Madras High Court
K.Pandi vs The Joint Registrar Of Coop Societies on 30 November, 2017
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2017 Reserved on : 07.02.2017 Delivered on : 30.11.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013 & M.P(MD).No.1 of 2013 and W.P(MD).Nos.9806 & 9807 of 2012 & M.P(MD).Nos.2,2,3 of 2012 K.Pandi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013 1.S.Pandi 2.P.Veluchamy ... Petitioners in W.P(MD).Nos.9806 & 9807 of 2012 Vs. 1.The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Ramanathapuram Region, Treasury Building, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Special Officer, Paramkudi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., 2/378, M.S.Agraharam, Paramkudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.S.Pandi 4.P.Velusamy ... Respondents in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013 1.The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Ramanathapuram Region, Treasury Building, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram-623 501. 2.The Management, Paramakkudi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., through its Special Officer, 2/378, M.S.Agraharam, Paramkudi, Ramanathapuram District-623 707. 3.Mrs.K.S.Kavitha ... Respondents in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 1.The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Ramanathapuram Region, Treasury Building, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram-623 501. 2.The Management, Paramakkudi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., through its Special Officer, 2/378, M.S.Agraharam, Paramkudi, Ramanathapuram District-623 707. 3.Mr.K.Pandi ... Respondents in W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012 Prayer in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.05.2012, passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.2 of 2012 and quash the same as illegal in so far as it relates to the observation that the petitioner is not fit to be promoted and consequently direct the second respondent to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Prayer in W.P(MD).Nos.9806 & 9807 of 2012 : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to R.P.No.1 of 2012, dated 30.05.2012 and R.P.No.2 of 2012, dated 22.05.2012 and quash the same. W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013 !For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Ilango ^For Respondents : Mr.V.Murugananthan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 : Mr.T.R.Janardhanan for R2 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan for RR 3 & 4 W.P(MD).Nos.9806 & 9807 of 2012 For Petitioners : Mr.S.Seenivasagam For Respondents : Mr.V.Murugananthan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 : Mr.T.R.Janardhanan for R2 : No appearance for R3 in (W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012) : Mr.M.E.Ilango for R3 in (W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012) :COMMON ORDER
The prayer sought for in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012, is for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent, relating to R.P.No.1 of 2012, quash the order dated 30.05.2012.
2. The prayer sought for in W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, is for a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to R.P.No.2 of 2012, quash the order dated 22.05.2012.
3. The prayer sought for in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.05.2012, passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.2 of 2012, quash the same in so far as it relates to the observation that the petitioner is not fit to be promoted and consequently, direct the second respondent to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager.
4. Since the prayer sought for in these three writ petitions are interconnected and the issue raised in these three writ petitions are one and the same, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
W.P(MD).No.9806 of 20125. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner in this writ petition joined in service on 20.05.1998, at the second respondent Bank as Junior Assistant and the second petitioner in this writ petition joined on 20.05.1998, as Junior Assistant and later when the post of Junior Assistant were abolished, these petitioners were designated as Assistants in September 2001. Both the petitioners claimed that they are degree holders at the time of appointment itself and they were working as Assistants till they were promoted as Assistant Managers by the orders of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011.
6. Simultaneously, by order dated 05.12.2011, the second respondent also had informed the third respondent in this writ petition and eight others who were also working as Assistants at the second respondent Bank that, they were unfit for promotion to the post of Assistant Managers. Aggrieved over the information furnished by the second respondent Bank that, the third respondent along with others declared to be unfit for promotion as Assistant Manager, by order of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011, as well as the promotion given to the petitioners herein, by orders of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011, separately, the third respondent had filed a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (in short, the Act) before the first respondent. Before the first respondent - Revisional Authority, counter affidavits were filed and the Revisional Authority after having heard the parties, decided the Revision Petition filed by the third respondent herein, whereby, passed an order on 30.05.2012, which is impugned herein.
7. In the said order dated 30.05.2012, the first respondent in the said Revision Petition No.1 of 2012, though had concluded that the action of the second respondent in declaring the third respondent as unfit for promotion on the ground that, the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the third respondent and result of which, the third respondent was punished, is justifiable and valid, however, had set aside the order of promotion given to these petitioners by the second respondent, through his order dated 05.12.2011, merely on the ground that, as per special bye-law 5(b), a list of persons fit for promotion should have been prepared and based on which, those who are not eligible to be considered for promotion should have been listed out separately for consideration and only after making such exercise, promotion should have been given, since the said exercise, according to the first respondent, having not been done to the satisfaction of the said Rule 5(b), the promotions given to these petitioners by the second respondent was considered to be a non-speaking order and also was considered to be an order, violating the principles of natural justice, accordingly, those orders were set aside. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.1 of 2012, dated 30.05.2012, setting aside the promotion given to these petitioners, this writ petition has been filed by these petitioners with the aforesaid prayer.
W.P(MD).No.9807 of 20128. This writ petition also had been filed by the very same petitioners who had filed W.P.No.9806 of 2012. Here the petitioners have challenged the order of the first respondent dated 22.05.2012, passed in R.P.No.2 of 2012, which was filed by the third respondent in this writ petition, under Section 153 of the Act, as against the order passed by the second respondent dated 05.12.2011, denying promotion to the third respondent on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him and also challenging the promotion given to these two petitioners by the second respondent by proceedings dated 05.12.2011.
9. The facts set out in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012, would also be applied to this case as both these writ petitions filed by the very same writ petitioners, since the first respondent passed two separate orders in two separate Revision Petitions filed i.e., R.P.No.1 of 2012 and R.P.No.2 of 2012, by the third respondent in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and the third respondent in W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, respectively, separate writ petitions i.e., W.P(MD).Nos.9806 and 9807 of 2012, were filed.
W.P(MD).No.3561 of 201310. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner K.Pandi, against the very same impugned order i.e., the order passed by the first respondent in Na.ka.8739/2011/SaPa, made in R.P.No.2 of 2012, as the very same impugned order has already been put under challenge in W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, by the third and fourth respondents herein, who are the petitioners in the said W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012.
11. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said order of the first respondent dated 22.05.2012, as in that order, though the appointments made by the second respondent infavour of third and fourth respondents, were set aside, the first respondent has given a finding in the impugned order that, the petitioner, since has been involved in a criminal case, as against whom criminal case is pending before the concerned criminal court, he would not be considered as a meritorious candidate for the purpose of promotion. Therefore, though this petitioner having accepted the order which is impugned herein, in other respect, appears to be aggrieved over the said finding given by the first respondent, against this petitioner, and therefore, in order to set aside or erase such finding given by the first respondent, in the impugned order, against the petitioner, and for a consequential prayer for promotion to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.
12. In W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit, also the petitioners in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, who are the third and fourth respondents in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, have also filed separate counter. Since, the counter affidavit filed by the third and fourth respondents in W.P.No.3561 of 2013, would have the similar content and averment as that of the affidavits filed by them, in support of their writ petitions i.e., W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, the averments made by the third and fourth respondents in their counter affidavit need not be separately dealt with.
13. However, the counter filed by first respondent in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, who is the official contesting respondent, can be gone into. According to the first respondent, on 05.12.2011, it was resolved by the second respondent Bank to fill up the existing two vacancies in the sanctioned post of ?Assistant Managers?, by promoting the eligible persons, from the feeder category of post of Assistants on the ground of merit and ability. The counter affidavit of the first respondent would further state at paragraph 6 and 7 of the counter, which averments can be extracted here under for better appreciation.
?4. It is submitted that aggrieved against the orders of the first respondent in R.P.No.1 of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 and R.P.No.2 of 2012 dated 22.05.2012, the third and fourth respondents have already filed two writ petitions in W.P.No.9806 of 2012 and W.P.No.9807 of 2012, on the file of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Court in its order dated 19.07.2012, in M.P.(MD).Nos.2 and 2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD).Nos.9806 and 9807 of 2012, has granted ?an order of interim stay in so far as to the reversion of the 3rd and 4th respondents herein to the original position only for a period of four weeks.?
5. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent Bank is a Co-operative Institution established and administered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the relevant rules framed there under. Apart from the Bye-laws framed with regard to the Constitution, Membership and other Business affairs of the Bank, Special Bye-laws are framed regulating the service conditions with regard to (i) Categories of Employees
(ii)Cadre Strength (iii) Educational and other qualification for every post
(iv) age for recruitment and retirement (v) procedure for appointment etc., in conformity with Sub-rule(i) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules as amended by G.O.Ms.No.212, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 14.07.1995. On 05.12.2011, it was resolved to fill up the existing two vacancies in the sanctioned posts of Assistant Managers by promoting the eligible persons from the feeder category of posts of Assistants on grounds of merit and ability of the employees. In cases where merit and ability are approximately equal then the seniority of the employee being taken into account during such appointment by promotion from the feeder category.
6. It is submitted that for the said promotion panel as Assistant Manager posts the merit, ability and seniority of the 14 Assistants working in the said bank were considered. Among the 14 persons considered for promotion 9 of them were involved in criminal cases/disciplinary cases/punishment inflicted upon them and hence they become ineligible for the promotion as Assistant Manager, their details are hereunder:-
Sl.
No. Name of the Assistant Reasons for not giving promotion as Assistant Manager Remarks
1.
R.Manoharan Involved in a Crl.case in CCIW Crime No.2 of 2001 case pending in Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram in C.C.No.101, 102/2002 Not fit for promotion
2. V.Gunasekaran
1.Involved in a Crl.case in CCIW Crime No.2 of 2001 in case pending in Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram in C.C.No.102/2002 Not fit for promotion
2.Punishment of stoppage of increment from two years
3. S.Arulanthu
1.Involved in Criminal case in C.C.No.102/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram Not fit for promotion
2.Increment stoppage for 2 years punishment awarded
4. S.Meenal
1.Involved in crl.case in CCIW crime no.2 of 2001 case pending in C.C.No.101, 102/2002 in Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram Not fit for promotion
2.Punishment of stoppage of increment for five years inflicted
5. Mohammed Hassan
1.Involved in crl.case in CCIW crime no.2 of 2001 case pending in C.C.No.102 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram Not fit for promotion
2.Punishment of stoppage of increment for three years inflicted
6. E.Glory
1.Involved in crl.case in CCIW crime no.2 of 2001 case pending in C.C.No.102 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram Not fit for promotion Punishment of increment stoppage for 3 years inclined
7. K.S.Kavitha
1.Inflicted with punishment of stoppage of increment for two years inflicted Not fit for promotion
8. K.Pandi (writ petitioner herein)
1.Criminal case pending in C.C.No.113 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ramanathapuram Not fit for promotion
9. A.Elango Involved in misappropriation case and stoppage of increment for five years inflicted Not fit for promotion As narrated all the above said 9 persons were considered for promotion panel and concluded that they were not fit for promotion as Assistant Manager post for the reasons stated above.
7. It is submitted that the names of the following 5 persons were considered and among them the 3rd and 4th respondents herein were found to be qualified for the post of Assistant Managers and hence they were given promotion by the 2nd respondent vide the resolution dated 05.12.2011.?
Sl.
No. Name of Assistant Remarks
1. S.Pandi Selected for promotion on merit and ability and promoted w.e.f 07.12.2011
2. P.Veluchamy Selected for promotion on merit, ability and seniority and promoted w.e.f 08.12.2011
3. M.Muthumari
4. G.Mahalakshmi Not selected for want of vacancy
5. G.Sathiaseelan
14. The first respondent has further averred in the counter affidavit that, the first respondent in his orders dated 30.05.2012 and 22.05.2012, in R.P.No.1 of 2012 and R.P.No.2 of 2012, have concluded that, the reasons for the non-consideration of the qualified persons, were not intimated to the individuals concerned. Therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, besides the said orders of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011, were non-speaking orders. Therefore, on that ground, those orders were set aside by the first respondent through the impugned orders.
15. The counter of the first respondent would further state at paragraph 12, which are extracted hereunder:-
?12. It is submitted that the 3rd and 4th respondents herein were promoted under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and also under the provisions of regular and Special bye-laws of the said Cooperative Bank. The orders of the first respondent setting aside the orders of promotion of the 3rd and 4th respondents for the non-compliance of the principles of natural justice and for the issuance of a non-speaking promotion order and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent to proceed further and to take action by complying the technical deficiencies pointed out are just and bonafide Hence the averments of the petitioner is not acceptable.?
16. The counter of the first respondent would further contend that, the averments made by the petitioner i.e., the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, that the pendency of criminal case is not a bar for promotion, is denied as not acceptable. It further states that, the departmental proceedings was concluded without prejudice to the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The counter would further reveals that, the criminal case in C.C.No.113 of 2010, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 5, is still pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Ramanathapuram.
17. I have heard Mr.M.E.Ilango and Mr.S.Seenivasagam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Murugananthan, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.T.R.Janardhanan, learned counsel, appearing for the second respondent and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel, appearing for the third and fourth respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court for consideration.
18. The main ground urged by the petitioners in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, who are the third and fourth respondents in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, is that, these petitioners were considered along with other eligible candidates in the category of Assistants at the second respondent Bank, for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. They further raised the ground that, after considering all the candidates including the contesting private respondents, the second respondent has come to a conclusion that, these private respondents along with others, were not fit for promotion, since either criminal cases were pending against them or departmental proceedings were initiated, where penalty/punishment was awarded against them.
19. In this regard, the petitioners' contention is that, the service regulations relating to service conditions of the employees of the second respondent Bank is, the special bye-laws relating to service conditions of the employees of the Paramakudi Coperative Bank Limited, No.45, Paramakudi. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, invited the attention of this Court to bye-law 5(b) of the said bye-laws, which reads thus:-
?5. (a) APPOINTMENT BY DIRECT RECRUITMENT:
(I)...........
(b) APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION:
All promotions from one category of post to the immediate next higher category of post shall be made only from the respective feeder category of post and on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit with reference to merit and ability.?
20. The learned counsel for these petitioners also would submit that, it is not the case that, these petitioners alone were considered and others were not considered along with the petitioners by the second respondent, before effecting the promotion to these petitioners. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the first two writ petitions, would rely upon the proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011. In the said proceedings, nine candidates including the contesting respondents had been considered. In respect of each of the candidate, their merits have been evaluated and finding to that effect had been given. The relevant portion of the findings given, through the said proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011, in so far as the contesting respondents namely, K.S.Kavitha and K.Pandi are concerned, are extracted hereunder:-
?7/ nf/v!;/ftpjh. cjtpahsh;:
,th; 21/03/1994y; Kjd;Kjyhf ,sepiy cjtpahsuhf gzpakh;j;jg;gl;Ls;shh;/ ,tuJ fy;tpj;jFjp H.Sc., D.Co-op., Mfk;/ ,th; t';fpapy; eilbgw;w U:/60 Mapuk; ifahly; rk;ke;jkhf xG';f eltof;if nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;L t';fp eph;thfk; ,th; kPJ itj;jpUe;j ek;gpf;ifia ,Hf;fr; bra;jjw;fhf (Branch of Trust) ,tUf;F ,uz;L Mz;Lfs; Cjpa cah;t[ epWj;jp itj;J jz;lid tH';fg; gl;Ls;sJ/ (t';fp jiyth; mth;fspd; cj;jput[ ehs; 15/04/2000)/ nkYk; gzpahsUf;fhd t';fp rpwg;g[ Jiztpjp (Special By Laws Relating to service conditions of the employees) vz;/4y; gjtp cah;t[f;F degree with D.Co-op. oiudp'; fy;tpj;jFjpahf eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; nf/v!;/ftpjh cjtpahsh; H.Sc., with D.Co-Op. Mf cs;shh;. Vdnt nkny brhy;yg;gl;l fhuz';fspdhy; ,th; gjtp cah;t[f;fhd jFjp jpwk; (Merit and ability) ,y;yhjtuhfpwhh;/ vdnt ,th; gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjp ,y;yhjtuhfpwhh; (Not fit for Promotion).
8/ nf/ghz;o. cjtpahsh;:
,th; 21/03/1994y; Kjd;Kjyhf ,sepiy cjtpahsuhf gzpakh;j;jg;gl;Lshh;/ ,tuJ fy;;tpj;jFjp B.A.,HDC., Mfk;/ ,th; fkyk; tPLfl;Lk; fld; rk;ke;khd Fw;w tHf;fpy; Fw;w tHf;F vz;/7-2009y; Fw;wthspahf nrh;f;fg;gl;Ls;shh;/ eif fld; tH';Fjypy; gphpt[ vGj;juhf ,Ue;J flik kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fspypUe;J jtwp bray;gl;L Fw;w tHf;fpw;F Mshfpa[s;shh;/ vdnt nkny brhy;yg;gl;l fhuz';fspdhy; ,th; gjtp cah;t[f;fhd jFjp jpwk; (Merit and ability) ,y;yhjtuhfpwhh;/ vdnt ,th; gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjp ,y;yhjtuhfpwhh; (Not fit for Promotion).?
21. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, would also rely upon the findings given in the said proceedings dated 05.12.2011, of the second respondent, in so far as these petitioners are concerned, which reads thus:-
?1/ v!;/ghz;o. cjtpahsh;:
,th; 20/05/1998y; Kjd;Kjyhf ,sepiy cjtpahsuhf gzpakh;j;jg;gl;Ls;shh;/ ,tuJ fy;tpj;jFjp B.A.D.Co-Op., MFk;/ ,th; kPJ gzp Vw;w ehs;Kjy; ,Jtiu ve;j xG';F eltof;ifa[k; ,y;iy/ ;;;;jz;lid vJt[k; ,y;iy/ Fw;w tHf;F vJt[k; ,y;iy/ nkYk; fPH;fz;l gzpfspy; jpUg;jpfukhf gzpahw;wpa[s;shh;/
1) nrkpg;g[ gphpt[
2) ,l;L itg;g[ gphpt[
3) byl;$h; gphpt[
4) bghJg; ngnuL gphpt[
5) jzpf;if gphpt[
6) hprh;t; t';rp gphpt[
7) fld; tNy;
8) fzpzp
9) gjpthsh;. ,izg;gjpthsh;. Jizg;gjpthsh;. rk;ke;jkhd nfhg;g[fs;
10) t';fpapd; g[s;sptpguk; jahhpj;jy;/ Mfpa t';fpapd; midj;Jg; bghWg;g[fspYk; jpUg;jpfukhf gzpahw;wpa[s;shh;/ kw;Wk; RBI Ma;t[ mjpfhhpfs; kw;Wk; jzpf;ifahsh; Mfpnahh; Ma;t[ kw;;Wk;
jzpf;if Koj;J jdp mYtyuhf fye;J Mnyhrpf;Fk; nghJ jpU v!/ghz;o Fwpe;jJ ?,e;j t';fpapy; ,e;j t';fpapd; midj;Jg; gzpfSk; bjhpe;j egUk;. jzpf;iff;Fk; RBI Ma;t[f;Fk; cldpUe;J Kof;Fk; egUk; jpU v!/ghz;o jhd;?vd;W bjhptj;jdh;/ ,J ,tUila jFjp jpwj;jpw;F (Merit and ability)f;F rhd;whf mikfpwJ/ 2/ g{/nty;r;rhkp. cjtpahsh;:
,th; 20/05/1998y; Kjd;Kjyhf ,sepiy cjtpahsuhf gzpakh;j;jg;gl;Ls;shh;/ ,tuJ fy;tpj;jFjp B.Com.,D.Co-Op., MFk;/ ,th; kPJ gzp Vw;w ehs;Kjy; ,Jtiu ve;j xG';F eltof;ifa[k; ,y;iy/ jz;lid vJt[k; ,y;iy/ Fw;w tHf;F vJt[k; ,y;iy/ nkYk; fPH;fz;l gzpfspy; jpUg;jpfukhf gzpahw;wpa[s;shh;/
1) fhrhsh;
2) eiff;fld;
3) epue;j ,l;L itg;g[
4) nrkpg;g[
5) fz;fF gphpt[
6) gpy; gphpt[
7) fld; tNy; gphpt[
8) ,l;L itg;g[ tNy;
Mfpa t';fpg; gzpfspy; jpUg;jpfukhf gzpahw;wpa[s;shh;/ nkYk; ,tUf;F bghJ $d bjhlh;gpy; ew;rhl;rp cs;stuhf cs;shh;/ mJ ,l;L itg;g[ nrfhpg;g[. fld; tNy;; nghd;w t';fpapd; gzpfSf;F ed;whf cs;sJ/?
22. The final conclusion reached by the second respondent for giving promotion to these petitioners for the post of Assistant Manager is as follows:-
?Kot[:
njh;t[ bra;ag;gl;l ,UtUk; jw;nghJ gzpg[hpa[k; cjtpahsh; bghWg;gpy; jpUg;jpfukhf K:d;W Mz;LfSf;F nky; gzpahw;wpa[s;sdh;/ vdnt t';fpapd; cjtp nkyhsh; gjtp cah;t[f;F Kjyhtjhf jpU v!;/ghz;o cjtpahsUk;. ,uz;lhtjhf jpU/g{/nty;r;rhkp cjtpahsUk; njh;t[ bra;ag;gLfpd;wdh;/?
23. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents as well as the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, that, the second respondent while considering the candidatures of these petitioners as well as the contesting respondents, have not given an opportunity to these contesting respondents to rebut the proposed finding to be given by the second respondent for rejecting the candidatures of the contesting respondents on the ground of either criminal case was pending against one of the contesting respondent or on the ground of punishment inflicted against another contesting respondent in departmental proceedings. These contesting respondents would also rely upon the very reasoning give by the first respondent to substantiate and justify their conclusion, to set aside the promotion given to the petitioners. According to the contesting respondents, they relied upon the issue no.4, which was framed and answered by the first respondent in the impugned order in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012, which reads thus:-
?,dk; 4 gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fpapd; jdp mYtyuJ bray;Kiw Miz ehs; 05/12/2011y; kDjhuh;fs; cl;gl 9 gzpahsh;fs; cjtp[ nkyhsh; gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjpaw;wth;fs; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; ,e;j Miz gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk; Kd; ,th;fSf;F ,th;fs; vt;thW gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjpaw;wth;fs; vd;w tptuk; bjhptpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ nkYk; ,th;fs; my;yhJ v';rpa[s;s cjtpahsh; vd;w gzp epiy gzpahsh;fspy; mth;fs; kPJ xG';F eltof;if. Fw;wtHf;F. jz;l tHf;F epYit ,y;yhj nghjpYk; mth;fs; Vd; gjtp cah;t[f;F njh;t[ bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;w tptuk; mth;fSf;F bjhptpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ nkYk; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; 2 kw;wk; 3f;F gjtp cah;t[ tH';fg;gLk; Kd; rpwg;g[ Jiz tpjp 5(gp),d; fPH; gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjp bgw;wth;fs;. jFjp bgwhjth;fs; tptug; gl;oay; m';fpfhpf;fg;gl;L gzpahsh;fSf;F bjhlh;g[Wj;jg;gl;L mjd; gpwF gjtp cah;t[ tH';fg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fp jdp mYtyuJ 5/12/2011 bray;Kiw Miza[k;. 5/12/2011 jPh;khdKk;. gjtp cah;t[ bjhlh;ghf gzpahsh;fs; thhpahf jFjpfs; ghprPyj;J mjd; gpwF gpwg;gpf;fg;l;l Mizahf ,y;yhky; Cik Mizahf (Non-speaking order) fhzg;gLfpwJ/ ,J ,aw;if ePjp (Principles of natural Justice)f;F tpnuhjkhd eltof;iffshf cs;sJ/?
24. In view of the said findings categorically given by the first respondent that, even though nine persons were considered by the second respondent, before such consideration and orders passed on 05.12.2011, the remaining persons had not been considered, though there were no criminal case or departmental proceedings pending against them and also before giving promotion to the petitioners herein in the first two writ petitions, the second respondent had not considered special by-law 5(b) and the list of those who were ineligible to be considered for promotion were not prepared by the second respondent and only because of these lacuna, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that, the first respondent interfered with the orders of promotion given to the petitioners, and thereby, through the two impugned orders dated 22.05.2012 as well as 30.05.2012, had set aside the promotions given to the petitioners in the first two writ petitions and directed the second respondent to redo the exercise by following Rule 5(b) of the special bye-law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that, there is no infirmity in the orders impugned in the first two writ petitions and therefore which are liable to be rejected.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, in addition to the aforesaid submissions, has also made further submission that, while setting aside the promotions given to the petitioners to the first two writ petitions, the first respondent in the impugned order dated 22.05.2012, has given a finding against the petitioner in this writ petition that, because of the pendency of the criminal case in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Ramanathapuram, in C.C.No.113 of 2010, this petitioner also became merit less for consideration of promotion. This finding, according to the learned counsel, against the petitioner in the particular writ petition i.e., against one K.Pandi, cannot be sustained for the reasons that, the departmental proceedings initiated against him has not been ended in any punishment and in so far as the criminal case pending against him is concerned, he already approached this Court by filing Criminal Original Petition No.11129 of 2011 and the same is pending before this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel, in support of the writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, made submissions that, the said finding of the first respondent in the impugned order dated 22.05.2012, made against the petitioner, cannot stand under the legal scrutiny, therefore, it has to be set aside or erased.
26. Before dwell into the merits and demerits of the cases filed by the parties in these batch of writ petitions, as well as the legal position as they projected, let me take the relevant bye-law i.e., special bye-law 5(b), which has already been extracted herein above. The bye-law specifically says that, promotion shall be made to the next higher category only from the respective feeder category, on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit with reference to merit and ability.
27. In this regard, the proceedings issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Paramakudi, in Na.Ka.3347/2011 dated 08.11.2011, to the second respondent Bank, is relevant to be considered. According to the said proceedings dated 08.11.2011, the Rule 149 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, has been quoted. By quoting the said Rule, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has stated that, when merit and ability are approximately equal among the employees, the seniority be taken into account. The relevant portion of the said proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, dated 08.11.2011, are extracted here under for easy reference.
; ?2/ 13/04/1988y; mKy;gLj;jg;gl;l 1988Mk; Mz;ila jkpH; ehL Tl;Lw[t[ r';f tpjpfspy; tpjp vz;/149(2)(d) ?All promotion from one category of post to the immediate next higher category of post shall be made on grounds of merit and ability of the employees, his seniority being taken into account only where merit and ability are approximately equal?. vd gjtp cah;t[f;F rl;l bewpKiw tFf;fgl;Ls;sij fUj;j[py; bfhs;Sjy; ntz;Lk;/ mnj epiyapy; nkw;fz;lthW t';fpapy; Jiztpjpj;jpUj;j';fs; (appointment by promotion) nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ 3/ xG';F eltof;iff;F cl;gLj;jg;gl;lth;fs;. jz;lid bgw;wth;fs;. gzpj;jpwd; Fiwe;jth;fs; (j';fSf;F xJf;fg;gl;l gzpfis jpwk;gl bra;J Kof;fhjth;fs;) Mfpnahiu gjtp cah;t[f;F ghPryPj;jy; TlhJ/
4. gjtp cah;t[ bgWk; egh; fPH;epiyg;gzpaplj;jpy; (Feeder category) jpUg;jpfukhf Fiwe;jJ K:d;W Mz;Lfs; gzpKoj;jpUj;jy; ntz;Lk;/?
28. Only pursuant to the said directives and instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Paramakudi, the Special Officer of the second respondent Bank seems to have initiated proceedings for consideration of candidates in the category of Assistants, fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. This factor is evidenced, as the said proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 08.11.2011, has been referred as reference no.1 of the proceedings of the second respondent and the relevant portion is extracted here under. ?gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fp jdp mYtyh; mth;fspd; bray;Kiw Miz Kd;dpiy:- v!;/,s';nfhtd;/. B.Sc.,HDC., Tl;Lwt[ rhh;gjpthsh;-jdp mYtyh;/ bghUs;:- gzpaikg;g[ ? gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fp ?
cjtp nkyhsh; gjtp cah;t[ ? bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it:- 1) gukf;Fo ruf Jizg;gjpthsh; mth;fspd;
e/f/3347-201 ft ehs; 08/11/2011/
2) rl;lf; fUj;Jiu/?
29. On perusal of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 05.12.2011, ofcourse, pursuant to the directives issued by the Deputy Registrar in his proceedings dated 08.11.2011, referred to above, it is found that the second respondent has considered all eligible candidates who were working as Assistants of the second respondent Bank for consideration for the promotion to the post of Assistant Managers. According to the second respondent, fourteen candidates have been considered. Out of the 14 candidates, against nine employees, either criminal cases were pending or disciplinary proceedings were pending or punishment had been inflicted. Therefore, only remaining five persons of the total fourteen candidates considered for promotion, were eligible/ meritorious for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager. Out of the remaining five candidates, the petitioners in the first two writ petitions namely S.Pandi and P.Veluchamy, were seniors and their candidatures have been considered by the second respondent Bank, on the basis of the bye-law as well as guidelines/instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Even though the remaining five candidates including these two candidates had been eligible to be promoted as Assistant Managers, for want of vacancy, as only two post of Assistant Managers were vacant, the first two persons i.e., the writ petitioners in the first two writ petitions, have been given promotion by the second respondent Bank.
30. The remaining nine persons have been considered and declared as unfit as either criminal case or departmental proceedings were initiated or pending against them. Now, the first respondent in the impugned proceedings, has interfered with the said promotions given to these two persons, only on the ground that, as per special bye-law 5(b), the unfit candidates list had to be prepared and after giving them opportunity, such promotion could have been given, which, since had not been followed by the second respondent Bank, the said promotions were set aside.
31. However, in the impugned order dated 30.05.2012, the first respondent had framed the following four questions to be adjudicated/answered.
?ghprPyiz ,e;j rPuha;t[ kDtpy; fPHf;fz;l tpc&a';fs; ghprPyizf;F vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;ld/ 1/ Tl;Lwt[ r';fg; ;gzpahsh;fs; gjtp cah;t[ bjhlh;ghd rr;rut[ 1983Mk; Mz;ila jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ r';f rl;lg;gphpt[ 153,d; fPH; jPh;t[ bra;ag;gLtjw;Fhpa rl;l tHptifa[s;sjh> 2/ gzpahsh;fs; gzpaplj;jpw;F eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;s fy;tpj; jFjpfs; gjtp cah;t[f;F bghUe;Jkh> 3/ gjtp cah;t[ tH';fg;gLtjw;F gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fpapd; Jiz tpjpapy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l mst[nfhy; vd;d mJ filg;gpof;fg;gl;Ls;sjh> 4/ kDjhuUf;F gjtp cah;t[ bgWtj;w;F jFjpapd;ika[s;s tptuk; gpujpthjpahd r';f eph;thfj;jhy; vGj;J K:yk;; mwptpg;g[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh> gjtp cah;t[fs; tH';fg;gLk; Kd; Kiwahd eilKiwfs; filgpof;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>?
32. The question no.3 is relevant for the issue raised in this writ petition, as the first respondent in the impugned order, has given an answer for the said third question, as to whether, as per the special bye-law, the promotions were given or not. The findings and answer given by the first respondent in the impugned order, to the said question no.3 is extracted here under:-
?,dk; 3 gjtp cah;t[ tH';Fjy; bjhlh;ghf Jizg;gjpthsh;. gukf;Fo nk/v/e/f/582-2000 rg. Ehs; 27/3/2001,y; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l gukf;fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fp gzpahsh; gzpepiy gw;wpa rpwg;g[j; Jiz tpjpfs; tpjp 5(b) apy; fPH;tUkhW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ?All promotion from one category of post to the immediate next higher category of post shall be made only from the respective feeder category of post and on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit with reference to merit and ability.
Provided the employees shall be considered for promotion to a higher category of post unless he has put in satisfactory service of three years in the present category of post held by him?
kDjhuh; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; 2 kw;wk; 3I tpl gzp epiy K:g;g[ cilath; (Senior) Mf cs;shh;/ Mdhy; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; 2 kw;Wk; 3 ve;jtpj xG';F eltof;iff;Fk; cl;gLj;jg;gl;L jz;lid bgw;wth;fshf ,y;iy/ Mdhy; kDjhuh; xG';F eltof;if cl;gLj;jg;gl;L ,uz;L Mz;L Cjpa cah;t[ jz;lid bgw;wtuhf cs;ssh;/ ,e;j tifapy; gpujpthjpfs; 2 kw;wk; 3I tpl merit Fiwe;jtuhf kDjhuh; cs;shh;/ xG';F eltof;ifapy; jz;lid bgw;wth;fs; vj;jid Mz;LfSf;F gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjpaw;wth;fshf ,Ug;gh; vd;w tptuk; r';fj; Jiz tpjpapy; ,y;iy/ muR Chpah;fSf;F 5 Mz;Lfs; vd ,f;fhyf;bfL eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; muR Chpah;fSf;f eph;zapf;fg;gl;l ,e;j fhyf;bfL gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fp gzpahsh;fSf;F bghUe;Jk; vd Jiz tpjp tHptif ,y;iy/ vdnt xG';F eltof;iff;F cl;gLj;jg;gl;L jz;lid bgw;wth; vd;w tifapy; kDjhuh; ve;jtpj xG';F eltof;iff;Fk; cl;gLj;jg;glhj vjph; kDjhuh;fs; 2 kw;Wk; 3Itpl gjtp cah;t[f;F r';fj; Jiz tpjpg;go jFjpaw;wtuhf cs;shh;/?
33. On perusal of the said findings given by the first respondent for the question no.3, as has been extracted above, that the revision petitioners who are the contesting respondents herein, were subjected to either criminal case or departmental proceedings, it has been specifically declared that, these contesting respondents especially, the respondent namely Ms.K.S.Kavitha, would not be entitled to claim promotion over the other two persons namely, S.Pandy and P.Veluchamy.
34. A similar finding had been given by the first respondent in the other order i.e., made in Revision Petition No.2 of 2012, dated 22.05.2012, where also three questions have been framed which are reproduced hereunder:-
?ghprPyiz ,e;jr; rPuha;t[ kDtpy; fPHf;fz;l tpc&a';fs; ghprPyizf;F vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;ld/ 1/ Tl;Lwt[ r';fg; gzpahsh;fs; gjtp cah;t[ bjhlh;ghd rr;rut[ 1983Mk; Mz;ila jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ r';f';fspd; rl;lg;ggphpt[ 153,d; fPH; jPh;t[ bra;ag;gLtjw;Fhpa rl;l tHptif cs;sjh> 2/ gjtp cah;t[ tH';fg;gLtjw;F gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fpapd; Jiz tpjpapy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l mst[nfhy; vd;d mJ filgpof;fg;gl;Ls;sjh> 3/ kDjhuUf;F gjtp cah;t[ bgWtjw;f jFjpapd;ika[s;s tptuk; gpujpthjpahd r';f eph;thfj;jhy; vGj;J K:yk; mwptpg;g[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh> gjtp cah;t[fs; tH';fg;gLk; Kd; Kiwahd eilKiwfs; filgpof;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>?
35. In so far as the second question is concerned, the first respondent has given answer which reads as follows:-
?,dk; 2 gjtp cah;t[ tH';Fjy; bjhlh;ghf Jizg;gjpthsh;. gukf;Fo nk/v/e/f/582-2000 rg/ ehs; 27/3/2001,y; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fp gzpahsh; gzpepiy gw;wpa rpwg;g[j; Jiz tpjpfs; tpjp 5(b) apy; fPH;tUkhW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ?All promotion from one category of post to the immediate next higher category of post shall be made only from the respective feeder category of post and on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit with reference to merit and ability.
Provided the employees shall be considered for promotion to a higher category of post unless he has put in satisfactory service of three years in the present category of post held by him?
kDjhuh; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; 2 kw;Wk; 3I tpl gzp epiy K:g;g[ cilath; (Senior) Mf cs;shh;/ Mdhy; vjph; kDjhuh;fs; 2 kw;Wk; 3 ve;jtpj xG';F eltof;iff;Fk; cl;gLj;jg;gl;L jz;lid bgw;wth;fshf ,y;iy/ ,th;fs; kPJ Fw;wtHf;F VJkpy;iy/ Mdhy; kDjhuh; kPJ tzpftpay;. Fw;wg;g[ydha;t[ gphpt[ fhty; Jiwapduhy; Fw;wtHf;F vz; 7-2009 gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;L fhty; Jiw tprhuiz Koe;J ePjpj;Jiw eLth; kd;wk; vz; 1,y; rp/rp/vz;/113-2010 Mf tHf;F tprhuiz eilbgw;W tUfpwJ/ ,e;j tifapy; gpujpthjpfs; 2 kw;Wk; 3Itpl merit Fiwe;jtuhf kDjhuh; cs;shh;/ jpUkjp/fkyk; vd;gUf;f gukf;Fo Tl;Lwt[ efu t';fpapypUe;J fld; tH';fpaJ bjhlh;ghf fld; gphpt[ vGj;juhd kDjhuh; kPJ ,uhkehjt[uk; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; kd;wk; vz; 1,y; rp/rp/vz;/113-2010 Mf tHf;F cs;s epiyapy; kDjhuh; gjtp cah;t[f;Fhpa merit ,y;yhjtuhf gjtp cah;t[f;F jFjpaw;wtuhf cs;shh;/?
36. Therefore, the first respondent has categorically declared that, these contesting respondents namely, K.Pandi and K.S.Kavitha, are not eligible to claim promotions over the petitioners namely P.Veluchamy and S.Pandi and against such findings and declarations made by the first respondent, no challenge has been made by the said K.S.Kavitha.
37. Even in the writ petition in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, though the said K.Pandi, petitioner, challenged the said findings given by the first respondent, about the ineligibility of him, it had been challenged on the ground that, against the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate Court, he has filed a Criminal Original Petition before this Court and the same is pending. From the said averments, it became clear that, so far the said K.Pandi, the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, has not been acquitted by the criminal court, nor any indulgence had been finally shown by this Court in the Criminal Original petition filed by him.
38. When that being the position, this Court feels that, the finding given by the first respondent against the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, at answer given for question no.2, framed by the first respondent in his order dated 22.05.2012 in R.P.No.2 of 2012, is justifiable. In so far as the setting aside the promotion given to the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, by the orders impugned, made by the first respondent are concerned, it has only been made on the ground that, the second respondent had not followed the Rule 5(b) of the special bye-law. The said special bye- law 5(b), has already been extracted, which does not specifically require that, a separate list of unfit candidates had to be prepared and based on which, it should be kept informed to the unfit candidates, only thereafter, promotions should be given.
39. On perusal of the order dated 05.12.2011, of the second respondent, it is clear that all the fourteen eligible candidates in the category of Assistants were considered individually and in respect of every such candidate, the merits and demerits were discussed. Out of fourteen candidates, since cases were pending or disciplinary proceedings were pending against nine candidates, they were considered to be unfit and the remaining five candidates were taken into account, out of the five remaining candidates, as per seniority, these two persons who are the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, had been given promotion. Since, these two persons are fit along with other three, the second respondent by applying the bye-law as well as the Rule, especially, the Rule 149 (2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rule, which has already been extracted herein above, has made promotion to these two petitioners, since, the said Rule states that if merits and ability are approximately equal, seniority to be taken into account. Here in this case, though the contesting respondents have claimed that they are seniors, the merits are not equal among all the eligible candidates, since nine out of fourteen have been admittedly declared unfit because of pendency of cases. Among the remaining five candidates, whose merits and ability are approximately equal, certainly the seniority rule was invoked in respect of those five candidates. Accordingly, two senior most persons who are the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, have been considered and promotion have been given.
40. After having considered all these proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that, the reasoning given by the first respondent, on the pretext of Rule 5(b) of special bye-law, cannot stand in the way of giving promotion to the eligible candidates, after having considered all other equally placed candidates and rejected their candidature as unfit by strictly applying the relevant bye-law, which is specifically say that the promotion can be made from feeder category, subject to the rejection of unfit with reference to merit and ability. In this regard, instruction no.3 given by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, vide his proceedings dated 08.11.2011, are very much relevant, which, at the risk of repeatation, is again extracted here under with emphasis.
?3/ xG';F eltof;iff;F cl;gLj;jg;gl;lth;fs;. jz;lid bgw;wth;fs;. gzpj;jpwd; Fiwe;jth;fs; (j';fSf;F xJf;fg;gl;l gzpfis jpwk;gl bra;J Kof;fhjth;fs;) Mfpnahiu gjtp cah;t[f;F ghprPypj;jy; TlhJ/?
41. Since, nine candidates had been either been subjected to departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings, their candidatures could not have been considered for promotion. Therefore, they have been rightly rejected as unfit by the second respondent. Among the remaining eligible candidates of five, since these two persons who are the petitioners in the first two writ petitions are seniors, they have been considered and given promotions. Therefore, the promotions given to the petitioners in the first two writ petitions by the second respondent, cannot be found to be unlawful or considered to be against the Rule as well as bye-law. Therefore, the first respondent ought not to have set aside the said promotions given to these two persons. Moreover, it is his own finding of the first respondent that, the contesting respondents are unfit candidates, and this has been evidenced from the discussion and finding given by the first respondent in the two impugned orders, by giving answer to the query nos. 2 and 3 in the respective impugned orders, as has been extracted above. While so, the first respondent should not have set aside the promotion given to the petitioners.
42. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and also in view of the factual findings, this Court is of the considered view that, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioners in first two writ petitions, while moving the said writ petitions, obtained an order of interim stay from this Court and it is informed across the bar that by virtue of the stay granted by this Court, they have been working in the promoted post of Assistant Manager. This factor is also taken notice.
43. For all these reasons discussed above, the impugned orders in W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, in so far as setting aside the promotions given to the two petitioners in these writ petitions, are hereby quashed.
44. In so far as the findings given in the impugned order, in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, against the petitioner therein is concerned, such finding is based on the factual matrix that, against the petitioner in that writ petition, admittedly, criminal case is pending. Therefore, such finding, in the opinion of this Court, is justifiable and therefore, it does not require any interference from this Court. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner in W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, is rejected.
45. In the result, W.P(MD).No.9806 of 2012 and W.P(MD).No.9807 of 2012, are allowed and W.P(MD).No.3561 of 2013, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Ramanathapuram Region, Treasury Building, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram-623 501.
2.The Special Officer, Paramakkudi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., 2/378, M.S.Agraharam, Paramkudi, Ramanathapuram District-623 707.
.