Judgment : The grievance exposed herein is against Exhibits P4 and P6 orders passed by the first respondent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Cashier in relaxation of the prescribed qualification invoking power of the Board under Rule 185(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (in short ‘Rules’) was turned down, mainly placing reliance on the Circular No.22/89 issued by the first respondent, as per which the power exercisable by a Society under Rule 185(8) is stated as not exercisable in respect of the relaxation to the post like that of a Cashier. 2. The claim is resisted by the first respondent by filing a counter affidavit, reiterating almost the stand as taken in Exhibit P4, while no counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent/Government as to the correctness or otherwise of the stand taken by the first respondent with regard to the correct Rule position. 3. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent bank which has been registered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (in short the ‘Act’). While performing the duties as an Attender-cum-Salesman, as per the decision taken by the Board, the petitioner was made to work in the vacancy of Cashier on work arrangement basis with effect from 1-08-1997, through he was being paid only a lesser salary attached to the post of Attender-cum-Salesman. It is revealed that the petitioner subsequently retired from the service on 30.04.2008. 4. While working in the post of Cashier as stated above, the petitioner had put up a claim that he was liable to be given regular appointment as Cashier relaxing the qualification, by invoking the powers of the Board conferred under Rule 185(8) of the Rules. Since Exhibit P1 representation filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was not acted upon, the petitioner had moved this court by filing WP(C) No.2578 of 2004, which was disposed of vide Exhibit P2 judgment directing the first respondent to consider the matter and to pass final orders as specified. Since Exhibit P1 representation filed by the petitioner before the first respondent was not acted upon, the petitioner had moved this court by filing WP(C) No.2578 of 2004, which was disposed of vide Exhibit P2 judgment directing the first respondent to consider the matter and to pass final orders as specified. Pursuant to the said verdict, the first respondent considered Exhibits P1 representation and observed that no direction could be given to the second respondents bank for giving appointment to the petitioner In the regular vacancy of Cashier after relaxing qualification in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 185(8); in view of the stipulation contained in the circular No.22/89 issued by the first respondent himself. It is stated in Exhibit P4 order that as per the said Circular, the Board of the second respondent Bank could not have exercised the power under Rule 185(8) to relax the qualification on the basis of the representation and that the said Circular specifically provided that the subordinate staff below the clerical cadre who had not acquired the training qualification could not be promoted to the higher cadre. Accordingly, Exhibit P1 application preferred by the petitioner was rejected as per Exhibit P4 order. 5. Meanwhile, the petitioner as well as second respondent Bank, reportedly on the basis of a decision rendered by this Court upholding the power of the Board to relax the qualification in the case of persons similarly situated like the petitioner (presumably the decision reported in 2004(2) KLT 23 pursued the matter further and as per the Resolution No.203 dated 9-9-2004, the second respondent sought to extend the benefit of relaxation to the petitioner and to request the first respondent to approve the same, as borne by Exhibit P5. On taking further steps by the second respondent Bank, the request for approval in this regard was rejected by the first respondent as per Exhibit P6 dated 13-10-2004; simultaneously asking for explanation from the Bank for sending Exhibit P5 even after turning down the request earlier. 6. With regard to Rule position, it is relevant to note that the petitioner was posted in the vacancy of Cashier and was working as above (through on work arrangements basis) with effect from 1-8-1997. 6. With regard to Rule position, it is relevant to note that the petitioner was posted in the vacancy of Cashier and was working as above (through on work arrangements basis) with effect from 1-8-1997. Since the claim for regular appointment against the vacancy of Cashier relaxing the basic qualification was putforth way back In ‘2004’ (vide Exhibit P1); it was directed to be considered in April 2004 (vide Exhibit P2 judgment), the order of rejection was passed on 3-6-2004 (vide Exhibit P4) and further since Exhibit P5 resolution was passed by the Board of the second respondent Bank on 09-09-2004, the relevant provision of law (Rule 185(8)] to be considered in the instant case was the Rule as it existed at that point of time i.e., before the amendment of the Rule brought into effect from 9.2005. Rule 185(8) as it existed earlier at the relevant time is extracted below: Rule 185(8) “It shall be competent for the committee of a society to relax the qualification, other than pass in the competitive examination, specified in sub-rule (5), if an employee for the purpose of promotion, appointed before the commencement of these rule, in deserving cases, with the prior approval of the Registrar, and for reasons to be recorded”. Even a cursory reading of the above provision will show that the “Committee of the Society” was having ample power to relax the qualification other than a pass in a competitive examination specified in sub-rule (5), of course with prior approval of the Registrar. 7. It appears from the contents of Exhibit P4 and the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the impugned orders were passed on the strength of the Circular No.22/89 issued by the first respondent. 7. It appears from the contents of Exhibit P4 and the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the impugned orders were passed on the strength of the Circular No.22/89 issued by the first respondent. The learned Government Pleader submits that the first respondent is very much competent to issue such circular invoking the power under sub-rule (9) of Rule 185, which reads as follows:- Rule 185(9) “The Registrar shall have power to issue guidelines to be adopted by the Co-operative Societies, with regard to the fixing of seniority/inter se seniority of employees of different categories and assessment of merit and ability of employees, for promotion, to different categories of posts, by conducting competitive/qualifying examination.” Sub-rule (9) of Rule 185 of the Rules shows that the power of the Registrar specified there to issue guidelines to be adopted by the Co-operative Societies is only with regard to the fixing of seniority/inter se seniority of different categories and assessment of merit and ability of the employees for promotion to different categories of posts by conducting competitive/qualifying examination. To put it more clear, the power of the Registrar contemplated under the said sub-rule does not deal with any alleged power to circumvene the power of the Committee of the Society for relaxation of the qualifications provided under Rule 185(8) of the Rules. 8. Thelearned Government Pleader brought to the notice of the Court as to the powers of the Registrar with regard to supervision and inspection conferred under Section 66 of the Act, as well as such other powers as provided under Section 66A of the Act, which was brought in by way of the amendment effected in the year 2005; whereas the present case is more concerned with the rule position in ‘2004’, 9. Section 66A says that, subject to the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Registrar may issue general directions and guidelines to the Co-operative ‘Society in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. There cannot be any dispute as to the existence of such powers conferred on the Registrar. But the question is whether such power can be exercised to issue any Circular contrary to the Rules or to restrict the powers conferred under the Rules; especially when Section 66A itself clearly stipulates that the power conferred there under is subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules. 10. But the question is whether such power can be exercised to issue any Circular contrary to the Rules or to restrict the powers conferred under the Rules; especially when Section 66A itself clearly stipulates that the power conferred there under is subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules. 10. It is quite evident that the powers conferred upon the Registrar for issuing necessary guidelines as to how the power flowing from the concerned provisions of law is to be exercised, is rather with regard to the procedure. If the power conferred and the extent of applicability as specified in Rule 185(8) are to be varied, in any manner, it can only be done by the Government by bringing out necessary ‘amendments to the Rules’ and definitely not for the first respondent/Joint Registrar by issuing Circulars. In other words, when the Government had conferred exclusive power on the Committee of the Society to relax the qualification other than a pass in the competitive examination as specified in sub-rule (8) of Rule 185, there was absolutely no jurisdiction or competence for the Joint Registrar to have it varied, modified or restricted it any other manner by issuing any Circular as referred to in Exhibit P4 and in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. It is settled law that no Rule formulated by the Government invoking the Rule making power can be amended by the Executive/authorities like the first respondent by issuing Orders/Circulars and the idea and understanding of the first respondent/Joint Registrar to the contrary is very much wrong and misconceived. The legal position will become more clear from the decision of this court in Kuttipuram Service Co-operative Ban v. State of Kerala (2004 (2) KLT 73). The issue therein is having substantive similarity with the case in hand but for the fact that the petitioner therein had taken up the matter before the Government as well, though turned to be futile. 11. The resolution passed by the Board in the said case relaxing the prescribed qualification invoking the power under Rule 185(8) of the Rules giving promotion to the Peons as Junior Clerk was refused to be approved by the Joint Registrar, which was taken up in appeal before the Government. 11. The resolution passed by the Board in the said case relaxing the prescribed qualification invoking the power under Rule 185(8) of the Rules giving promotion to the Peons as Junior Clerk was refused to be approved by the Joint Registrar, which was taken up in appeal before the Government. The order of the Joint Registrar rejecting the approval – relying on the Government Order was upheld by the Government, which however, was held as not correct or sustainable and accordingly the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the joint registrar; making it clear that the Government could very well amend the Rules, if so desired, providing the guidelines for granting of exemption. 12. It appears that the Government got enlightened and on better wisdom chose to amend the Rules substantially changing the position with regard to the scope and power of relaxation under Rule 185 (8). After the amendment brought with effect from 3-9-2005, Rule 185(8) reads as follows:- “It shall be competent for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to relax the qualification, other than basic qualification and pass in the competitive examination specified in sub-rule (5), of an employee, for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases, on the request of a society by passing a resolution subject to the following conditions:- ……………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………..” The substantial difference between Rule 185(8) as it existed earlier and the Rule as it exists after the amendment, is that the power of relaxation conferred on the Committee of the Society has been taken way and it has now been vested with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. That apart, the mandatory requirement in passing the competitive examination was also complemented, stipulating that no relaxation can be given in respect of the basic qualification as well. Obviously, the above amendment is not at all applicable to the case of the petitioner, in respect of whom the proceedings were directed to be considered and finalized much before the said amendment. 13. It is true that the power of the Committee to relax the qualification prescribed under Rule 185(8) as it stood earlier was ‘subject to the approval of the Registrar’. 13. It is true that the power of the Committee to relax the qualification prescribed under Rule 185(8) as it stood earlier was ‘subject to the approval of the Registrar’. Such approval, for the reasons already stated herein before, could only be with regard to the proper exercise of the power in accordance with the guidelines, if any, which were validly issued by the competent authority and is very much procedural in nature. To reiterate the position, the power of approval does not visualize any unfettered power of the Registrar so as to reduce the power and scope conferred by the Government upon the Committee of the concerned society, or to have the discretion of the Committee exercised in a different manner and to a lesser extent. The proper course that should have been pursued is very much discernible from the dictum in 2004 (2) KLT 73. 14. It is very much relevant to note that the alleged Circular No.22/89 stated as issued by the first respondent/Joint Registrar was very much in existence when this Court pronounced the verdict in 2004 (2) KLT 73. It is pursuant to the specific observations in paragraph 3 of the said verdict (observing that it was for the Government to amend the Rules, if it is actually intended and that the Government could not have relied on Exhibit P3 Government Order), that the Government chose to bring up appropriate amendment as found to be fit and proper, leading to the amended Rue 185(8) of the Rules, as it now stands. The stand taken by the first respondent/Joint Registrar placing reliance on his Circular No.22/89 to meet the situation, in the instant case, is quite wrong and unfounded. Otherwise, no amendment to the Rule would have been necessary – if the above Circular was enough to meet the requirement. This by itself shows that the Government does not subscribe to the view expressed by the first respondent/Joint Registrar, though the Government has not filed any separate counter affidavit. 15. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders Exhibits p4 and P6 cannot survive any more and they are set aside. This by itself shows that the Government does not subscribe to the view expressed by the first respondent/Joint Registrar, though the Government has not filed any separate counter affidavit. 15. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders Exhibits p4 and P6 cannot survive any more and they are set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the application for approval afresh in the light of the observations made herein before, on the basis of Rule 185(8) of the Rules as it existed prior to the amendment effected in the year 2005 and without any regard to the Circular No.22/89 stated as issued by the first respondent. While taking the decision as above, the first respondent will also consider the right of the petitioner, once approval is given as to the date from which the petitioner is entitled to the consequential benefits, since he is stated as retired already. The first respondent shall pass final orders in this regard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent so as to enable the said respondent to pursue further steps in this regard. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.