Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN THURSDAY, THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY20141ST PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 19607 of 2012 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- B.SASIKUMAR AGED54YEARS PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK STAFF TRAINING CENTRE KOCHI. BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. LAND BANK BUILDINGS, STATUE JUNCTION, PB NO. 56 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC, BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SAIDALAVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2002- 2014, ALONG WITH WA NO.1886/12, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.19607/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE1T RESPONDENT DATED0810-1990. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE2D RESPONDENT DATED0709-2007. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED2602-2011 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED2603-2010 OF THE1T RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
G.O.(MS)NO. 159/2010/CO-OP. DATED2009-2010 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE1T RESPONDENT DATED0610-2010. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE1T RESPONDENT DATED1212-2011. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE1T RESPONDENT HELD ON1907-2012. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT DATED1608-2012. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //True Copy// PA to Judge Rp ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
============================== W.P.(C) No.19607 of 2012 & W.A.No.1886 of 2012 ==================== Dated this the 20th day of February, 2014
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
The writ appeal is filed against the interim order dated 6/9/12 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.19607/12. Since any decision in the appeal would seal the fate of the writ petition itself, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, we called for the writ petition also and heard the appeal and the writ petition.
2. Writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent in the writ appeal aggrieved by Ext.P8. Briefly stated, his case was that in 1990, he was appointed as a Public Relations Assistant in the Bank, the appellant in the writ appeal. He continued in that post and while so, by Ext.P4 dated 26/3/2010, the Committee of the Bank mooted a proposal for redesignating the post as Public Relations Officer. In terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the resolution was subject to the approval of the Registrar and on his approval of the W.P(C) No.19607/12 & W.A.No.1886/12 :
2. : resolution, the Registrar made a proposal to the Government, which, by Ext.P5 order, accepted the proposal. Accordingly, the Bank issued Ext.P6 proceedings dated 6/10/10 redesignating the post held by the writ petitioner as Public Relations Officer.
3. According to the Bank, for better utilization of his services, he was deployed to other establishments of the Bank and finally the Executive Committee of the Bank made Ext.P8 proposal dated 19/7/12 to the Board to redesignate the post of Public Relations Officer held by the writ petitioner as Assistant. It was challenging Ext.P8 proposal of the Executive Committee, the writ petitioner approached this Court raising various contentions. Considering his interim prayer for stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8, the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties passed order dated 6/9/12, directing the Bank not to implement Ext.P8 proposal in so far as it relates to the redesignation of the post of the writ petitioner. It is aggrieved by this order, the writ appeal is filed.
4. From the facts that we have narrated above, it is evident that the writ petition itself has been filed aggrieved by Ext.P8, which is nothing but a proposal made by the Executive W.P(C) No.19607/12 & W.A.No.1886/12 :
3. : Committee of the Bank. The proposal to become a decision requires its acceptance by the Committee. The resolution for its implementation requires its approval by the Registrar and the Government.
5. Therefore, as at present, Ext.P8 is only an inconsequential proposal which cannot give rise to any legally redressable grievance for the writ petitioner to maintain a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the writ petition itself is premature.
6. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition nor do we find any justification for the learned Single Judge to have passed order dated 6/9/12 challenged in the appeal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no orders are necessary in the appeal. The appeal is closed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PATO JUDGE