Kerala High Court
Gurudathan.V vs The Secretary on 9 October, 2013
Author: Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935
WA.No. 1697 of 2013 () IN WP(C).12817/2013
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12817/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 09-10-2013
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
-----------------------------------------
GURUDATHAN.V.,AGED 47 YEARS
S/O VIDHYADHARAN, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.960, KOLLAM.
RESIDING AT LAL MANDIRAM, NELLIKKODU
VADASSERIKKONAM P.O., VARKALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR(PATTAZHY)
SRI.D.JAYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
-------------------------------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE EXAMINATION BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.NO.960
KOLLAM-691001.
3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 BY ADV.SMT.RASHMI. K.V., SC, CO.OP. SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bb
S.Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
==============================
W.A.No.1697 of 2013
===============================
Dated this, the 13th day of November, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Siri Jagan, J.
The appellant is an aspirant for the post of General Manager in the Quilon Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post is graduation from a recognized university. The Secretary of the Co- operative Examination Board issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for the post, wherein the qualification prescribed is B.Com (with co-operation) recognized by any of the universities in Kerala with not less than 50% marks in the aggregate. The appellant has the minimum qualification prescribed by the rules. But he does not have qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. The appellant challenged the notification by filing WP(C) No.12817 of 2013. A Learned Single Judge, by the judgment impugned in this writ appeal, dismissed the writ petition. The appellant is challenging the said judgment.
2. According to the appellant, when the appellant possesses the minimum qualifications prescribed in Rule 186 (1A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the appellant cannot be denied the opportunity to contest for selection to the post, by prescribing a higher qualification which is not prescribed in the statutory rules.
3. We have heard the parties.
4. The impugned judgment reads as follows:
"The petitioner's grievance is that by the qualification prescribed in Ext.P1, his application would be rejected at the threshold and that the prescription in Ext.P1 is against the Statutory Rules, which prescribe the minimum qualification for a Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner is working as Senior Accountant in the second respondent Bank and seeks appointment as Chief Executive Officer in the very same Bank. The second respondent Bank through the first respondent Board had initiated a selection process for getting suitable candidates for the purpose of selection to the post of a Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. Ext.P1 was issued by the first respondent Board specifying that the essential qualification for offering oneself in the selection process is a qualification of a degree of a recognized university with 50% marks. It is the contention of the petitioner that the same was against the specific Rules.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes me through the Rules, more specifically 186(1A), produced as Ext.P2, which reads as under:
"(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(1), the Chief Executive Officer of the Urban Co-operative Bank shall have the following qualifications, irrespective of the fact that he is appointed on direct recruitment or by promotion namely:-
(a) he should be a graduate of a recognized university;
(b)Masters Degree in Business Administration or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the Universities in the State or membership of the Institute of chartered Accountants of India or Masters Degree in Commerce(M.Com) (Finance), ICWAI or M.Sc.(Co-operation & Banking) of Kerala Agricultural University will be a preferential qualification:
) he should have special knowledge in one or more subjects of accountancy, banking, co-operation, economics, finance and law or practical experience of not less than three years in Management or Supervisory Cadre in Co-operative Bank/Government or quasi Government institutions, public/nationalized Banks".
3. It is strenuously urged that the essential qualification is only a Graduate Degree and the second respondent Bank and the first respondent Board is violating the statutory provision by providing for a higher qualification. According to the learned counsel, the respondent Bank is also the Board has made the prescription based on the amendments brought in as (d) by the very same SRO 1005/2010 extracted herein:
"B.Com(with Co-operation recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala with not less than 50% marks in the aggregate."
That according to the petitioner is relating to appointment under Section 185(2), and not applicable to Section 186(1A).
4. However, it has been explained by the Board in its counter affidavit that the prescription of 50% was insisted upon by the second respondent Bank and it was only to maintain high standards and to get a more efficient person for selection to the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer that a percentage was prescribed. This Court is of the opinion that the provision of 50% marks for Graduate Degree is not a higher qualification than that provided in the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also in State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar.T Tiwari[2012 (4) SN 34(C.No.32) (SC)] held thus:
"The appointing authority is competent to fix a higher score of selection, than the one required to be attained for mere eligibility, but by way of its natural corollary, it cannot be taken to mean that eligibility/ norms fixed by the statute or rules can be relaxed for this purpose to the extent that, the same may be lower than the ones fixed by the statute."
5. Hence, it cannot be said that by providing for higher standards in the matter of selection, it is a violation of Statutory Rules. In the circumstances for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same stands dismissed. No costs." We are of opinion that the judgment is perfectly in tune with the decisions of the Supreme Court in respect of the subject matter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even when a minimum qualification is prescribed in the Rules the appointing authority is free to insist on a higher qualification in the interest of efficiency of administration. That being so, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. Siri Jagan, Jugde.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge