Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941 PETITIONER/S: VINEETH VIJAYAN AGED 31 YEARS DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.2147, THAMALLACKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN SMT.AMRUTHA SURESH SRI.C.P.SABARI RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CONCURRENT AUDITOR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-6890 516 2 KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.2147, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THAMALLACKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 548 3 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KUMARAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2147, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, THAMALLACKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 548 4 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-690 516 BY ADV. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court apprehending that he is likely to be reverted on account of Ext.P9 letter issued by the Assistant Registrar (General), Karthikappilly, to the 2 nd respondent - Kumarapuram Service Co-operative Bank ('hereinafter referred to as the 'Society' for short), where he is presently working as a Data Entry Operator.
2. The petitioner says that Ext.P9 relates to an audit
objection raised by the Concurrent Auditor with respect to the affairs of the Society, wherein, it has been alleged that his promotion to the post of Data Entry Operator is irregular. The petitioner says that he was promoted on 01.01.2017, and at that time, only the provisions of Rule 185(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('KCS' Rules for short) were applicable, thus making him fully eligible for such promotion. He concedes that subsequently, on 21.04.2019, the Feeder Category Rules were approved with respect to the Society and that certain specific qualifications are also mentioned therein. He however, says that whatever be the Feeder Category Rules, as on 01.01.2017, when he was promoted, the applicable provision was only Rule 185(1) of the KCS Rules and therefore, that as long as his promotion is not found to be contrary to the same, he cannot be unsettled.
3. Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent - Society, virtually affirms the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Sri.P.N.Mohanan, adding that the Society has implicitly followed the KCS Rules and in particular, Rule 185(1) thereof, while promoting the petitioner. He says that in spite of this, the Concurrent Auditor has raised certain objections and that the Society has duly answered the same. He says that since the audit has now been finalized and the final audit certificate issued; the Society may be given an opportunity of assailing the same by filing a Revision before the competent Authority of the Government of Kerala.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader
Smt.C.S.Sheeja, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, also submits that the final audit certificate has now been issued and therefore, that the Bank is well within its rights to challenge the same as per law. She therefore, says that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely and that the Society must first challenge the audit certificate and explain how the promotion of the petitioner was effected on 01.01.2017, in violation of the Feeder Category Rules.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I am certain in my mind that since the petitioner's promotion has been found irregular only by the Auditor and since the audit process is stated to have now been completed, the respondent - Society must challenge the same and explain how the petitioner's promotion effected on 01.01.2017 is, according to them, irreproachable and without fault. Once this process is completed and if it is still found that the petitioner's promotion is irregular, then any action to revert him will be taken only as per law and after following due procedure, affording him an opportunity of being heard. It is so ordered. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed, action to revert the petitioner pursuant to the audit objections shall stand deferred.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN rp JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 25.01.2013 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT BANK EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FEEDER CATEGORY APPROVED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR ALON WITH THE POSTS SANCTION DATED 21.04.2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT CONCURRENT AUDITOR DATED 20.06.2018
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE RECOVERY EFFECTED EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE BANK EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUALIFICATION PRESCRIBED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2019 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT