Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 263 (KER)

Sobhanakumari v. Co-operative Tribunal

2002-04-05

J.B.KOSHY

body2002
Judgment :- 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. 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: "Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are a arranged in the advice list." Therefore, irrespective of the date of joining duty, if the candidates advised to join duty joins within the time given in the notice, the date of advice and seniority in the order in which their names are given in the advice list will be considered for the purpose of seniority. But admittedly Kerala Service Rules is not applicable for the Co-operative Societies at the relevant time when petitioners joined duty and were appointed. In the absence of any such rules, the date of joining duty only can only be reckoned for the seniority. Therefore, the person who joined duty first will get seniority. There is no case for the petitioner in O.P. 11330/95 that the appointment order was intentionally issued late by the authorities. But the appointment orders were dispatched on the same date and the petitioner in O.P. No 14396/95 joined duty a day prior to the first rank holder. Therefore, the person who joined duty first will get seniority. There is no case for the petitioner in O.P. 11330/95 that the appointment order was intentionally issued late by the authorities. But the appointment orders were dispatched on the same date and the petitioner in O.P. No 14396/95 joined duty a day prior to the first rank holder. Therefore, the date of joining duty only can be looked into for the seniority purpose. 4. Supreme Court in A. Janardhana V Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 769), paragraph 28 it was held as follows: "It is a well recongnised principle of service jurisprudence that any rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Art. 16. It is an equally well recognized canon of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any other valid rule for determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the name service, the rule of continuous officiation or the length of service or the date of entering in service and continuous uninterrupted service thereafter would be valid and would satisfy he tests of Art.16." The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Ram Janam Singh V State of U.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1722). Therefore, in the absence of specific rules, the person who joined first will get the seniority as he has more length of uninterrupted service in the same cadre when the seniority was calculated. In the above circumstances, O.P.No 11330/95 is dismissed and O.P.No 14396/1995 is allowed. Petitioner O.P. No. 14396/1995 who joined the service on 16.10.1991 is senior to petitioner in O.P.No. 11330/95 who joined only on 17.10.1991.