THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6288 OF 2008 Dated: 21.10.2009 Between: K. Bala Rama Krishnam Raju … Petitioner And 1. The Joint Registrar / District Cooperative Officer, W.G. District, Eluru and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6288 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as Accountant in Pedapulleru Large Sized Co-operative Credit Society Limited (for short, ‘Society’), Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. By Resolution dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Managing Committee of the Society, the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as Secretary of the society and challenging the same the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent - Joint Registrar / District Co-operative Officer, West Godavari District. The said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 1.2.2008. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order of the 1st respondent is arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioner as Secretary with all consequential benefits. It is pleaded that the petitioner had joined the services of the society as a Clerk in the year 1977 and he was promoted as Accountant w.e.f. 1.2.1985, whereas the 3rd respondent who joined as Salesman in the year 1983 was promoted as Accountant in the year 1989. Thus, according to the petitioner, he is senior to the 3rd respondent and therefore the 2nd respondent ought to have appointed him as Secretary. It is contended that the action of the 2nd respondent in ignoring the petitioner’s candidature and appointing the 3rd respondent as the Secretary on regular basis vide Resolution dated 16.11.2006 is arbitrary, illegal apart from being contrary to Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) and that the 1st respondent though found that the petitioner was the senior most had erroneously dismissed the appeal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Accountant vide Resolution dated 30.01.1985 w.e.f. 1.2.1985. Subsequently, his services as Accountant were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.1988. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Accountant on 1.9.1987. He was graduated in Commerce and also did Junior Diploma in Co-operation. However, the petitioner did not hold the qualification of graduation. Thus as on 31.08.2004 by which date a regular vacancy arose to the post of Secretary, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed. While reiterating the same stand, the 1st respondent in his counter-affidavit further contended that the 2nd respondent was competent to fill up the vacancy to the post of Secretary by way of promotion. Despite notice, the 3rd respondent did not choose to appear. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is not in dispute that a regular vacancy to the post of Secretary of the society arose on 31.8.2004 and the 3rd respondent was promoted/appointed as in-charge Secretary on 28.8.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18750 of 2004. The said writ petition was dismissed on 18.07.2005 having taken note of the fact that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of graduation. However subsequently on 9.9.2005 the petitioner acquired the said educational qualification. Though the said fact is not in dispute, the 3rd respondent herein has been appointed as Secretary on regular basis vide 2nd respondent’s resolution dated 16.11.2006. As per bye-law No.4 of the Bye-laws of the Society the Managing Committee shall fill the post of a Secretary from the category-II by promotion if there is an eligible candidate with minimum qualifications prescribed for post and with 5 years of experience. It is not in dispute that the minimum educational qualification required as per bye-law No.3 is graduation from a recognised University with Diploma in Co-operation. It is also clear from the bye-laws that seniority is not the criteria for promotion to the post of Secretary. Admittedly, as on 16.11.2006 both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent possessed the qualification of graduation as well as 5 years experience in the post of Accountant under category-II. In the circumstances, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the candidature of both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and after assessing merits and demerits should have selected the most suitable person for promotion to the post of Secretary. Admittedly no such procedure has been followed and the petitioner’s candidature was completely ignored. Hence the matter requires reconsideration and the resolution dated 16.11.2006 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned resolution dated 16.11.2006 as well as the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 1.2.2008 are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.10.2009 gbs