Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 514 (KER)

Mobi Mol, W/o. Prestige K. S. v. State Of Kerala

2019-07-02

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Two out of these three writ petitions call into question the appointment of a person by name Smt.Aparna Pratap, as the General Manager of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank' for short); while the third one, namely W.P. (C)No.38679 of 2017, has been filed by the said Smt.Aparna Pratap, wherein, she has prayed that the attempt of the statutory Authorities to revert her from the said post be interdicted, on the assertion that she is fully qualified to be appointed and to remain as the General Manager of the Bank. 2. As regards, W.P.(C)No.14792 of 2017 and W.P. (C)No.36878 of 2018 are concerned, they are filed by certain employees of the Bank, some of whom are aspirants to the post of General Manager, alleging that the promotion of Smt.Aparana Pratap to the said post is contrary to Rule 185(4)(i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('KCS Rules for short), since it stipulates that the post of General Manager in the Kerala State Agricultural and Rural Development Banks be filled up only by direct recruitment. 3. I have heard Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2018; Smt.Vinayakumari.I, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14792 of 2017; Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Aparna Pratap, petitioner in W.P.(C)No.38679 of 2017; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and Sri.M.Sasindran, learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank in all these cases. 4. The primary legal controversy in these cases is not very difficult to resolve because none of the counsel appearing for the various parties has a case that Rule 185(4)(i) of the KCS Rules has ever been amended or that the appointment to the post of General Manager to the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks can be made in any other manner than by direct recruitment. 5. That said, it is on record that an attempt was made by the Government, through a draft notification issued in the year 2016, to amend this Rule by bringing in a channel for promotion to the post of General Manager in the Banks but that this proposal was, thereafter, given up by them. 5. That said, it is on record that an attempt was made by the Government, through a draft notification issued in the year 2016, to amend this Rule by bringing in a channel for promotion to the post of General Manager in the Banks but that this proposal was, thereafter, given up by them. Obviously, therefore, whatever be the nature of the attempt made by the Government earlier, the fact remains that Rule 185(4)(i) of the KCS Rules, was at no point of time amended. Ineluctably, the appointment of Smt.Aparna Pratap as a General Manager, through the channel of promotion, cannot find favour of this Court; and consequently, without the need for any further enquiry, particularly because even Sri.D.Somasundaram, her learned counsel, concedes that as she was promoted as the General Manager, she cannot be allowed to continue in such post any further. 6. Once I hold as above, I am also aware that there are certain corollary contentions in these writ petitions relating to the earlier promotion of Smt.Aparna Pratap as a Regional Manager and against her actions in having effected appointments to other posts in such capacity. These are not issues into which I propose to go into detail at this point of time, since these aspects will have to be considered at the first instance by the competent statutory Authorities, if and when the parties approach them; and only thereafter can this Court be called upon to judicially scrutinize its validity. 7. As matters now stand, Smt.Aparna Pratap is admittedly occupying the post of General Manager contrary to the mandate of Rule 185(4)(i) of the KCS Rules; but Sri.D.Somasundaran, her learned counsel, attempts to support it contending that she was promoted to this post by the Managing Committee of the Bank, as per the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.17871 of 2016, which has been produced as Ext.P4 along with W.P.(C)No.38679 of 2017; wherein, a learned Judge of this Court, noticing the gazette notification to amend the Rule, directed the Managing Committee to consider her promotion. 8. Even when Sri.D.Somasundaram asserts on the afore lines, there is little doubt that the learned Judge had issued the directions in Ext.P4 judgment solely being under the impression that there was an amendment to Rule 185(4)(i) of the KCS Rules. 8. Even when Sri.D.Somasundaram asserts on the afore lines, there is little doubt that the learned Judge had issued the directions in Ext.P4 judgment solely being under the impression that there was an amendment to Rule 185(4)(i) of the KCS Rules. Had there been no such impression, I am certain that the learned Judge would not have issued those directions because no one can contend contrary to the statutory mandate; nor can this Court direct appointments to be made in violation of law. In the afore circumstances and in the above perspective, I order W.P(C)No.14792 of 2017 and W.P.(C)No.36878/2018, and direct the Managing Committee of the Bank to immediately issue appropriate orders reverting Smt.Aparna Pratap from the post of General Manager to the post to which she is legally entitled to hold, which order shall be issued, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, consequentially, W.P.(C)No.38679/2017 filed by Smt.Aparna Pratp will stand dismissed. The other contentions of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14792 of 2017 and W.P.(C)No.36878 of 2018, relating to the post to which Smt.Aparna Pratap must be accommodated after her reversion from the post of General Manager and the challenge against the appointments made by her while acting in such capacity or as the Regional Manager, are left open to be considered by the appropriate Authority, if and when the petitioners in these cases choose to approach them with an appropriate representation/petition. I also leave open all contentions of Smt.Aparna Pratap, with respect to the qualifications of the petitioners in the afore two cases, so as to enable her to pursue them, if it is so required in future.