Judgment :- Rajan, J. These 3 original petitions relate to common question regarding the fixation of seniority among the employees of co-operative society, Therefore these three original petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. O.P. No. 19370/95-E 2. The petitioner was appointed by order-dated 27.7.90 as a Clerk/ Cashier by the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'). He was selected under the 50% quota reserved for the employees of member societies (hereinafter referred to as 'the quota'). The Bank by proceedings dated 29.9.93 published the provisional list of employees inviting objections. The petitioner was assigned seniority as serial No. 162. Dissatisfied with the ranking given to the petitioner he filed objection before the Bank. The same was rejected by the Bank. Aggrieved by the rejection by the Bank, the petitioner and other aggrieved persons filed representations before the second respondent. The petitioner along with another filed O.P. No. 2275/95 and this Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders at the earliest. Thereafter, the second respondent rejected the representation by Ext. P7 order. The petitioner also filed representation before the first respondent. He also filed O.P, No. 12130/95 which was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner, the first respondent passed Ext. P9 order, confirming the decisions of the Bank and of the second respondent. The above decisions are under challenge in this original petition. O.P. No. 12562,/96-U 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Cashier/ Clerk by the second respondent Bank by order dt. 27.7.90. He was also selected under the 50% society quota. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste community which also is entitled to a reservation of 10%. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the preparation of the seniority list of employees by the second respondent ignoring the just claims of the petitioner for proper placement in the seniority list. The petitioner also submitted his representation before the Bank, the second respondent and the Hon'ble Minister for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare. The prayers in the original petition are: (1) To quash Ext. P5 seniority list prepared by the Bank and to direct the first respondent to pass orders on Ext. P6 representation. O.P. No. 6112/96-C 4. The petitioner also submitted his representation before the Bank, the second respondent and the Hon'ble Minister for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Welfare. The prayers in the original petition are: (1) To quash Ext. P5 seniority list prepared by the Bank and to direct the first respondent to pass orders on Ext. P6 representation. O.P. No. 6112/96-C 4. The petitioners were appointed as Clerks by the first respondent Bank by order dt. 24.11.90. When the Bank published the seniority list, the petitioners also filed their objections. They also approached the second respondent by way of filing representations. But the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners by Ext. P6 order. Ext. P6 is under challenge in this original petition. 5. The issues involved in these original petitions lie in a narrow compass. It is necessary to refer to rule 187 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules which the petitioners in these original petitions are relying on: "187. Notwithstanding anything contained in R.189 for appointments to the 50% of the vacancies arising in an Apex Society or other Federal type society having other societies as its members experience in the societies which are members of the respective Apex society or Federal type society, as the case may be, shall be a necessary additional qualification". Thus, 50% of the vacancies in the Bank are to be filled up by the society quota. 6. According to Sri. Rajendran Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners, in the seniority list the Bank should have arranged the general candidates and the society quota candidates following 1:1 ratio. Thus after each directly recruited candidate (general), a society quota candidate must find his place. According to the learned counsel this was the practice which the Bank followed when 20 appointments were made in the year 1989. But when appointments were made in 1990 the ratio of 1:1 was not followed in arranging their names in the seniority list. What the bank did in the case of the appointments in 1990 was that the general candidates were arranged in a block and only there after the society quota candidates were placed. Thus the society quota candidates like the petitioners were pushed down below all the general candidates. 7. Detailed counter affidavits have been tiled in the original petitions. What the bank did in the case of the appointments in 1990 was that the general candidates were arranged in a block and only there after the society quota candidates were placed. Thus the society quota candidates like the petitioners were pushed down below all the general candidates. 7. Detailed counter affidavits have been tiled in the original petitions. According to the bank, the mandate of R.187 is only to maintain 50% reservation in the society quota and not that the appointments must be made in the ratio of 1:1. The Bank has also produced a Government order dt. 30.9.86 (Ext. R3(a) - along with counter affidavit of the third respondent in O.P. No. 19370/95) approving the revised service regulations of the co-operative society's employees. Regulation No. 6D deals with seniority, which is as follows: "61). The criteria for seniority of the employees in different categories shall be the ranking given in the resolution of the Executive Committee/Board of Directors making the appointment as the case may be, provided that the existing list of seniority shall prevail". Therefore, according to the Bank, the stand taken by it and the first and second respondents is perfectly valid. 8. In the background of these submissions, this court has to see whether the 50% society quota has to be distributed among the recruits by applying 1:1 ratio between the general candidates and the society quota candidates. The normal method of appointment of the Bank is by direct recruitment from the open market. But certain concessions have been granted to the employees of the member societies of an apex society for being appointed to the 50% of the vacancies arising in an apex society. Such candidates are given a weightage by way of making their experience a necessary additional qualification. The 50% reservation can definitely be reduced into a 1:1 ratio. But the rule does not postulate a ratio of 1:1 between the general candidates and the society quota candidates. The prescription of quota for appointments has always created a lot of case law by the disappointment and disgruntled officers, by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court on the quota and rot a system. A quota system may be implemented in various forms. It can be applied vacancy wise, cadre wise, periodic wise etc. In this case, it is vacancy wise. A quota system may be implemented in various forms. It can be applied vacancy wise, cadre wise, periodic wise etc. In this case, it is vacancy wise. Therefore, unless the rule specifically lays down that the vacancies must be filled up alternatively between a general candidate and a society quota candidate, it is not possible to lay down that R.187 mandates such as a methodology. When 20 persons were selected and appointed at a given point of time, it is enough if 10 society quota candidacies are appointed. The society quota candidates cannot insist that they must be placed in the list either as 1, 3, 5 or 2,4, 6 etc. No such interpretation is possible by a plain regarding of R.187. It is enough that the Bank maintains 50% society quota at a given selection. No other rights or privileges can be claimed by the society quota candidates. 9. The grievance of the petitioners in these cases is that the 50% quota is not maintained in the seniority list by arranging the names alternatively followed the 1:1 ratio. For that purpose, we have to link quota with 'rot a'. A quota necessarily envisages more than one sources of recruitment. But it does not follow that the quota must be reflected in the preparation of the seniority list. Unless the fixation of quota is also, to be taken into consideration for assigning seniority, there is no scope for interlinking the quota system to the seniority. Therefore, one cannot tag on his mode of entry into the service for fixation of seniority. As held by the Supreme Court in various decisions starting from Jaisinghani 's case (Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427) to Maharashtra Direct recruit's case (Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association, v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990SC 1607), the quota system does not necessitate adoption of the rotational rule in practical application. Many ways of working out quota rule can be devised, of which rota is only one. Seniority is normally measured by length of continuous officiating service. 10. In these cases, the Government as per Ext. R3(a) order has prescribed rules for determining the seniority of employees of the co-operative society. Many ways of working out quota rule can be devised, of which rota is only one. Seniority is normally measured by length of continuous officiating service. 10. In these cases, the Government as per Ext. R3(a) order has prescribed rules for determining the seniority of employees of the co-operative society. According to the above rule, it is the ranking given in the resolution of the Executive Committee/ Board of Directors making the appointment as the case may be that is relevant for fixation of seniority. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the Bank is on the reasoning that the Bank cannot take into account the 1:1 proportion between the general and society candidates for preparation of the seniority list. The views of the first and second respondents can be seen from the impugned orders, are also to the same effect. The impugned orders state that the Bank prepared a seniority list assigning seniority as per the resolution of the Board of Directors. There is only a direction in the rule to maintain 50% reservation for the society candidates. There is no mandate to make appointments in the ratio of 1:1. 11. According to me, the stand of the Bank as confirmed by respondents 1 and 2, is quite consistent with the principles accepted and settled by the Courts with regard to the application of quota rule. I am convinced in these cases that the quota rule is not linked with seniority, for which separate provisions have been made as evidenced by Ext. R3(a). Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petitions. The Original Petitions are dismissed.