M AMBIKAKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner in O.P. No 11330 was selected as Junior Clerk on the basis of written test and interview in 1981. Appointment order dated 12.10.1981 was issued directing the petitioner to report for duty on or before 19.10.1981. She was the first rank holder in the test. She joined duty on 17.10.1981. Petitioner in O.P.Nos. 14396/1995 was also selected in the same interview and she was the second rank holder. She joined duty on 16.10.1981. Question of their inter se seniority is the dispute in these writ petitions. Since the petitioner in O.P.No 11330/95 was first rank holder, she was considered as senior earlier by the Society, but later the person who joined earlier that is the petitioner in O.P.14395/95 was considered as senior as he joined before one day from the first rank holder. Ext P3 is the final seniority list. This was questioned before the Committee. Managing Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner in O.P.No 11330/95 and held that the person who joined earlier will be senior notwithstanding the fact that he was not the first rank holder in the test and interview. Therefore, aggrieved party approached Joint Registrar under section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Joint Registrar held that the person who got first rank should be the senior to the person who joined first. That view was accepted by the Tribunal but set aside the decision of the Joint Registrar as Joint Registrar has no power under section 69 of the Act hold arbitration in seniority dispute. I also note that full bench of this court in Balachandran V Dy. Registrar (1978 KLT 249) held that seniority dispute is not a dispute which can be decided under section 69 of the Act.

(2.) The first rank holder filed O.P.No 11330/95 contending that under section 69, arbitrator can decide the seniority also and her claim should have been upheld by the tribunal. O.P.No 14396/95 was filed by the second rank holder contending that so long as she joined service earlier and she is entitled to get the seniority as decided by her employer society and therefore, the finding of the tribunal in this application is not correct. It is also pointed out that the amendment of sec 69 in 1997 as well as 2000 were not brought into force as the decision of Full Bench is still applicable and dispute regarding the promotions cannot be decided by the arbitrator under section 69 of the Act.

(3.) I am not going on that question of jurisdiction of the arbitration as both parties wanted a decision on merit. Therefore, I am considering the question of merit itself as both parties are before me. In Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 27 (c) reads as follows: