JUDGMENT : 1. The nuances of the doctrine of necessity is juxtaposed with the imperative statutory prescriptions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules under it, in this writ petition; the pleadings of which, present the attempt of a Co-operative Society to effect appointments to certain posts by direct recruitment, when admittedly such posts are statutorily reserved to be filled up only by promotion, on the assertion that there are no qualified and eligible employees for being so promoted; thus predicating that they are entitled to resort to direct recruitment on account of dire and absolute necessity. 2. However, certain employees of the Society appear to object to this, impelling them to approach this Court through this writ petition. 3. A woodcut of the facts first: 4. The petitioners are stated to be the employees of the 2nd respondent - Kizhuvilam Service Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for short), and submit that petitioners 1 to 3 are working as Senior Clerks; while petitioners 4 and 5 as Junior Clerk and Bill Collector respectively. 5. The petitioners impugn Ext.P2 notification, issued by the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Service Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board' for short), as per which, certain vacancies in the posts of Secretary, Chief Accountant and Branch Manager of the Bank have been sought to be filled up through direct recruitment. 6. The petitioners allege that neither could the Bank approach the Board for this purpose nor could the Board have issued Ext.P2 notification, going by the statutory stipulations in Rule 185(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('KCS' Rules for short), which mandates that the posts enumerated therein can be filled up only through promotion and in no other manner. The petitioners assert that it is conceded even by the Bank that the posts of Secretary, Chief Accountant and Branch Manager are ones coming within the confines of Rule 185(1) of the KCS Rules and consequently, that the attempt of the Bank to fill up those posts through direct recruitment, under the aegis of the Board, is illegal and unlawful. They, therefore, pray that the Bank be interdicted from filling up these vacancies, save through promotions and the Board be directed, axiomatically, not to proceed further with the selection to those posts under Ext.P2 notification. 7. I have heard Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. They, therefore, pray that the Bank be interdicted from filling up these vacancies, save through promotions and the Board be directed, axiomatically, not to proceed further with the selection to those posts under Ext.P2 notification. 7. I have heard Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. T.R. Harikumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Bank; Smt. S.L. Sylaja, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Service Examination Board and Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1, 4 and 6. 8. When I hear Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel, who makes submissions on behalf of the petitioners on the lines afore recorded, it is ineluctable that, in its crux, the petitioners' primary contention is that when Rule 185(1) of the KCS Rules prohibits filling up of vacancies in the posts enumerated therein, except by way of promotions, the Bank cannot seek to fill up those vacancies through direct recruitment or through any other method, in contravention of the stipulations in the said Rule. 9. In answer to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel as afore, Sri.T.R.Harikumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Bank, submits that they were constrained to approach the Board, seeking initiation of the process to fill up these vacancies through direct recruitment because, none of the employees of the Bank including the petitioners, are in the feeder category, entitled to promotion to any of the posts sought to be filled up through Ext.P2, notification nor are they qualified to claim such promotion. He says that the Bank, therefore, was perforce in adopting a resolution, namely Ext.P5, to requisition the Board to issue a notification and to conduct selection for filling up the vacancies through direct recruitment and he implores that the said notification be not interdicted. 10. Sri. T.R. Harikumar, then adds that the petitioners cannot obtain any locus to file this writ petition because, they are incompetent to claim promotion to the posts sought to be filled up through Ext.P2, they having no case that they are eligible to claim such promotion. 10. Sri. T.R. Harikumar, then adds that the petitioners cannot obtain any locus to file this writ petition because, they are incompetent to claim promotion to the posts sought to be filled up through Ext.P2, they having no case that they are eligible to claim such promotion. He closes his submissions asserting that even if the posts are filled up through direct recruitment; it would cause no prejudice to the petitioners, since they are not even in the feeder category to these posts, as per the applicable Feeder Category Rules, namely Ext.P1. 11. Smt. S.L. Sylaja, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Examination Board, submits that her client had issued Ext.P2 notification solely as requisitioned by the 2nd respondent-Bank through Ext.P5 resolution; and says that they have nothing to comment on the dialectical contentions of the parties herein in law or facts. 12. Sri.Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that though there certainly is a statutory interdiction in filling up the vacancies in the posts shown in Ext.P2 through direct recruitment, since there are no employees in the Bank who are now eligible to be promoted to these posts, it is the discretion of the Bank to fill up those vacancies by resorting to direct recruitment under the aegis of the Board. He says that the official respondents have no further role to play in these processes at this time and that it is up to the Bank to fill up the vacancies in terms of law. 13. With the submissions of the parties being recorded as above, the elemental question gaining my attention, while I pen this judgment, is whether the Bank, for any reason, be that in necessity or otherwise, can unilaterally seek to fill up the vacancies in contravention of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. I am certain that it does not require a detailed expatiation to arrive at the answer to this, since it can only be to the negative. This is because, when the applicable statute provides for an action to be done in a particular manner, every person, entity or Authority governed by it can only act in such a manner and in no other; because, otherwise, the resultant scenario would be chaos. 14. So, is there a total stalemate? This is because, when the applicable statute provides for an action to be done in a particular manner, every person, entity or Authority governed by it can only act in such a manner and in no other; because, otherwise, the resultant scenario would be chaos. 14. So, is there a total stalemate? Fortunately, no; because there are in built mechanisms in the Act and Rules to tide over such eventualities. 15. Gratifyingly, the KCS Act provides for certain circumstances under which, the competent Authority, namely, the Government of Kerala, can exempt Societies from its provisions, through powers invested with them under Section 101 thereof. This provision certainly can help maneuver the situations of the kind that are faced in this case; where the Bank finds it impossible to comply with certain specific provisions of the Act and the Rules, but can still act in consonance with law by obtaining exemption from the rigor of such provisions. Thus, when the Bank faces an impasse of not obtaining eligible employees for being promoted under Rule 185(1) of the KCS Rules to the posts covered by Ext.P2 notification, the proper course they ought to have adopted was certainly to approach the competent Authority of the Government, seeking exemption from the said Rule, detailing the factual circumstances that warrant such exemption, rather than unilaterally requisitioning the Board to issue a notification for the purpose of directly recruiting persons to these posts, ostensibly invoking the 'doctrine of necessity'. 16. This is the only manner in which the rigour of law and the requirement in necessity can be adequately reconciled and this is the real purpose of Section 101 of the KCS Act. 17. Further, as it is well settled now, the doctrine of necessity' is one that can be invoked only when there are no remedies available to a party under law and not otherwise. Here, there certainly is a legally sanctioned course available to the 2nd respondent – Bank, of being able to approach the Government under Section 101 of the KCS Act as afore and therefore, the Bank must take that avenue for redressal of their predicament and consequently, cannot invoke the doctrine of necessity and then act unilaterally. In the afore perspective, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. In the afore perspective, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, has made out a fit case warranting the interference of this Court with Ext.P2 notification, to the extent to which it relates to the 2nd respondent-Bank; and I, therefore, order that the Bank cannot directly recruit candidates to any of the posts mentioned therein, which are within the ambit of Rule 185(1) of the KCS Rules, under the aegis of the Board through the process now notified through Ext.P2. The above being so ordered, I leave full liberty to the 2nd respondent-Bank to act appositely in terms of the KCS Act and if they are so interested, to adopt necessary resolution seeking exemption from Rule 185(1) of the KCS Rules and thereafter move the competent Authority of the Government of Kerala, under the mandate of Section 101 of the KCS Act; in which event, the said Authority will consider the same in terms of law. I must, however, clarify that I have not considered the entitlement of the Society to exemption from any provision of the KCS Act or Rules that they might apply for; and therefore, that it is fully left to the competent Authority to deal with such request, if made, as it may deem fit as per law. This writ petition is thus ordered.