THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1768 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent No.5 is a Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. It has framed byelaws and got them registered to govern its affairs and to stipulate the service conditions. It has three categories of employees, namely Secretary (Chief Executive Officer) Category-I, Accountant-cum- Clerk, Cashier, Salesman Category-II and Attender Category-III. The byelaws stipulate that the appointment to the post of Secretary shall be by way of promotion from the employees of Category-II. Posts in Category-II can also be filled up by the eligible candidates working in Category-III subject to certain conditions. The petitioner states that he has been appointed as a Clerk through a resolution, dated 30.07.1988. However, according to the Society, the appointment of the petitioner is on 28.02.1989. Respondent No.6, on the other hand, joined the services of the Society as an Attender on 20.05.1991. Within one month thereafter, the Society promoted him as Clerk on 22.06.1991. Recently, the post of Secretary/Chief Executive Officer fell vacant on account of the retirement of the incumbent. Through resolution, dated 14.06.2010, the Society promoted respondent No.6 as Chief Executive Officer. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that from the beginning, he is senior to respondent No.6 and the byelaws provide for filling up of the post only by way of promotion. He contends that there was absolutely no basis for the Society to promote respondent No.6 as Chief Executive Officer ignoring his seniority. The Society filed a counter-affidavit. The particulars of service of respondent No.6, as mentioned above, are admitted. It is stated that respondent No.6 is found to be more suitable to hold the post of Chief Executive Officer and accordingly, he was promoted. Respondent No.6 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the byelaws cannot be treated as enforceable provisions of law. He further submits that the Society has right to choose a person of its choice, who is suitable for the post of Chief Executive Officer. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The dispute is about the appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer. The byelaws of the Society not only stipulate the cadre, but also prescribe the procedure to be followed in making appointment to each of the categories. After stipulating the cadre and the qualifications of the posts, the byelaws in Chapter-II deal with the promotions in Clause 4; which reads as under: “Promotions: The Managing Committee shall consider promotions of higher posts based on seniority-cum-merit. Promotions cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Eligibility for promotion: For being promoted to higher category, the individual working in the lower category should have the required qualification, to that particular category and should have put in 5 years of service in lower category. Category-I: Secretary: The Committee shall fill the post of a Secretary from the category-II if there is an eligible candidate with minimum qualifications prescribed for post and within 5 years of experience. Category-II: The Committee may also fill up the posts of Category II among the eligible candidates working in Category III of the Society provided nothing adverse is found against them and they should have acquired the requisite educational qualifications as prescribed for Category-II. Category-III: Attender.” From this, it is clear that the appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer is purely by way of promotion and hardly there is any element of selection. The record discloses that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.6. Even the initial appointment of respondent No.6 as Attender is much subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk. The amount of influence, which respondent No.6 is wielding upon the management of the Society, is evident from the fact that within one month from the date of being appointed as Attender, he was promoted as clerk. It is not known as to whether the affairs of the Society were subjected to any audit and inspections and any objection was raised in this regard. That, however, is a different aspect. Once, it emerges that the appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer is by way of promotion simplicitor and that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.6, there was no way the Society could have promoted the latter ignoring the seniority of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the resolution, dated 14.06.2010, through which the Society promoted respondent No.6 is set aside. The Society is directed to affect promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officer afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:14.09.2011. kdl