The approval of staff patterns for promotions in a cooperative society is not required unless there is a deviation from established statutory patterns.

JUDGMENT

The issue in this writ petition is whether the approval of the feeder category rules is a pre-condition to effect any promotions in a society though the staff pattern already stands fixed by Rule 188 and Appendix-III of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for brevity).

2. The facts in brief are that the third respondent- Society was established in 1993, with a skeletal staff of one Attender and an Honorary Secretary. In fact, the petitioner was appointed on 28.01.2005 as an Attender through Exhibit P4.

3. Later, in the course of time, with the improved performance of the Society, it was upgraded to be Class I. As a consequence, the Joint Registrar through Exhibit P6 dated 04.04.2008, sanctioned one post of Secretary. Soon thereafter, the Society promoted the petitioner through Exhibit P7 dated 08.04.2008, as Secretary, given the fact that he was working in the feeder category and that he was eligible in all respects to be promoted. In the wake of the petitioner's promotion as Secretary, the third respondent- Society sought from the Joint Registrar the approval of his promotion. It is not clear from the record whether in 2008 itself the third respondent-Society sought the approval of the petitioner's promotion.

4. It is, however, not in dispute that in 2011 the third respondent-Society passed Exhibit P8 resolution requesting the Joint Registrar to approve the feeder category sub-rules and also to approve the petitioner's promotion as Secretary. In response, the Joint Registrar issued Exhibit P9 proceedings rejecting the third respondent's request on the 3 premise that the petitioner had been promoted to a non- existing post, without prior sanction. Since Exhibit P9 rejection is said to be technical, the third respondent- Society once again passed Exhibit P10/2 resolution and submitted it to the Joint Registrar for approval of the feeder category sub-rules and also the petitioner's promotion. In that context, the Joint Registrar through Exhibit P10 dated 26.11.2011, having approved the feeder category sub-rules, also approved the petitioner's promotion as Secretary. But, it was only from 26.11.2011—prospectively. Under these circumstances, aggrieved by the prospective approval rather than from 07.04.2008, the initial date of promotion, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. It is pertinent to observe that in the light of the objection raised by the Auditors, the third respondent issued Exhibits P11 and P13 notices to the petitioner seeking to recover from his salary the alleged excess pay he 4 had drawn in the capacity of Secretary prior to the approval of his promotion. Thus, the petitioner has laid a comprehensive challenge against the prospective approval of his promotion and also the proposed recovery of alleged excess pay.

6. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that, as the Society has been assigned Class I status, the staff pattern in terms of Rule 188 read with Appendix III stands automatically approved. And there can be no impediment for the third respondent-Society to effect either appointment or promotion in terms thereof. In other words, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel that once the Joint Registrar, through Exhibit P6, sanctioned the post of Secretary, either appointment or promotion in terms of the statutorily fixed staff pattern needs no further approval. According to him, it does not require any prior sanction 5 either. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Sherthallai Urban Co.op Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1984 KLT 971 and Elampal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Government of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT 389.

7. The learned counsel for the third respondent Society, in petitioner's support, has submitted that the petitioner was eminently eligible to be promoted. Ever since the date of his promotion, i.e., 08.04.2008, he has continued to discharge his duties as