Kerala High Court
A.P. Gireesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 2 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WA NO. 1781 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2022 IN WP(C) 26361/2020 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.P. GIREESH KUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O PRABHAMANI, ANNATTU HOUSE, POOYAPPILLY KARA,
VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683522
BY ADVS.
M.PAUL VARGHESE
M.M.MONAYE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY
THULASSI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANDAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DISTRICT OFFICE ERNAKULAM, COCHIN M.G ROAD P.O, KOCHI,
PIN - 682016
4 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, (NOW THE
:2:
W.A.No.1781 of 2022
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD)
KAKKANAD, KOCHI, REPRESETED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PIN - 682030
6 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
CO-BANK TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695001
7 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD
CO-BANK TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIR PERSON, PIN - 695001
8 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD ERNAKULAM BRANCH,
(FORMERLY THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD)
KAKKANAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
PIN - 682030
BY ADV SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC, KERALA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
W.A.No.1781 of 2022
JUDGMENT
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The appellant, who holds a graduate degree of B.Com with Co-
operation, had impugned Rule 186(1)(ia)(i) of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Rules as discriminatory and unconstitutional since it
prescribes a minimum aggregate score of 50% for graduate holders
other than graduates with B.Sc in Co-operation who aspire for the post
of Branch Manager or an equivalent post in the District Co-operative
Banks. In the Writ Petition, it was the case of the appellant/writ
petitioner that the substantive vacancies in the post of Branch Manager
in the District Co-operative Banks had to be filled up by promotion and
direct recruitment in the ratio of 3:1 and in the quota earmarked for
direct recruitment there was a 50% reservation contemplated for in-
service candidates. While he satisfied the requirement of being an in-
service candidate for the purposes of seeking recruitment under the
direct recruitment quota, his application was rejected by the Public
Service Commission, which was entrusted with the selection process,
on the ground that he did not satisfy the qualification requirements. In
W.A.No.1781 of 2022
otherwords, his application was rejected on the ground that he did not
have the required 50% of marks in the aggregate for the B.Com with
Co-operation degree that he held. In the Writ Petition, the challenge
was to the vires of Rule 186(1) (ia)(i) to the extent it insisted on a
minimum of 50% marks in the aggregate in the graduation examination
for graduates holding the degree of B.Com with Co-operation when a
similar requirement was not insisted upon under the Rules for
graduates holding a degree of B.Sc (Co-operation and Banking) of
Kerala Agricultural University. It is significant that a similar insistence
of 50% marks in the aggregate is also insisted from graduates holding
the degree of B.Com (with Co-operation) recognised by any of the
Universities in Kerala. The contention of the appellant in the Writ
Petition was essentially that there was no intelligible differentia
informing the prescription of differential qualification for the same post,
that had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through
the prescription of qualifications under the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Rules.
2. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found
that the appellant had not established that there was any discrimination
meted out to candidates holding a graduate degree of B.Com with Co-
operation since there was nothing on record to suggest that the policy
W.A.No.1781 of 2022
consideration that weighed with the rule making authority while
prescribing differential qualification for recruitment to the post was in
any way flawed or irrational. The learned Judge also found that at any
rate, the appellant could not aspire for recruitment pursuant to the
current notification since there was no challenge to the Rules prior to
his applying for the post pursuant to the notification. It was found that
even if the appellant succeeded in a challenge against the vires of a
rule, he could aspire for the post in question only in subsequent
recruitments.
3. In the appeal before us, although it is the vehement contention
of Sri.M.Paul Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the
prescription of differential qualification and insistence on a minimum
aggregate of 50% in the graduate degree for some of the qualifications
to the exclusion of others is discriminatory in that the classification
brought about is not based on any intelligible differentia that bears
nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Rule in question, we do
not see any material that would establish such alleged arbitrary
classification. It is trite that the recruitment rules of any establishment
manifest the recruitment policy of that establishment, and in the event
of a challenge against the said policy decision, it is incumbent upon the
W.A.No.1781 of 2022
person alleging discrimination to produce materials to show that the
policy decision is inherently flawed or irrational. In the absence of any
such material in the Writ Petition or in this Writ Appeal, we see no
reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The
Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
mns
