Kerala High Court
Gurudathan V vs The Secretary on 27 April, 2013
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/17TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 12817 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
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 ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY
CO-OPERATIVE EXAMINATION BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. GENERAL MANAGER
QUILON CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.960
KOLLAM-691 001.
3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
R1 BY ADVS. SMT.RASHMI. K.V., SC, CO.OP. SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD
SRI.ANIL THOMAS, SC, CO.OP. SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD
R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 12817 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------
EXT. P1- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2013.
EXT. P2- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 02.11.2010.
EXT. P3- A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 17.05.2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
--------------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.12817 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
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. W.P.(C)No.12817 of 2013 2
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, W.P.(C)No.12817 of 2013 3 public/natioinalised 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 as 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 W.P.(C)No.12817 of 2013 4 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.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
ln