Eligibility for a statutory qualifying examination cannot be restricted solely to employees within a specific feeder category when relevant regulations permit broader advancement to promotional posts in the absence of qualified feeder-category candidates, as such examinations serve as an independent mechanism for professional qualification.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The point in controversy in this case is whether the stipulation by the 1st respondent – the Co – Operative Service Examination Board (‘Board’ for short) – that only employees in the feeder category to the post of Assistant Secretary / Manager can apply for the statutory qualifying examination, is incorrect or otherwise.

2. The learned Single Judge has found the stipulation to be valid; against which, the appellant – who is a candidate sponsored by the 3rd respondent bank for the examination – is in appeal.

3. Sri. P. C. Sasidharan, learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out that, as per Ext.P4 notification, the Board has called for persons to apply and sit for the qualifying examination – which is conducted as per under Rule 185(5) of the Kerala Co –Operative Societies Rules (‘Rules’ for short); and hence, that the further stipulation therein, that it is confined to a class of candidates who are in the feeder category to the post of Assistant Secretary/Manager, was unnecessary and illegal. He explained the matrix of the factual situation, that his client was working as a Senior Clerk – which is not a post in the feeder category to the post of Assistant Secretary at the relevant time; but that since there was no accountant— being the only post in the feeder category—available at that time, she could apply for promotion to it, once she acquires test qualification. He contended that, therefore, the impugned stipulation in Ext.P4 is illegal and unlawful; and consequently the learned Single Judge is in error.

4. Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, appearing for the 2^nd respondent, in response, submitted that Ext.P4 appears to have been so worded by the Board only because, promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary / Manager would be entitled only to a candidate who is in the feeder category; and hence, that allowing others to take the qualifying examination would be unnecessary. He, however, conceded that, under the proviso to Section 185(1) of the “Rules”, when there are no qualified persons in the feeder category, a person with essential qualification in the next lower post can also be considered.

5. We are surely of the view that it is unnecessary for the exclusion of the appellant from the purview of Ext.P4 notification, for the reasons that we presently state.

6. Admittedly, the appellant was working as a Senior Clerk and the candidate just above, namely in the post of accountant, was not qualified because he or she did not have graduation. As per the proviso to Rule 185(1) of the Rules, the appellant could have sought to be appointed as an Assistant Secretary, but that is not an issue that we have to decide at this stage.

7. However, the afore has some relevance to the situation we are now considering because, it is the specific case of Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, on behalf of the appellant, that his client is always entitled to clear the qualifying examination even when she is not in the feeder category because her chance to be in such post would come in the future. He impressed upon us that, nowhere in the Rules, is it mandatory that the qualifying examination can be taken only by a candidate who has already reached the feeder category.

8. There is certainly force in the submissions of Sri. P. C. Sasidharan; and we are without doubt that there was no justified reason why the appellant should have been excluded from an opportunity under Ext. P4.

9. We notice that there is an interim order issued by another learned Division Bench in this appeal, whereby, the appellant was allowed to take the examination; and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan asserts that she has b