IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1284 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17096/2004 Dated 09/06/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ------------------------------- 1. M.KRISHNAN, SECTION SUPERINTENDENT (BRANCH MANAGER), HEAD OFFICE, KASARGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KASARAGOD. 2. N.BABY, SUPERINTENDENT, HEAD OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------- 1. C.BALAKRISHNAN, BRANCH MANAGER, CHERKALA BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHENGALA P.O., KASARAGOD. 2. N.UNNIKRISHNAN, SUPERINTENDENT, D SECTION, HEAD OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KASARAGOD. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.A.NO.1284/2009 5. THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KASARAGOD. 6. M.PRABHAKARAN, BRANCH MANAGER, CHERUVATHUR BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD. SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 & R2. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R5. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.A.G.ANEETHA FOR R3 & R4. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------- W.A No. 1284 OF 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are respondents 5 and 6 in the Writ Petition. The respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The appellants and respondents 1 and 2, were working in the cadre of Branch Manager/ Section Superintendent. The appellants were seniors in the feeder category and when temporary promotions were ordered to the above post, they were promoted ahead of respondents 1 and 2. But, the appellants were not having the qualifications for promotion prescribed as per the Co-operative Societies Rules. But, the Managing Committee of the Bank moved the Registrar of the Societies for relaxation of the qualification. By Ext.P6 order, the Registrar granted relaxation to the appellants and three others from the obligatory qualification of graduation for promotion as Branch Manger. But, it was specifically ordered W.A.No.1284/2009 2 that the relaxation will take effect only from the date of resolution passed by the Bank. Resolution No.14 dated 26.7.1995, which is read as first paper in Ext.P6, is the resolution of the Bank requesting the Registrar to relax the qualification. 3. In view of the above, the appellants could claim seniority in the cadre of Branch Manager only from 26.7.1995. Since respondents 1 and 2 were promoted earlier to that date, they were placed as seniors to the appellants in Ext.P10 Revised Seniority list. Though, in the earlier list published, the appellants were shown as seniors, in Ext.P10 they were placed below respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the said assignment of seniority, the appellants moved the Registrar. The Registrar upheld their contentions and directed to grant them seniority above the respondents 1 and 2 by Ext.P11. On appeal, the said order was affirmed by the Government by Ext.P13. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the Writ Petition challenging Exts.P11 and P13. The learned Single Judge noticed that the appellants could get seniority only from 26.7.1995 and as respondents 1 and 2 herein were promoted earlier, the impugned proceedings W.A.No.1284/2009 3 Exts.P11 and P13 were quashed and the seniority position of the respondents 1 and 2 herein in Ext.P10 seniority list was restored. Feeling aggrieved by said judgment, respondents 5 and 6 have preferred this appeal. 4. We heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the fact that the respondents 1 and 2 were promoted before 26.7.1995 and the appellants could get regular promotion to the Branch Manager only from the said date, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned judge in the judgment under appeal. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps