Summary
The Court upheld eligibility of non-graduate in-service candidates for direct recruitment as clerks/cashiers in the cooperative banks under the applicable special regulations. SSLC with JDC and three years’ relevant experience sufficed; the Commission could not import the general rule’s revised-pay benchmark to insist on graduation. Its appeals and transferred writ appeal were dismissed. Separately, two candidates’ appeals failed for delay, and another applicant was denied antedated promotion after choosing a different selection route.
Issues
- Whether the special cooperative-bank regulations displaced the general pay-linked graduation requirement for in-service direct recruits.
- Whether the earlier coordinate decision or lack of consultation defeated reliance on those regulations.
- Whether delayed challenges and the request for antedated promotion warranted relief.
Provisions considered
- Section 80(3), read with Section 109(1) and (2)(xv), Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969The special service regulations for District/Central Cooperative Banks were reconciled with the general qualification rules; absence of the specified consultation alone did not invalidate their operation. (¶¶ 2, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Rules 186 and 187, read with the 1988 Service Regulations, clause 8(i)(b), Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969For the relevant in-service direct recruitment, SSLC with JDC and three years’ experience was the special prescribed qualification, without the general floor-pay benchmark. (¶¶ 3, 4, 13, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26)
Held
- The applicable instruments were to be read harmoniously. The 1982 instruction and 1988 special service regulations, together with their consistent implementation, supported eligibility of in-service non-graduates possessing SSLC or equivalent, JDC and the required experience for these bank posts without the general pay benchmark. The special regulations prevailed for that category. (¶¶ 11, 13, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Failure to consult the State Cooperative Union as specified in Section 80(3) did not by itself make the regulations inoperative. The Commission had itself relied on the same rule-making source for the earlier regulations and could not disregard their later alteration. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The earlier coordinate decision did not control these proceedings: the promotion context and the statutory instruments and Full Bench reasoning now examined had not been considered there. The Commission could not in these circumstances prescribe a minimum qualification beyond the applicable statutory requirement. Its five appeals and transferred writ appeal were dismissed. (¶¶ 16, 17, 24, 25, 26)
- The two candidates’ appeals challenging dismissal for delay were separately dismissed. Recruitment affects many candidates, and belated challenges to eligibility conditions can disrupt completed selections; prompt recourse is required. (¶ 18)
- The Commission was to take appropriate steps for the intervention applicants on the basis of their performance or selection position. The applicant who had entered a different selection process, obtained Class IV appointment and later promotion as clerk was denied antedating of that promotion. No costs were ordered. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
Result
Commission’s appeals and transferred writ appeal dismissed; two delayed candidates’ appeals also dismissed. Selection-position directions issued and antedated-promotion request rejected. No costs.