Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 779 (KER)

Anilkumar v. Thrissur District Co-operative Bank

2018-10-04

SATHISH NINAN, V.CHITAMBARESH

body2018
JUDGMENT : V. Chitambaresh, J. The appellants who are working in the post of Senior Accountant in the first respondent Co-operative Bank seek provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager wherein seven vacancies do exist. The substantive vacancies in the post shall be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 3:1 as per R.185(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (‘the Rules’ for short). It is conceded that vacancies in the quota for promotees have already been filled up and what remains to be filled up are the vacancies in the quota for direct recruitment. The Kerala Public Service Commission is yet to draw up a rank list for direct recruitment to the post of Branch Manager pursuant to the judgment in S.L.P.(Civil) No.31237/2013 and connected cases. 2. The appellants place heavy reliance on the following clause in Annexure A1 service regulations which gain statutory force by virtue of S.80(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘the Act’ for short): “Interim vacancies exceeding 30 days and above may ordinarily be filled up by temporary promotion.” The above clause may aid the appellants to claim temporary promotion to the post lying vacant for a period exceeding 30 days in the quota for promotees and does not permit them to encroach into the quota for direct recruitment. The practice of provisional promotion encroaching into the quota ear marked for another stream and subsequent reversion when regular hands come has to be deprecated. 3. Ext.P3 order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies permits the eligible candidates awaiting promotion to be given the charge of Branch Manager with consequential charge allowance as a stop gap arrangement. This takes care of the administrative duties to be discharged in a Bank by a Branch Manager till the vacancies in the quota for direct recruitment are also filled up. There is no ratio decidendi in Exts. P4 and P5 judgments or in Ext.P6 interim order to be followed especially when a direction in the nature of Ext.P3 order did not hold the field then. The appellants cannot benefit on the default committed in making the direct recruitment in time and have no enforceable right to claim provisional promotion in the quota of others. P4 and P5 judgments or in Ext.P6 interim order to be followed especially when a direction in the nature of Ext.P3 order did not hold the field then. The appellants cannot benefit on the default committed in making the direct recruitment in time and have no enforceable right to claim provisional promotion in the quota of others. The question as to whether the appellants should be relegated to the alternate remedy of raising a dispute under S.69 of the Act as held by the learned single Judge loses relevance. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.