SOPHIYA BEEGAM Vs. K.BINDULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three writ petitions assail the order of the Co -operative Tribunal in Appeal No.80 of 2010, which reversed the decision in ARC 30 of 2009. The petitioners in the writ petition stand to lose their seniority by the order of the Co -operative Tribunal, which held in favour of the party respondent herein, the appellant/plaintiff before the lower Courts.

(2.) The parties are ideally to be referred from their status in the Arbitration Court. The plaintiff before the Arbitration Court is the party respondent in all these cases, who seeks to sustain the order of the Tribunal. The ARC itself was initiated, challenging the promotions of defendants 2 to 9, who, except the 5th defendant, are the petitioners in the above writ petitions. The Tribunal did not upset the seniority of the 5th defendant vis -a -vis the plaintiff. Defendants 6 and 7 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.26645 of 2011, defendants 8 and 9 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.27650 of 2011 and defendants 2 to 4 are the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.26698 of 2011.

(3.) Defendants 8 and 9 [petitioners in W.P.(C).No.27650 of 2011] were appointed on 08.02.2002 pursuant to the directions issued by a Division Bench in a common judgment [Exhibit P3], in which the defendants 2 to 4 were also parties. The brief background facts are that a notification was issued on 18.06.1989 by the Kollam District Co -operative Bank, calling for selection to the post of Clerk/Cashier, wherein the employees of the member societies were granted relaxation as to the eligibility conditions of age and qualification. The defendants 8 and 9 were placed at 12th and 18th rank in the list published pursuant to the selection of 18.06.1989. The defendants 2 to 4 were at ranks 22, 36 and 38 respectively. They were ranked in the selection as against the 50% of vacancies reserved for employees of the Member Societies. In the midst of the selection, the Registrar of Co -operative Societies came out with a Circular, stipulating communal rotation in making appointments as per the rank list published by the Bank. One of the persons who was in the rank list, who is not concerned with the present dispute, had challenged the rotation as stipulated by the Registrar. An interim order was obtained insofar as the said person, who filed O.P.No.10095 of 1992. The petitioner therein was given appointment in accordance with his position in the rank list.