C.V.MOHAN v. THE NADUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed without prejudice to the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. K.P.ABDUL MAJEED, ACCOUNTANT, NOW BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, THE NADUVIL SERCIVE CO-OP. BANK LTD., EVENING BRANCH, NADUVIL, KANNUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN-R2 ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL – R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------
THE NADUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NADUVIL P.O., KANNUR.
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, KANNUR.
K.P.ABDUL MAJEED, ACCOUNTANT, NOW BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, THE NADUVIL SERCIVE CO-OP. BANK LTD., EVENING BRANCH, NADUVIL, KANNUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN-R2 ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL – R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.8616 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner and the third respondent are employees of the first respondent. The first respondent intended to make a promotion to the vacancy of Internal Auditor. The third respondent has a longer spell of service but does not possess the statutory qualifications. The first respondent therefore applied to the competent authority for relaxation from the statutory rules. The Joint Registrar took the view that the third respondent did not have the requisite period of service which would entitle him for consideration of relaxation.
The petitioner is right in saying that he is qualified to be promoted. In that view of the matter, though the first respondent is only an authority and is not an authority falling within the definition of the “State”, as has been held by wpc8616/2008 -:2:- the Full Bench of this Court, an interim order was issued at the stage of admission on 13-3-2008 to ascertain whether the petitioner could be promoted. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that they would prefer the third respondent to be promoted and exemption from the rules would also be had in view of the amendment to the statutes. It is further pointed out that a couple of years ago, the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking relief with certain other employees as respondents and this Court had relegated him to the Joint Registrar before whom the petitioner thereafter made a representation and later withdrew it on the ground that prosecution of litigation may torpedo his opportunity for promotion.
Operative part
Having regard to the nature of the right of a person in service to be promoted, a direction to promote cannot be given by issuing a writ, though wpc8616/2008 -:3:- the promotion given could be challenged in appropriate proceedings. That apart, on the face of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which provides remedy by way of arbitration in cases of service disputes, including on the question of promotion, it is inappropriate for this Court to issue any direction, having particular regard to the stand taken by the first respondent in the counter affidavit. This writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek statutory remedies in accordance with law. sl. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is dismissed without prejudice to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 — s. 69.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Jun 2008. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.