1. A member of a Society, incidentally its former employee, questions in this Writ Petition the mode of recruitment sought to be adopted by the Society after amending its Feeder Category sub-Rules. This amendment, too, is called in question. On the other hand, the Society has a countervailing question as regards the petitioner’s standing in filing the writ petition.

2. The petitioner, who was earlier an employee of the first respondent Bank, is now its member holding shares. He has filed the writ petition questioning the amendment effected to Ext.P2(a) Feeder Category Rules providing for direct recruitment, apart from appointment by promotion, as a source of recruitment to the post of General Manager. He has further assailed Ext.P1 notification issued by the third respondent pursuant to Ext.P2(a) amended Feeder Category Rules, seeking to fill up the post of General Manager through direct recruitment.

3. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Section 13A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (‘the Act’), the bye-laws, including the Recruitment Rules, shall be in consonance with the statutory provisions either as per the principal enactment or the Rules made thereunder.

4. The learned counsel has laid specific emphasis on Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules (‘the Rules’) to contend that, to the post of General Manager in the first respondent Bank, the only mode of appointment is by way of promotion. According to him, Ext.P2(a) cannot be sustained in the face of the statutory mandate under Rule 185(2)(iv).

5. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that earlier Rule 185 was to the effect that ‘ordinarily’ filling up the post of General Manager should be by way of promotion. Subsequently, through an amendment dated 28.04.1999, the word ‘ordinarily’ has been removed. The amendment deleting the expression ‘ordinarily’, according to the learned counsel, leaves no room for ambiguity that appointment by promotion is the only acceptable mode of recruitment to the post of General Manager.

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that the first respondent Bank has not been financially performing well. According to him, it was surviving with meager profits. At this juncture, appointing a person as General Manager through the process of direct recruitment, according to the learned counsel, is imprudent. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Mohanan and others v. State of Kerala and others 2010 (3) KHC 634).

7. On the converse, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the contrary, has submitted, to begin with, that the ratio of the decision in Mohanan (supra) has no application to the case at hand. He has submitted that in Mohanan, the issue was whether it was advisable to have recruitment when the Bank was sustaining losses. The learned counsel in that regard has submitted that the petitioner has never questioned the filling up of the post; at best, he has only questioned the mode of filling up of the post. In elaboration, the learned counsel has submitted that either by way of promotion or by way of direct recruitment, once a post is filled, the financial impact on the respondent Bank is one and the same. As such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold.

8. The learned counsel has laid specific emphasis on the standing of the petitioner in filing the writ petition. He has specifically contended that the petitioner, in fact, has been espousing the cause of one of the employees who may stand to gain as a result of the present litigation. In other words, the petitioner lacks bona fides, and this Court cannot entertain the writ petition.

9. As regards Ext.P2 (a) amended Feeder Category Rules, the learned counsel has submitted that initially by way of resolution, the Managing Committee proposed the amendment and later had it approved by a statutory authority, the Joint Registra