Mandatory cooperative training qualification is a condition precedent to appointment, not merely selection.

The Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies State Recruitment Bureau issued a notification dated 02.11.2012 for 3,589 posts of Assistant in 17 categories of cooperative societies.

The notification permitted candidates without a Diploma in Cooperative Training to participate in the selection, subject to their completing the Diploma within two years of appointment.

Following the written examination and interview, 3,577 candidates were selected, of whom 2,161 had not completed the prescribed cooperative training.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Tamil Nadu State Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Employees Association v. K.B.N. Karthika, SLP (C) No.17977 of 2014, dated 28.11.2014, the Department treated cooperative training as a condition precedent to appointment, issued selection orders in March 2015, and required the selected candidates to complete the Diploma in Cooperative Training within one year.

The petitioners executed undertakings agreeing to complete the training within one year and waiving claims to appointment if they failed to do so.

Instead of obtaining the prescribed Diploma from Tamil Nadu Cooperative Training Institutes, the petitioners relied on Postgraduate Diplomas in Cooperative Management obtained through distance education from Annamalai University.

Their requests for appointment were rejected on 31.10.2016 because the qualification was not accepted as equivalent to the prescribed Diploma.

Two writ petitions were allowed by the Single Judge, who directed appointment followed by completion of training within two years; the Department preferred the present writ appeals, while similarly placed candidates filed connected writ petitions.

Whether a Postgraduate Diploma in Cooperative Management obtained through distance education from Annamalai University satisfied the prescribed qualification of Diploma in Cooperative Training/Management from a Tamil Nadu Cooperative Training Institute?

Whether the petitioners, having been selected without possessing the prescribed cooperative-training qualification, were entitled to appointment first and to complete the qualification within two years thereafter, as stated in the recruitment notification?

Whether requiring the selected candidates to obtain the qualification before appointment, and within one year pursuant to their undertakings, amounted to an impermissible change in the rules of recruitment?

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, including the requirement that cooperative training/Diploma in Cooperative Management is an essential qualification for appointment.

It relied principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tamil Nadu State Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Employees Association v. K.B.N. Karthika, SLP (C) No.17977 of 2014, dated 28.11.2014, which held that where cooperative training is an essential qualification, it is a condition precedent to appointment, although candidates may be permitted to participate in selection before acquiring it.

The Court further relied on Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 181, for the principle that training required before appointment does not form part of regular service.

The Court further relied on Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna, (2016) 9 SCC 313, for the distinction between selection and appointment and the rule that selection does not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The Court also considered Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Graduate Teachers Welfare Society v. Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association, (2009) 14 SCC 517, and Gopal Krushna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig, (1999) 1 SCC 544, but held that the principle against changing the rules of the game was not attracted because the essential qualification had not been altered.

The Court held that the qualification prescribed by the recruitment notification was not merely departmental training but an educational qualification to be acquired from the designated Tamil Nadu Cooperative Training Institutes.

The Annamalai University postgraduate diploma was not acceptable because the notification specifically required the prescribed institutional qualification and the curriculum materially differed, particularly in subjects such as cooperative laws, financial accounting and auditing, business development planning and policy.

The Court distinguished selection from appointment: selection only entitled the petitioners to be considered, whereas appointment could follow only upon possession of the mandatory qualification.

The notification’s reference to acquiring the qualification within two years did not confer a vested right to appointment without the qualification.

In view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.B.N. Karthika, the Department was entitled to permit participation and selection first, while insisting on completion of the qualification before appointment.

The requirement to complete the qualification within one year was also accepted by the petitioners through written undertakings, and the Court found no alteration of the essential eligibility criteria or arbitrariness in the Department’s action.

The Postgraduate Diploma in Cooperative Management obtained through distance education from Annamalai University did not satisfy the prescribed Diploma in Cooperative Training qualification.

The petitioners had no vested or enforceable right to appointment merely because they had been successful in the selection process; possession of the prescribed cooperative-training qualification was a condition precedent to appointment.

Accordingly, both writ appeals were allowed, the orders of the Single Judge directing appointment were set aside, and all connected writ petitions were dismissed.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.