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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2021
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.
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)
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2024
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP
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
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
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
