IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35579 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P. KRISHNANKUTTY, MECHERY PARAMBU, CHATHAMANGALAM, ACCOUNTANT, THIRUVAMPADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE THIRUVAMPADY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.56, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., KOZHIKODE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THIRUVAMPADY SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.L.56, THIRUVAMPADY REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 4. LISSIAMMA THOMAS, W/O. JOSEPH, THARAKKUNNEL HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE. 5. STATE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.P.P.JACOB FOR R4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 35579/2003. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.NO.21594/85 IN O.P.No. 7255/85 OF THIS COURT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R2 DTD.2.11.85. P3. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.26.3.86 OF THE SOCIETY. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.12.10.96 TO R2. P5. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.30.12.96 TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE. P6. COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DTD.12.12.96. P7. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DTD.9.1.97. P8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.6.2.97 TO R1. P9. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.6.3.97. P9A. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.14.3.97 BY R2. P10. COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.27.3.97 TO R1. P11. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 1798/98 OF THIS COURT. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1 DTD.15.6.98. P13. COPY OF THE RANK LIST. P14. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN PN 18649/98 OF THIS COURT. P15. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R5 DTD.16.8.03. P16. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.2.2.03 BEFORE R5. P17. COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE R5 DTD.10.8.02. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R4A. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 6577/85 DTD.5.8.85 OF THIS COURT. B. COPY OF THE -DO-14243/98 DTD.14.6.99 -DO- sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 35579 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition relates to a dispute regarding inter se seniority between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the cadre of Junior Clerk in the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank. Both were appointed on the same day, viz. 2.11.1985. But the 4th respondent joined earlier to the petitioner. The petitioner is senior in age also. In Ext.P6 seniority list, the petitioner was shown as Junior to the 4th respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the judgment in O.P.No.1798/1998, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P12 order in the appeal, wherein the 2nd respondent Bank was directed to regulate the seniority in accordance with the rank of the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the rank list prepared by the Bank for selection to the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order before the Government, which was disposed of as directed in Ext.P14 judgment, by Ext.P15 order wherein, the 4th respondent was declared as senior to the petitioner, since there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner got higher rank in the written test and interview conducted by the Bank for appointment. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order seeking the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records leading to Ext.P15 and quash the original of the same. b) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get seniority over the 4th respondent by virtue of Ext.P1 and P13. c) Issue a writ of mandamus to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to assign seniority to the petitioner over the 4th respondent in the light of Ext.P1 and P13.” 2. The 4th respondent claims to have filed a counter affidavit, a copy of which has been made available across the Bar, the original of w.p.c.35579/03 2 which does not find a place in the records of the Court. According to the 4th respondent, in the rank list prepared, the 4th respondent was the first rank holder in the rank list prepared in the selection process and, therefore, the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner. The petitioner would dispute the same. The 2nd respondent Bank has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. From the impugned orders, it is quite clear that the Bank has not been able to produce before respondents 1 and 5, the rank list prepared by the 2nd respondent for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk, pursuant to which, the petitioner and the 4th respondent were appointed. It is now admitted before me that the seniority has to be regulated on the basis of the rank in the rank list prepared for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk, pursuant to which, the petitioner and the 4th respondent were appointed. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1 interim order in O.P.No.7255/1985 filed by the petitioner himself. From a reading of the same, it is clear that that original petition was filed by the petitioner seeking reservation benefit as a SC candidate on the ground that the petitioner is the only applicant belonging to the SC/ST category in the selection. The 4th respondent would point out that in Ext.R4(b) judgment in O.P.No.14243/1998 filed by another candidate who participated in the selection process, challenging the selection of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, this Court had held that the 4th respondent herein, who was also the 4th respondent there, was the 1st rank holder in the selection. In that judgment also, the petitioner w.p.c.35579/03 3 herein, who was the 5th respondent in that original petition, is referred to as having been appointed in a vacancy reserved for SC candidate. There were only two vacancies at that time, for which selection was made and only two persons were appointed. If the petitioner was the first rank holder, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the petitioner to claim reservation benefit, because the first vacancy should have been filled up by the first ranked person in the rank list in the merit quota. If the petitioner was rank No.1 in the rank list, the petitioner would have been eligible for appointment in the unreserved post even before the vacancy reserved for SC candidate is filled up. The very fact that the petitioner claimed reservation benefit for appointment would go to show that but for the reservation benefit, the petitioner would not have got appointment at all. I am of opinion that that would be sufficient to hold that in the rank list prepared, the petitioner was not above the 4th respondent in the rank list. Consequently, although the petitioner is senior in age, since seniority has to be determined on the basis of the rank in the rank list, the petitioner cannot claim to be senior to the 4th respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.35579/03 4