt should always be for a reconciliation. 8. Initially, when the results were published, petitioner was declared as failed in two subjects. But revaluation results came to her advantage and as matter stand now she is deemed to be the holder of JDC long before the order of her termination. As at present she is therefore qualified. The Government appears to have taken a realistic view about the available facts. 9. Therefore the question is whether Ext. But revaluation results came to her advantage and as matter stand now she is deemed to be the holder of JDC long before the order of her termination. As at present she is therefore qualified. The Government appears to have taken a realistic view about the available facts. 9. Therefore the question is whether Ext. P8 has to be set aside and the Government directed to reconsider the same in terms of Ext. P6 judgment at this stage. As I see the issue, I do not think that any serious error has been committed, atleast warranting interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction could be declined, even in cases where the order impugned is technically irregular, if it is brought to light that greater harm may be the result if the order is struck down. Invocation of a wrong provision or an oversight also could be condoned. Writ court is not to erase justice, in the name of correcting error of law. Procedure is only hand maid to justice and reopening the issue and a reconciliation would not be in public interest, as there is no contention that the 3rd respondent is an undesirable employee. (See the decision in Buddhi Nath Chaudary v. Abhai Kumar (2001) 3 SCC 328) and Roshan Deen v. Pareeti Lal (AIR 2002 S.C. 33)) There is no allegation against the 3rd respondent of any lapse excepting that she had not acquired the qualifications. That disqualification is no more there. In Ext. P8, the Government has, apparently, though not in clear terms, in the operative portion of the order, directed that two years extension of time has to be granted and representation has to be filed before the Registrar of co-operative societies. The Government in effect has directed that two years is to be extended to the 3rd respondent for acquiring the qualification. Taking note of the circumstances, I am of the view that even though technically Ext.P8 may be characterized as imperfect, nevertheless, it is, not necessary that the order is to be set aside. 10. As emanating from Ext. P8 order, 3rd respondent is to be deemed to have granted tow years time for acquisition of essential qualification. In fact, the 3rd respondent needed relaxation of a period of less than six months. 10. As emanating from Ext. P8 order, 3rd respondent is to be deemed to have granted tow years time for acquisition of essential qualification. In fact, the 3rd respondent needed relaxation of a period of less than six months. Though there was technically no fault on the part of the petitioner in discounting the service of the 3rd respondent, it cannot be contended that the Government was in error in directing reinstatement, as the issue was being given a finality. 11. Taking note of the situation as a whole, I hold that reinstatement of the 3rd respondent is to be effective from 20/7/2002, of course, with continuity of service. I hold that the 3rd respondent will not be entitled to salary for the period upto the date of actual reinstatement and the petitioner should reinstate the 3rd respondent asper the directions of Ext. P8 on or before 20th July, 2002. However, her service in between will be treated for all purpose including retirement benefits, seniority, fixation of pay and such other reliefs, as continuous. On going through the dispute, one may get the feeling that the proceedings precipitated was uncalled for, and the matter could have been tackled at appropriate stage without then excruciating litigation and strain. The directions as above have become necessary so as to give a quietus to the issue, once and for all. Original Petition is disposed of as above.