Court upheld the petitioner's appointment despite sanction issues, emphasizing the validity of the appointment under existing regulations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who was appointed as a Peon, after having successfully completed the selection process in the 1^st respondent Society pursuant Ext.P2 order of appointment, is before this Court seeking to challenge the proceedings at Ext.P5, issued by the 2^nd respondent Joint Registrar, concluding that the appointment effected as above, has been without obtaining prior sanction as also challenging the show cause notice at Ext.P7 issued on that basis.

2. Heard Smt.Kavery S.Thampi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.Yadhu Kumar, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, as well as Sri. N.B Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.

3. The only issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the steps initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a show cause notice at Ext.P7 to terminate the petitioner from service, and also to recover the salary paid to the petitioner on the basis of the decision at Ext.P5, could be sustained or not.

4. As already noticed, the petitioner had been appointed as a Peon on the basis of the proceedings at Ext.P2 dated 28.03.2015. The allegation raised by the 2^nd respondent is that the petitioner has been appointed as a Peon on 28.03.2015, without obtaining sanction. At the same time, this Court notices that the branch to which the petitioner was appointed was sanctioned way back on 12.12.2012 as evidenced by Ext.P3. Later, in the year 2014, after having completed more than one year of functioning of the Manakkodam branch, the 1^st respondent society has decided to create posts of the Branch Manager, Junior Clerk, Peon etc. It is on that basis, a proposal was made to the Joint Registrar seeking approval. However, during the pendency of the afore, the petitioner was appointed as evidenced by Ext.P2. In other words, it is during the pendency of the proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P4 that the petitioner has been appointed. Therefore, ultimately, the question arising for consideration is as to whether such appointment could be carried out before obtaining permission, when steps have been taken by the society in that regard.

5. In this connection, this Court notices the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Rajesh N.T v. State of Kerala and others [2015 KHC 7024] , wherein this Court had taken into account an almost similar circumstance where a society had appointed an Attender, once the society was upgraded, prior to obtaining approval from the Joint Registrar. This Court took note of the mandate under Rule 188 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules , 1969, providing for staff pattern with reference to each society as indicated in Appendix - III, and found that the Joint Registrar could not insist that the society should have an approved staff pattern for making appointments at a particular point of time. In the case at hand also, this Court notices that on the basis of the provisions of the Rules as well as the Appendix, a decision was taken to seek approval for creation of the post of the Peon and it is on that basis, the petitioner has been appointed as evidenced by Ext.P2. When that be so, in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment in Rajesh N.T. (supra), I am of the opinion that the conclusion in Ext.P5 that the appointment effected to the petitioner was improper, cannot be sustained. Therefore, subsequent show cause notice at Ext.P7 seeking to terminate the petitioner as also to recover the salary paid to the petitioner also requires to be set aside.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition, setting aside Ext.P5 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent as well as Ext.P7 show cause notice issued by the 1^st respondent.

Sd/-