Promotions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules require adherence to a hierarchy among feeder categories; direct promotions from lower categories violate these rules.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 1,2 and 5 in W.P. (C) No.31152/2022, challenging the judgment dated 11.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein.

2. The first respondent herein/writ petitioner claims to be the former Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Society. He was appointed as Salesman on 05.02.1990 and was promoted as Junior Clerk, Senior Clerk, Accountant and as Secretary with effect from 01.11.2017. Initially, consequent to the arising of a vacancy in the post of Secretary on 01.08.2014, the first respondent was appointed as Secretary-in-charge. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent as per Resolution No.999 dated 06.02.2018 promoted the first respondent as Secretary with effect from 01.11.2017. Consequently, the managing committee also took a decision to create a supernumerary post of Internal Auditor by resolution No. 1000, dated 06.02.2018. The first respondent had acquired the necessary qualification as per Rule 186 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) for promotion to the post of Secretary. Thereafter, the resolutions were forwarded by the Society to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as per Ext.P2. The Managing Committee also as per Ext.P3 resolution No.1085 dated 03.03.2018 decided to request the Joint Registrar to approve the creation of a supernumerary post of Internal Auditor and obtain approval for the promotion to the post of Secretary with effect from 01.11.2017. But the Joint Secretary issued Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.08.2019 stating that the resolution of the Society, promoting the first respondent to the post of Secretary cannot be approved. The same was challenged by the first respondent before the 3^rd appellant, by filing Ext.P11 appeal dated 23.3.2022. But the 3^rd appellant rejected the appeal upholding Ext.P10, as per Ext.P12 order. It is hence, challenging Exts.P10 and P12, the first respondent filed the afore writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge by judgment 11.11.2022, after hearing both sides and considering the materials on record, allowed the writ petition and set aside Exts.P10 and P12.

4. Heard Adv.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Adv.Harisankar N Unni, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single judge has allowed the writ petition without considering Rule 185 of the Rules in a correct perspective. Relying on the decision in Padmaja K. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General) and Others, 2008 KHC 6878, he submitted that the benefit of the 2^nd proviso to Rule 185 (1) works only in the zone of feeder category and its immediate lower category and it does not admit any elasticity, so as to stretch it to categories which are further down in the Feeder Category Rules. He argued that by applying the afore proviso, the first respondent, who was working as an Accountant at the relevant time, can only be promoted as an Assistant Secretary, by creating a supernumerary post of Internal Auditor or Branch Manager and that too, if he has the requisite qualifications. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the second proviso to Rule 185 (5) of the Rules in favour of the 1^st respondent, since the same is applicable only in cases where appointment is made to 10% of the vacancies in the post, and since there is only one post of Secretary/Assistant Secretary, where the afore reservation cannot be made appli