IMPORTANT POINTS
• Section 101 of the Act and Rule 185(1) of the Rules would reveal the existence of powers with the Government to grant exemptions from any of the provisions to a society or a class of society
• The mere absence of persons in the feeder category to a post falling thereunder by itself cannot be a reason to hold that it is a case where doctrine of necessity could be imported.

JUDGMENT :

1. When the statutory prescription under Rule 185(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for brevity 'the Rules") for filling up a particular post in a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity 'the Act") is by promotion whether dehoring the statutory mandate it can be filled by direct recruitment? This and allied questions crop up for consideration in these intra-court appeals arising from the judgment in WP(C)No.2274/2009 dated 04.04.2019. The parties are reffered hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their rank and status in the said writ petition unless otherwise specifically mentioned. The learned single Judge considered the said main question and answered it in the negative and interfered with Ext.P2 notification issued by the Co-operative Service Examination Board to the extent it relates to the 2nd respondent-Bank.

2. The facts from which the said question germanes are as follows:-

The 3rd respondent-Co-operative Service Examination Board issued Ext.P2 notification for appointment to the posts of Secretary, Chief Accountant and Branch Manager in Kizhuvilam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, the second respondent. In fact, different posts in various co-operative Banks were also notified thereunder. As per Ext.P2 those posts in the 2nd respondent-Bank are sought to be filled up through direct recruitment. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners who are employees of the 2nd respondent-Bank filed the above mentioned writ petition. Petitioners 1 to 3 are working as Senior Clerks and petitioners 4 and 5 are working as Junior Clerk and Bill Collector respectively under the 2nd respondent. As noticed hereinbefore, their contentions were upheld by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was virtually allowed. It is feeling aggrieved by the said judgment that the 2nd respondent-Bank filed the former writ appeal and the 5th respondent therein viz., its Board of Directors filed the latter writ appeal. Since these appeals arise from the very same judgment in WP(C)No.2274/2019 they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Heard Adv. Sri.T.R.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ the appellant in the former appeal, Adv.Sri.D.Somasundaram, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent/ the appellant in the latter appeal, Adv.Sri.Nandakumara Menon, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents 1 to 5 as also the learned senior Government Pleader.

4. As noticed hereinbefore, petitioners 1 to 5 are employees under the 2nd respondent-Bank. Admittedly, none of them is working in the feeder category of any of the notified posts viz., Secretary, Chief Accountant and Branch Manager. Except the first writ petitioner, none of them possessed all the requisite qualifications for appointment to the aforesaid posts. As regards the first petitioner though he possessed all the prescribed qualifications for appointment even to the post of Secretary is not presently working in the feeder category to any of the notified posts. The contention of the appellant in the former appeal viz., the 2nd respondent-Bank is that it is the absence of fully qualified hands in the feeder category to the aforesaid posts that constrained the bank to report those vacancies to the Co-operative Service Examination Board, which ultimately culminated in Ext.P2 notification for direct recruitment. The 2nd respondent-Bank contended that in the absence of fully qualified hands in the feeder category it is permissible to effect direct recruitment to the aforesaid posts through the Co-operative Service Examination Board. The 5th respondent in the O.P, viz., the appellant in the latter appeal would also endorse the contentions of the appellant in the former appeal. The petitioners 1 to 5 would contend in the light of the interdiction under Rule 185 (1) of the Rules and in view of the indisputable fact that the notified posts do not belong to the cate