JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as a Branch Manager of the 4th respondent, Service Cooperative Bank, he being appointed as per Resolution dated 24.7.2001 as per Ext.P1 Originally he was appointed as Peon on 6.4.1980 and was promoted as a Clerk on 1.7.2000 and later as a Branch Manager as per Ext.P1 Ext.P1 was sent for approval to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. However, it was only by Ext.P8 dated 27.5.2006 that the approval was granted. But, however, stating that his post as Branch Manager is effective only from 1.7.2005, since according to the Joint Registrar, the petitioner ought to have completed five years of service as Head Clerk before being promoted to the post of Branch Manager and relaxation of educational qualification was done only under the said circumstances. Ext.P3 is an order issued by the Bank proposing to recover an amount of Rs. 27,839/- which the petitioner had collected in excess as Branch Manager from 1.7.2001 to 30.6.2005 It is said that the said amount was recovered and representations were submitted by the petitioner as Exts.P4 and P5 to refund the said amount and to consider his approval with effect from the date of Ext.P1
2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating as follows:
“It is submitted that as per Rule 185(2)(iv) and Rule 185(5) & (8) of the KCS Rules, 1969, promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary/Manager and equivalent posts in PACS and Urban Banks having a deposit of more than 10 crores shall be made from feeder category in accordance with merit and ability. As per the feeder category Rules of the Respondent Bank, Head Clerk/Accountant post for being promoted to the post of Branch Manager. As per Rule 186(1) of KCS Rules, 1969, graduation is prescribed as the academic qualification for the post of Manager in Cooperative Societies coming under the category and classification to which the respondent Bank has been included. As per Rule 185(8) of the KCS Rules, 1969, the committee of a Cooperative Society shall be competent to relax the qualification for the purpose of promotion in deserving cases with the prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that as per amendment made to Rule 185(8) of KCS Rules, 1969 vide G.O(P) 197/2005.Co-op. dated 10.8.2005, where the academic qualification prescribed is graduation and above, exemption from acquiring the said qualification may be considered if the incumbent satisfied the following conditions:
i). Should have passed JDC or equivalent.
ii). Should have a minimum service of 5 years in the feeder category.
iii). Should not be less than 45 years of age. If the incumbent satisfied the above 3 conditions, exemption from acquiring graduation can be granted by the Registrar”.
3. From the counter affidavit it could be seen that prior to the amendment of the Rule, there was no such restriction on the Registrar to approve the relaxation of qualification as well as on the Board appointing a person by giving necessary relaxation in deserving cases. It was only subject to approval of the Registrar. The judgments in Uma Devi Nambiar v. Sidhan [2004 (2) KLT 73] and Dasan v. Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies [2007 (1) KLT 581], are relied upon to contend that once the Board has approved appointment of a person as a deserving candidate in a promotion post, the Registrar is bound to approve the said appointment and cannot rely upon any Government instruction to disapprove the said appointment. At any rate, it could be seen in the above case that the appointment was made by the Board as per Ext.P1 dated 24.7.2001 and though the same was sent for approval, the Joint Registrar had passed Ext.P2 order only on 22.5.2006 This gross delay in not giving approval within a specified time by itself would show that it is not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner or the Board of Directors of the Bank, that the approval was delayed or any excess salary was drawn by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the order passed to recover the salary paid in excess is bad in law.
4. The petitioner seeks for all the service benefits with effect from 1.7.2001 It is needless to state that Ext.P2 order has been passed on the basis of an amendment of the year 2005 which apparently did not apply at the time when Ext.P1 order was passed. Under these circumstances, the Registrar is bound to approve the appointment of the petitioner with effect from the date of Ext.P1 dated 24.7.2001 and consequently he will be entitled to refund of the amount recovered, if any, and also all service benefits by computing his appointment as Branch Manager effective from 1.7.2001
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Comments