Kerala High Court
Wilson M.J vs The Thiruvananthapuram Regional ... on 1 August, 2025
2025:KER:57512
WPC.No.17139 of 25 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17139 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 WILSON M.J., AGED 51 YEARS,
SENIOR MANAGER (FINANCE) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL
CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY AMBALATHARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT MANKIDIYAN HOUSE, TC
1429/10, SURYA AVENUE, POWDIKONAM P.O., MANNAMTHALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 588.
2 DR GEE GEORGE PUTHENVEETIL,
AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.RENCHI P.GEORGE, MANAGER (PROCUREMENT & INPUT)
KOLLAM DAIRY, PALACE NAGAR, THEVALLY, KOLLAM,
RESIDING AT MILA MINE BUNGALOW, KOZHIMALA P.O.,
VALLAMKULAM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689 541.
3 SOJU K PAUL VARGHESE, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O.K.P VARGHESE WORKING AS TECHNICAL OFFICER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' UNION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY
AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT
KALLUMANNAL MEPURATH HOUSE MALLAPPALLY WEST P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 585.
4 AJITH KUMAR S.G, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.SAMBHU NAIR S.B., DAIRY ENGINEER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' UNION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY
AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
5 FIROSH MURALI, AGED 48 YEARS,
2025:KER:57512
WPC.No.17139 of 25 2
S/O. T.R MURALIDHARAN, MANAGER (HR),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' UNION LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY
AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT
SABAREESAM JYOTI NAGAR 28 THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006.
6 SREEJITH K.T, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.THANKAPPAN K.V., DAIRY ENGINEER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' UNION LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY
AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT
KAREPARAMBIL HOUSE PALLIPORT PO,
MUNAMBAM, PIN - 683 515.
7 SAM PHILIP, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O.PHILIPHOSE, QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' UNION LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY
AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT
VADAKKANAZHIKATHU, AMBIPOIKA POST,
KUNDARA KOLLAM, PIN - 691 501.
8 RAJESH K JOSE, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.JOSE P JOSEPH, WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER
(PRODUCTION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-
OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD KOLLAM DAIRY,
PALACE NAGAR, THEVALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA RESIDING AT
PARADYIL HOUSE, SNRA - F/1F, MUKKOLOCKAL P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 043.
9 SANIL R.T, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O. THANKAYYAN R, DEPUTY ENGINEER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' UNION LTD KOLLAM DAIRY, PALACE NAGAR,
THEVALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA RESIDING AT SANIL BHAVAN,
MANNAKKALLU, NELLIMOODU. P. O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 524.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.ANAND
SHRI.RAJESH O.N.
SHRI.AMEER SALIM
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
2025:KER:57512
WPC.No.17139 of 25 3
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS UNION LTD.
KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695 004.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS UNION LTD., KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
3 DR. P.MURALI,
VYAJAYANTHAM, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM MANAGING DIRECTOR
(IN CHARGE) THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-
OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., KSHEERA BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA,
AGRICULTURE (DAIRY) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 695 001.
5 RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
FOR UNDERTAKING THE SELECTION PROCESS OF THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-
OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DAIRY AMBALATHARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
SHRI.IMAM GRIGORIUS KARAT, G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57512
WPC.No.17139 of 25 4
JUDGMENT
The petitioners 1 and 2 are the Senior Manager and the Manager respectively of the 1 st respondent. According to them, they are eligible to be considered for the post of Managing Director of the 1st respondent Union. The grievance of the petitioners pertains to the selection process initiated by the 1 st respondent, based on Ext.P10 recruitment notification, by which, the 3 rd respondent herein is proposed to be appointed as the Managing Director of the 1st respondent by way of direct recruitment. The reliefs sought by the petitioners are as follows:
"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Ext. P10 notification. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the Respondents 1 and
2 not to appoint Respondent No.3 as Managing Director or Managing Director (in-charge) of Respondent No.1 Union.
iii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Ext. P4 Government Order as respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction or power under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules to issue it.
iv. Issue a Writ, Order or direction declaring that Respondents 1 and 2 cannot appoint Respondent No.3 as its Managing Director or Managing Director (in-charge) 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 5 as he has already attained the age of superannuation under Rule 183 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and there cannot an exemption/relaxation in relation to the upper age limit.
v. Dispense with the requirement of translating documents in vernacular to English.
vi. Issue such other Writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
According to the petitioners, as per Rule 185 of Kerala Co-
operative Societies Rules (herein after referred as the Rules) the post of Managing Director is to be filled up by way of promotion.
Earlier, in the year 2020, the 1 st respondent Union sought to appoint its Managing Director by direct recruitment instead of promotion as per Ext.P2 notification. The same was challenged by the senior most employee of the 1 st respondent by name Hariharan G, by filing W.P.(C).No.2003 of 2021. This court passed Ext.P3 interim order based on the undertaking of the Addl.Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondent, that no appointment will be made till the next posting date. The said writ petition was later disposed of as infructuous as the petitioner therein retired in the 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 6 meantime on attaining the age of superannuation. In the meantime, in order to overcome the challenge made in the said writ petition, the Government issued Ext.P4 Recruitment and Promotion Rules as per Government Order dated.19.01.21, without notifying in the Official Gazette, which was a statutory requirement under Section 109 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
3. In the meanwhile, the Government amended the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, by inserting Section 80BB, in which it is contemplated that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or Rules, the Government shall by notification in the Gazette, constitute Recruitment Committee which shall be the competent Committee for the entire selection and recruitment process of all permanent employees of the Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union. On account of the dispute as to the appointment of the Managing Director, which was pending in the writ petition submitted by the said Hariharan, one Mr.D.S.Konda was appointed as the Managing Director in charge by deputation. Later, on his transfer to Malabar Union after the period of deputation is over, the Administrative Committee of the 1st respondent on 01.11.2023 appointed the 3rd respondent as the Managing Director of the 1 st respondent as per Ext.P7. The tenure of his appointment was 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 7 extended later and he retired on 30.04.2025 on attaining age of superannuation.
4. Even before the date of retirement of the 3 rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P10 recruitment notification, to fill up the post of Managing Director by way of direct recruitment. The notification prescribed the age limit as 45 to 58 years for submitting the application, and the last date for reckoning age was 01.01.2025. Even though Rule 183 of the Rules contemplates a maximum age of 40 years for submitting application to all the posts in the 1st respondent Union, and the retirement age as 58 years, as per Ext.P1 notification, the Government exempted the age limit contemplated under Section 183 for the purpose of filling up the posts of Managing Director, General Manager and Senior Managers. Ext.P1 was issued invoking the powers of the Government under Rule 181 of the Rules.
5. According to the petitioners, Ext.P10 notification was intended to give appointment to the 3 rd respondent as the Managing Director. In response to Ext.P10, three applications were received and while processing the same, it was found that except the petitioner, all the candidates are not qualified for appointment. It is also the case of the petitioners that before 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 8 issuing Ext.P10, the Recruitment Committee, in its meeting held on 30.11.2024, decided to fix the maximum and minimum age limit as 58 and 45 as on 01.01.2025 and the age of superannuation as 60 years. According to the petitioners, the same is against Rule 183 and it was beyond the competence of the Recruitment Committee, as the powers of the Recruitment Committee do not extend to lay down the terms and conditions of the appointment. Now the selection process is in progress.
6. Apart from the above, the further contention of the petitioners is that the 3 rd respondent do not possess the necessary qualifications for the post of Managing Director, even as per the qualification prescribed in Ext.P10 notification. According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent is holding the Post Graduate Diploma qualification in Rural Development Management, whereas Ext.P10 contemplates that the qualification for the post of Managing Director should be Post Graduate qualification in Business Management along with the other qualifications specified therein. The 3rd respondent's course of study for PG Diploma was only for one year, whereas, the Post Graduate qualification in Business Management is a two-year course. Thus, it was contended that the 3rd respondent is not qualified to be considered for the post of 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 9 Managing Director and therefore, the proposal to appoint the 3 rd respondent is not legally sustainable. The reliefs as mentioned above were sought in the above circumstances.
7. A counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been submitted by the 2nd respondent denying the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought therein. In the counter affidavit, the 2 nd respondent challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to seek the reliefs in the writ petition, as according to the 2 nd respondent, none of the petitioners are entitled to challenge the notification. It was averred that as per Clause 21.2.15 of the bylaws of the 1 st respondent Union, three options of appointment of the Managing Director are contemplated, which are (1) promotion by selection, (2) direct recruitment (3) deputation of all India Service Officers with the approval of Government of Kerala. In this case, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 80BB the Government, as per Ext.R2(a) order constituted a Recruitment Committee for the selection of the Manager of the Union and after various deliberations and consultations, the Recruitment Committee had taken a decision to adopt the method of selection as by way of direct recruitment, as evidenced by R2(e). Since the petitioners are not challenging the 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 10 said decision, and the selection process is based on direct recruitment, the petitioners cannot have the locus standi to challenge the same. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent denied the allegation that the 3 rd respondent is not duly qualified and according to the 2 nd respondent, the Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development Management is a sufficient qualification for the post of Managing Director. As regards the maximum age limit contemplated under Rule 183 which was 40 years, it was contended by the 2 nd respondent that Ext.P1 notification, the stipulations in Rule 183, are exempted for filling up the posts of Managing Director, General Manager and Senior Manager. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent does not suffer from any disqualification on that ground as well.
8. A reply affidavit was submitted by the petitioner disputing the said averments and produced documents to substantiate the contention of the petitioners that the 3 rd respondent does not have the necessary qualification.
9. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Imam Grigorious, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Sri.Ranjith Tampan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Even though 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 11 notice was served upon the 3rd respondent, there is no appearance for the 3rd respondent.
10. The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that, the 3 rd respondent could not have been considered for the post of Managing Director, as he had already crossed the age limit contemplated under Rule 183 of the Rules. To examine the said contention, it is necessary to go through the said provision, which reads as follows:
"Age limit:-[(1) A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have completed 18 years and must not have completed [forty years] of age on the first day of [January] of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited:
Provided that the upper age limit shall be raised by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribe or adult member of such caste/tribes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions and by three years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes [and by three years in the case of candidates who are ex-service men]. Provided further that in the case of applicants who are employees of Co-operative Societies for appointment in the Apex Societies and other Societies having one or more districts as area of operation, the maximum age limit shall be 50 years].
2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 12 [Provided also that in the case of applicants to the posts mentioned in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 185, the maximum age limit shall be 45 years] [Provided also that in the case of applicants who are physically handicapped persons, the upper age limit be raised by 10 years] [Provided also that in the case of applicants who are widows, the upper age limit shall be raised by 5 years] (2) No employee shall be eligible to continue in the service of a society after [the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years].
[Provided that part-time contingent employees shall be eligible to continue in the service of the society upto the last month in which he/she attains the age of 70 years]"
11. The case of the petitioners is that, as per Rule 183(1), of the Rules, the maximum age limit contemplated is 40 years and as per Sub Rule 2 of the said provision, no employee shall be eligible to continue in service after the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. It was pointed out by the petitioners that, even though Ext.P1 contemplated an exemption, the same was confined to the age limit for the purpose of appointment, and the age limit for continuing in the service as contemplated under Rule 183(2), was not exempted.
2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 13
12. The aforesaid contention was raised by the petitioners by mainly relying upon the observations made in paragraph 2 of the second page of Ext.P1 notification, where, the reference was only about the maximum age limit for appointment. However, after carefully going through the Ext P1 notification, I am not inclined to accept the said contention. This is because, the observations made in paragraph 2 of second page of Ext.P1 notification, cannot be read in isolation and the entire notification has to be read as a whole. In this regard it would be profitable to refer to the relevant portion of the said notification which is as follows:
"Government of Kerala have agreed to set up the necessary infrastructure for the procurement, processing and marketing of milk in the Slate through co-operative organizations vide agreement with Indian Dairy Coropration. According to clause 7 of the agreement, the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Feberation is permitted to retain at their discretion and on their terms and conditions of employment, the services of their personal. Clause 8 of the agreement stipulats that the State Government shall take all actions which shall be necessary for the co-operative institutions to carry out their day-to-day functions. Accordingly, a separate set of rules called Standing Orders and Staff Regulations have been formulated. These have also been duly certified by appropriate authorities of the State Government. As 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 14 some of the provisions in the said Standing Orders and Staff Regulations are in contradiction with certain provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 it is necessary to grant exemption to the Kerala Co-
operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd
Thiruvananthapuram, Regional Co-operative Milk
Producers' Union Ltd., The Ernakulam Regional Co- operative Milk Producers Union Ltd, Malabar Regional Co-operative Mik Producers' Union Ltd, and the Dairy Co-operative Societies throughout the State of Kerala from the following Rules."
13. Moreover, in the Clause (i) of the said notification, it is specifically mentioned that the 1 st respondent Union is exempted from the provisions of Rule 183, in respect of the posts of Managing Director, General Manager and Senior Manager of the Federation and the three Regional Unions. Thus, the exemption provided is from the application of Rule 183 as a whole. As regards the maximum age limit for continuing in service, the same is contemplated under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 183 and when the application of Rule 183 as such is excluded, it would take in, the age limit contemplated under sub Rule 2 as well. Moreover, granting such an exemption, is within the competence of the Government as Rule 181 of the Rules specifically enables the Government to do the same. Therefore, under any circumstances, 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 15 the contention raised by the petitioners that the exemption is confined to the age limit contemplated under Rule 183 (1) alone, cannot be accepted.
14. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the competence of the Recruitment committee to lay down the terms and conditions for appointment as done vide Ext.P15. As per the same, the Recruitment Committee has decided to fix the minimum and maximum age limits of the applicants as 45 and 58 as on 01.01.2025 and the age of superannuation as 60 years. The learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Krushna Chandra Sahu (Dr) v. State of Orissa [(1995) 6 SCC 1], where it was held that selection criteria cannot be laid down by the Selection Board or Selection Committee unless specifically authorized in this regard. In this connection, the specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent is that, in the light of the exemption from Rule 183, by virtue of Ext.P1 notification, as regards the post of Managing Director, there is no age limit contemplated. Therefore, even if Ext.P15 was found to be issued by the Recruitment Committee beyond the powers vested upon it, that will not affect the 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 16 competence of the 3rd respondent to apply for the said post. This is particularly because, since the operation of Rule 183 is excluded as regards the post of Managing Director, there is no age limit and hence nothing would preclude the 3 rd respondent from submitting an application for the said post. However, it is a fact that in Ext.P10 notification an age limit was prescribed which in turn was based on the decision taken as per Ext.P15 of the Recruitment Committee. However, that by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the 3rd respondent is disqualified from applying for the post, Therefore, on that reason the said contention has to be rejected.
15. When it comes to the 3rd contention of the petitioners, which relates to the lack of qualification of the 3 rd respondent, the 2nd respondent raises serious objection as to the competence of the petitioners to raise such a contention in a writ petition. Learned Government Pleader also stoutly opposes the said contention of the petitioners, raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition on that ground. The objections raised by the respondents in this regard are two fold. The first objection is that, as far as the question of qualification is concerned, it is a matter touching upon the terms and conditions of appointment, which is to be considered by invoking the remedies contemplated under Section 69 of the 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 17 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. A service dispute is specifically included in sub Section 2(d) of Section 69 of the Act and therefore, the same can be resolved only through the machinery contemplated under Section 69 and not through a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16. Secondly, it was also contended that as regards the challenge against the appointment of the 3 rd respondent, the same would fall beyond the competence of the petitioners herein. This is because, the process of appointment is by way of direct recruitment and the petitioners do not have the qualification for direct recruitment and they did not respond to Ext.P10 notification as well. A writ petition can be maintained by a person who is personally aggrieved by such appointment and since the petitioners have not submitted any application for direct recruitment, they cannot be treated as persons aggrieved by the said proposal of appointment. Therefore, the writ petition can be treated only as on a public interest, which is not permissible in a litigation relating to the service conditions, contends the 2 nd respondent. The reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by a Bench of Five Judges of this Court in Association of Milma Officers' Ksheera Bhavan, Tvm and Another v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KHC 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 18 779] and a decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Neethu v. State of Punjab and Others [2007 10 SCC 614].
17. As regards the first point raised by the respondents, i.e., the applicability of Section 69, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, the same would be applicable in a case where there is a dispute as to the qualification applicable to the post or as to the qualification obtained by the parties concerned. In this case, there is no dispute with respect to either of the said aspects. To be precise, there is no dispute with regard to the qualification possessed by the petitioner and the educational qualification prescribed for the post. Therefore, a further enquiry as to the factual circumstances relating to the qualification applicable to the post and the qualification possessed by the party concerned, is not necessary. To be precise, the question raised in this writ petition in this regard can be answered without any factual findings as those are admitted. Moreover, when a case of gross violation of statutory provision is brought to the notice of this court, while challenging any proceedings, which is of such nature that it could be decided without any factual enquiry, nothing would preclude this court from the considering the said question. Any decision not to consider the said question in such circumstances, would amount to perpetuating 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 19 an illegality. Therefore, I do not find any valid grounds to accept the contention of the respondents with respect to the same.
18. Now when coming to the second aspect, i.e., the competence of the petitioners herein, it is to be noted that the petitioners are not 3rd parties as far as the appointment of the Managing Director of the 1st respondent is concerned. They are the senior officers of the 1st respondent and the post to be filled up is that of the Managing Director, who is the head of the institution. Moreover, the specific case of the petitioners is that, such post of head of the institution is being filled up with a person who does not have the necessary qualification prescribed as per the bylaws of the 1st respondent and also as per the Recruitment Rules. Therefore, this is a contention that is raised highlighting a serious violation of law as regards the appointment of a head of an institution, where the petitioners are working. Therefore, even though they have not submitted an application in response to Ext.P10, that would not preclude them from challenging the said appointment by highlighting that the said appointment is in patent violation of the statutory stipulations. Moreover, the post being that of the head of the institution, to ensure that a properly qualified person is 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 20 appointed to that post, is in the interest of the petitioners as well, being the employees of the said establishment.
19. In the light of the above, the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court and this court in the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.
20. In such circumstances, the question raised by the petitioner with regard to the qualifications of the 3rd respondent is to be considered, Educational qualifications for the post of Managing Director are contemplated under Ext.P10 notification which reads as follows:
Educational Qualification Degree in Dairy Technology/Dairy Science and Technology/Engineering or five year Degree in Veterinary Science from a recognized University or Mamber of the Institute of "Chartered Accountants of India" or "Charterered Accountant" and MBA/Post Graduate qualification in Business Management.
21. The same is in tune with the Clause 21.2.15 of the bylaws of the 1st respondent. It is evident from the records that the 3rd respondent has all the qualifications referred to in Ext.P10, except the Post Graduate qualification in Business Management. It 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 21 is an admitted case that the Post Graduate qualification of the petitioner is a Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development Management. The said fact is admitted in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent and moreover, the petitioner has produced the certificate of the 3rd respondent along with the reply affidavit as Ext.P20. It is evident from the said document that, it is a course of one year, whereas, the Post Graduate course in Business Management studies is a two year course which is also not disputed. Thus, when the notification in Ext.P10, which is in tune with the qualification contemplated under the bylaws contemplates, among other qualifications, a Post Graduate Degree, under no circumstances, a person who does not possess that qualification, be treated as a person with due qualifications. In any circumstances, a person possessing a Post Graduate Diploma cannot be treated at par with a person having Post Graduate Degree. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the course of study for Post Graduate Degree is for two years, whereas, the petitioner had undergone the studies for obtaining a Post Graduate Diploma for one year only. It is also a good reason not to treat the petitioner as a person having the qualification referred to in Ext.P10.
2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 22
22. The learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader attempted to justify their stands by placing reliance upon a communication issued by National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) on 17.10.1990, wherein, a reference is made to the one year course of study for Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development Management. A copy of the said communication was made available by the learned Government Pleader, in which it was observed as follows:
"It has been a genuine concern of our cooperative institutions that during these last 3 years they had been finding it increasingly difficult to spare officers for two years. The IRMA was also appraised of this situation. They have now designed a condensed programme of one year duration leading to a diploma in Rural Development Management exclusively for sponsored candidates only. This reduction in duration has been made possible by removing the two Management Trainership Segments (MTS) which account for about six active months. The conceptual learning sessions have been retained. We are convinced that removal of the MTS will in no way dilute the course since the sponsored candidates will be well experienced in the working of cooperative institutions and it is to this aspect the 2-year students are exposed to, through MTS."
2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 23
23. However, a careful perusal of the aforesaid document would indicate that, a relaxation was granted only to enable the Co-operative Institutions to conduct one one-year course of Post Graduate Diploma in certain circumstances. That would not enable the respondents to make an appointment to the post of Managing Director who possesses only a Post Graduate Diploma after undergoing a one year course, unless the recruitment rules or the qualification criteria as per the relevant stipulations or bye-laws are amended by specifically incorporating such qualification. Admittedly, no such amendment has been carried out and even in Ext.P10 notification, the qualification is Post Graduate degree and not Post Graduate Diploma.
24. There is yet another aspect, which is discernible from the observations in the aforesaid letter, the relevant portion of which is extracted above,. For the purpose of reduction in the duration of the course, they have removed two Management Trainership Segments which account for about six active months. This could be very much relevant as the post to which the application is sought is that of the Managing Director, and the qualification contemplated includes Post Graduate qualification in business management. Thus, when the Management trainership 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 24 segments in the course was taken away, for shortening the duration, and the post to which appointment to be made is that of Managing Director, lack of management training in the course, could be yet another reason for which the 3 rd respondent could be treated as a person with inadequate qualification for the post. Therefore, under any circumstances, the 3 rd respondent cannot be treated as a person with necessary qualification as envisaged in Ext.P10 recruitment rule.
In such circumstances, after considering all the relevant aspects, this court finds that, even though the contentions raised by the petitioners with regard to the age limit under Section 183 have to be rejected, the relief sought by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to appoint the 3 rd respondent as the Managing Director is to be allowed, in view of the fact that the 3 rd respondent does not possess necessary qualification prescribed in Ext.P10 and it is ordered accordingly. With the above observations this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/1.8.25 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 25 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17139/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.06.1996 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN GO NO. (P) 221/96/AD Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.
2003/2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION RULES FOR THE THREE REGIONAL MILK UNIONS VIZ, THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LIMITED, THE ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-
OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LIMITED, AND THE MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LIMITED ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURE (DAIRY) DEPARTMENT DATED 19.01.2021 IN NO. G.O. (MS) NO. 1/2021/DD Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 20753/2024 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP (C) NO. 835/2024 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.11.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.
TRU/PER/61/2023/2330
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.11.2024
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.
TRU/PER/61/2024/2538
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
01.04.2025 OF THE CHAIRMAN, MALABAR
REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION IN NO. MRU/PER/402/21/8 SHOWING THE RETIREMENT DATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 17.03.2025 OF THE 1ST 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 26 RESPONDENT UNION IN NO. TRU/PER/1(MD)/2025 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2025 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF 1ST RESPONDENT SCHEDULED ON 12.05.2025 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD NOTE NO. 8 DATED 05.05.2025 PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO. TRU/PER-21(1)/2025 Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD NOTE NO. 9 DATED 05.055.2025 PREPARED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO. TRU/PER-21(1)/2025 Exhibit R2(d) True copy of the letter dated 24.08.2024 of 1st respondent Union Exhibit R2(c) A copy of the resolution No.208 dated 31.07.2024 Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the Order No. SRO No. 682/2024 dated 02.08.2024 Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the Letter No. D2/232/2021-DD dated 12.08.2024 Exhibit R2(e) A copy of the minutes of the meeting of Recruitment Committee dated 31.11.2024 Exhibit R2(f) True copy of the letter No.DDDKER/3645/2024-C1 dated 17.03.2025 Exhibit R2(g) True copy of the resolution No. 487 dated 12.05.2025 Exhibit R2(h) True copy of the appointment order dated 12.05.2025 Exhibit R2(i) True copy of the interim order in the SLP
(c) No.835/2024 dated 12.01.2024 Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF 3RD RESPONDENT UNION Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE HOLDER OF ONE-YEAR POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AWARDED BY THE INSTITUTE OF RURAL MANAGEMENT ANAND (IRMA) Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 487 DATED 12.05.2025 ADOPTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 2025:KER:57512 WPC.No.17139 of 25 27 Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNION IN NO. TRU/PER/MD/1/2025 Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 24.05.2025 BETWEEN THE TRADE UNIONS OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNION, THE MINISTER OF LABOUR, AND THE MINISTER FOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT Exhibit P20 A true copy of the certificate of one-year Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development Management awarded by the Institute of Rural Management, Anand, to respondent No.3 Exhibit P21 A true copy of the letter dated 07.09.1993 issued by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) Exhibit P22 A true copy of the communication dated 31.03.1994 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education in No. 27-49/B11/BOS(M)/94 23306 Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STAFF REGULATION FRAMED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.05.1994 BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR (DAIRY) IN NO.H2047/94/RCS