KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus K.N. RADHAMANI & ORS. ETC.ETC.

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 06-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 961
961
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
K.N. RADHAMANI & ORS. ETC.ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1802-1806 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 – ss. 80(3) and 109
– Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 – rr.186 and 187 –
Qualification criteria for appointment for the posts of clerk/cashier
in different cooperative banks from in-service category –
Employment notifications 1999 and 2006 for the posts of clerk/
cashier in different cooperative banks – Whether an applicant from
in-service category for the said posts, which carry starting pay
beyond Rs.250/- per month, was required to have minimum
educational qualification of graduation or not – Contention of in-
service candidates that for them SSLC or quivalent qualification
would be sufficient which essentially means school clearance
certificate – The KPSC had taken the stand that since the starting
pay to the subject-posts was beyond Rs.250/-, they ought to have
cleared graduation – This stand of KPSC was sustained in the case
of Valsala Devi v. Leela Bhai by the Kerala High Court – Appeal by
the unsuccessful candidates was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench
of the Supreme Court – However, matter referred to the Full Bench
of the High Court from an another matter upheld the contention of
the in-service candidates (who were not graduates) to be considered
for recruitment to the posts of clerk/cashier – On appeal, held: The
decision of the Full Bench was not brought to the notice of the
Coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court, when the appeal in the
case of Valsala Devi was dismissed – The case of Vasala Devi was
in relation to promotion whereas in the instant case, the vacancies
are to be filled by direct recruitment – The in-service candidates
primarily had relied on regulations (GOs) dated 15.06.1982,
30.09.1986 and 23.03.1988 before the Full Bench of the High Court
– The impact of these GOs was not brought before the Coordinate
Bench of the Supreme Court – Decision of the Coordinate Bench of
the Supreme Court would not constitute a binding precedent so far
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
as the present set of proceedings are concerned – According to
KPSC, the source of power of making these regulations (GOs) was
s. 80 of the Act – The GO of 1988 establishes that the State
Government had intended to keep in abeyance the benchmark pay
provision as specified in Rule 186 – For determining the educational
qualification of the in-service candidates the State Government has
proceeded by issuing various GOs without the benchmark pay
stipulation for recruitment to the posts of clerk/cashier from in-
service category and made SSLC qualification to be acceptable
eligibility criteria – This practice developed under 1969 Act is
indicative of the fact that for in-service candidates applying for
direct recruitment to the posts of clerk/cashier in District co-operative
Banks, the minimum eligibility criteria so far as eligibility is
concerned is SSLC or equivalent and floor-level pay stipulation
would not apply – If an advertisement is made providing for
eligibility criteria different from that statutorily prescribed, it would
be open to the candidates to challenge the legality of such eligibility
criteria – It was not permissible on the part of KPSC to prescribe
qualification as minimum eligibility criteria which is beyond that
prescribed by the statute.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The judicial exercise this Court has to undertake
is to examine the applicability of the provisions of Rule 186 made
under Section 109 of the 1969 Act and the scope of operation of
the Regulations made under Section 80 thereof. This Court does
not accept the argument that because these Regulations were
made without prior consultation with the State Co-operative
Unions, the Rules would not be implementable. KPSC itself relied
on the said provisions to justify making of the GO of 1986.
Moreover, following the Constitution Bench judgment in the case
of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, this Court hold that lack of
consultation as specified in Section 80(3) of the Act by itself would
not render any Rule made thereunder a stillborn statutory
instrument. KPSC’s own stand before  the Full Bench appeared
to be that rules made under Section 109 as also under Section 80
can co-exist. By issuing the 1982 order, the Registrar of the Co-
operative Societies had in substance s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.