IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17096 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. C.BALAKRISHNAN, BRANCH MANAGER, CHERKALA BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHENGALA P.O. KASARAGOD. 2. N.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SUPERINTENDENT, D SECTION, HEAD OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OEPRATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OEPRATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KASARAGOD. 4. M.PRABHAKARAN, BRANCH MANAGER, CHERUVATHUR BRANCH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK LTD. CHERUVATHUR P.O. KASARAGOD. 5. M.KRISHNAN, SECTION SUPERINTENDENT, (BRANCH MANAGER) HEAD OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KASARAGOD. 6. N.BABY, SUPERINTENDENT, HEAD OFFICE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R3 SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM FOR R4TO6 SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 & 2 SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR,SC.CO.OP.E COMMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17096/04 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B/91-92 DT 21.12.1991. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B/95-96 DT 2.5.1995. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.14 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK DT 26.7.1995. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.EM(1) 32575/95 DT 26.9.1995. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST NO.B/95-96 DT 27.3.1996. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.EM(1) 32575/1995 DT 5.8.1996. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST ALONGWITH THE PROCEEDINGS DT 14.6.1996. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.8/98/CO-O; DT 6.1.1998. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B/97-98 DT 20.12.1997 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST ALONGWITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EM(1) 6222/2000 DT 19.9.2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.4488/2000 DT 5.10.2002. EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO.180/04/CO-OP DT 25.3.2004. EXTS. OF R5 EXT.R5(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17096 OF 2004 (I) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P11 and P13 and for a direction to the respondents to restore seniority of the petitioners, as shown in Ext.P10. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. 2. Facts of the case, in so far as the controversy in this writ petition is concerned, show that the petitioners who are qualified to be promoted, were promoted as Branch Managers w.e.f. 21/12/91 and 2/5/95 respectively as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders. In so far as respondents 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, they were unqualified candidates and inspite of it, were promoted as Branch Managers w.e.f. 9/7/91, 23/12/91 and 26/10/92 respectively. Subsequent to their promotion, the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent Bank passed Ext.P3 resolution dated 26/7/95 resolving to relax qualifications in so far as respondents 4, 5 and 6 are concerned subject to approval of the Registrar. The request made to the Joint Registrar for approval was rejected by Ext.P4 and respondents 4, 5 and 6 were ordered WPC 17096/04 :2 : to be reverted. The Bank again by Ext.P5 sought reconsideration of Ext.P4, rejecting approval to Ext.P3 resolution. 3. While the matter was thus pending, the Bank issued Ext.P7 provisional seniority list reckoning the seniority of respondents and the petitioners from the date of their respective promotions as Branch Managers and showing respondents 4 to 6 as seniors to the petitioners. Subsequently, Ext.P6 order was issued by the Registrar granting approval for relaxation sought for by Ext.P5 w.e.f. 26/7/95, the date of Ext.P3 resolution. It is seen that objections were filed against Exts.P6 and P7 by third parties. This was considered by the Government and by Ext.P8 proceedings, the Government upheld the regularisation of the promotion of respondents 4 to 6 w.e.f. 26/7/95 and also held that there is no irregularity in Ext.P7 seniority list of 01/04/96. 4. Consequent on Ext.P6, on 20.12.1997, the Bank issued Ext.P9 provisional seniority list. In the said provisional seniority list, going by the dates of appointment, petitioners were shown as seniors to respondents 4 to 6. By Ext.P10, P9 provisional seniority list was also finalised. The petitioners were included at Sl.Nos.13 and 14 of Ext.P10 final seniority list and respondents 4 to 6 were WPC 17096/04 :3 : shown at Sl.Nos.15, 16 and 17 respectively. It is stated that Ext.P10 was challenged by respondents 4 to 6 before this court by filing OP No.4488/2000 and during its pendency, they also moved the Registrar by filing a representation. The Registrar passed Ext.P11 order directing restoration of seniority to respondents 4 to 6. By virtue of the said order, the petitioners became juniors to respondents 4 to 6 and hence, they carried the matter in appeal before the Government. In the meanwhile, as directed in Ext.P11, respondents 4 to 6 got the writ petition also dismissed as withdrawn as is seen from Ext.P12 judgment. The appeal filed by the petitioners against Ext.P11 was heard and the Government passed Ext.P13 order dismissing the appeal. 5. The resultant position is that though the petitioners earned promotions to the cadre of Branch Managers prior to the respondents, as a consequence of Exts.P11 and P13, they became juniors to them despite the fact that the promotion of respondents 4 to 6 in that cadre was regularised only w.e.f. 26/7/95. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P11 and P13 and for consequential reliefs. 6. Apart from all controversies, the fact remains that the WPC 17096/04 :4 : petitioners, who were qualified to be promoted as Branch Managers were promoted to that cadre w.e.f. 21/12/91 and 2/5/95. On the other hand, respondents 4 to 6, who were unqualified to be promoted, though earned promotions w.e.f. 9/7/91, 23/12/91 and 26/10/92 respectively, their qualifications were relaxed only by Ext.P6 w.e.f. 26/7/95. Consequently, their promotions to the cadre of Branch Manager was also regularised with effect from that date. It was as a consequence thereof that by Exts.P9 and P10, seniority was also recast reckoning the seniority of the respective parties. If seniority is reckoned from the date of promotion of petitioners and date of regularisation of promotion of respondents 4 to 6, petitioners are evidently seniors and respondents 4 to 6 are juniors to them. Despite this factual position, by Exts.P11 and P13, the claim of respondents 4 to 6 for seniority above the petitioners is upheld primarily for the reason that in Ext.P8, no irregularity has been found with Ext.P7 seniority. However, while granting respondents 4 to 6 seniority over the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P7, the fact that by Ext.P6 approval for relaxation of qualification was granted only w.e.f. 26/7/95 and that the seniority was recast on that basis has been WPC 17096/04 :5 : omitted to be noticed. If the Registrar or the Government had taken into account this vital aspect, the conclusion in Exts.P11 and P13 would have been otherwise. Necessarily, therefore Exts.P11 and P13 deserves to be set aside and I do so. Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that the seniority of the petitioners as fixed in Ext.P10 will be restored. Needless to say that petitioners will be eligible for all benefits on that basis. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp