IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 1621 of 2004 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13458/2004 Dated 27/07/2004 .................... APPELLANT: 4TH RESPONENT IN THE WP(C) ------------------------------------------------- K.V.RAJANI, W/O. PRADEEP, AGED 40 YEARS, LAW OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.R.SEEMA SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WP(C) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SRI.K.ABDUL SHUKUR NAHA DEPUTY MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OP.AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OP. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN ADV. SRI S. SHYAM ADV. SRI.V.V.MATHEW ADV. SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI FOR R1 R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BENNY GERVACIZ SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KSCOARDBANK FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No 1621 of 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J. Writ petitioner, first respondent herein, commenced service as Statistical Officer in the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited on 17.11.1993. He was appointed to that post by order dated 05.11.1993. Appellant, fourth respondent in the writ petition, was also appointed as Law Officer as per order dated 05.11.1993 and joined duty on 17.11.1993. Therefore, the dates of appointment and joining duty of both the writ petitioner and the appellant are the same. Method of appointment to the post of Deputy Manager prescribed as per feeder category rules is as follows: “By promotion from Assistant Managers and LO/SO already officiating as Asst. Manager in a ratio of 4:1 between Assistant Manager and LO/SO.” So when a vacancy of Deputy Manager arises, ratio of 4:1 has to be maintained; i. e, four posts have to be filled up from the post of WA 1621/04 2 Assistant Managers and one post has to be filled up by Law Officer/Statistical Officer. There is no internal ratio for promotion to the post of Law Officer/Statistical Officer. Under Rule 185 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules combined seniority of the incumbents has to be looked into. When the post of Deputy Manager arose writ petitioner was appointed to that post by Ext P2 order dated 18.12.2003. That was challenged by the fourth respondent. By Ext. P7 Registrar reversed the same and held that the appellant (fourth respondent) is entitled to get promotion in the place of the writ petitioner as he was senior. The reasoning of the Registrar was that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent have commenced service on the same day and both were appointed by the same order. Therefore considering the age factor since appellant is two years elder than the writ petitioner he should be considered senior based upon Rule 27(ii) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. But the learned judge held that seniority was equal and the Bank applied its mind and there is no reason for the Registrar to disturb the promotion effected by the Bank. In appeal, apart from the contention that appellant is senior, it was also argued that when a vacancy arose consequent on the WA 1621/04 3 promotion of K. Somasekharan Nair, who was a Law Officer, as Regional Manager the Bank promoted appellant a Law Officer being a more rightful claimant. Further it is pointed out that the previous promotion to the post of Deputy Manager was from the category of Statistical Officer as one Aparna Prathap, Statistical Officer was promoted as Deputy Manager. So the next vacancy will go to appellant even if the reasoning of the Bank is accepted, It is also pointed out that there was no ratio fixed between Law Officer and Statistical Officer for promotion and therefore senior of the persons should be promoted. He further pointed out that the number of sanctioned posts of Deputy Manager is 20, the number of sanctioned post of Law Officer is 15 and the number of sanctioned post of Statistical Officer is 2. Therefore, ratio of 50:50 cannot be maintained for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. From these categories, in the absence of any rule, the category of Law Officer and Statistical Officer should be clubbed together and common seniority has to be looked into. 2. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the entire order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is erroneous and he has no jurisdiction at all after the formation of the Arbitral WA 1621/04 4 Tribunal. Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act provides that inter se seniority, promotion etc. has to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. Even the pending proceeding has to be transferred to the Arbitration Court as provided in Section 70 B of the Act. Counsel also relied on the decision of this court in Raveendran v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 558). It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that since the judgment of the learned single judge was stayed in the writ appeal, appellant was promoted as Deputy Manager subject to the decision in the writ appeal and the writ petitioner was reverted as Statistical Officer by order dated 15.11.2004 provisionally and subject to the result of the writ appeal. It is further submitted that in a further vacancy writ petitioner was also promoted with effect from 05.05.2008 and both of them are working as Deputy Managers. It was argued that absence of juniors based on Section 69 was not earlier pleaded. We are of the view, since jurisdiction is vested with Arbitral Court the question regarding inter se seniority has to be dealt with by the Arbitral Court itself. Therefore Arbitral Court should decide the matter regarding the inter se seniority between the candidates. Status quo as on today will continue till a decision is taken by the Arbitral Court determining the WA 1621/04 5 inter se seniority between the appellant and the writ petitioner. Both parties can file detailed representation stating their points before the Arbitral Court with a copy of this judgment and the matter will be decided by the Arbitral Court within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation from either of the parties. Government Pleader is also directed to furnish a copy of this judgment to the Arbitral Court for compliance. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- J.B. KOSHY Judge Sd/- K.P. BALACHANDRAN Judge 11/08/2008 en [true copy]