Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The appellant/writ petitioner, the 4th respondent and one Anilkumar joined duty in the service of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Society as Lower Division Clerks on the same day. The 4th respondent was senior among the three. The 4th respondent proceeded on leave without allowance in terms of the conditions enjoined in appendix XII-A to Part I of the Kerala Service Rules which are made applicable, admittedly, to the employees of the Co-operative societies, during the period between 15.4.1993 and 1.3.1997. During the said period, the 3rd respondent society adopted a resolution promoting the 4th respondent. The society considered that, as the 4th respondent was on leave at the time of promotion, he will be treated as junior to the appellant/petitioner. 2. On rejoining duty, when the 4th respondent came to know of this, he filed an application to set aside the said resolution. That was allowed by the Joint Registrar as per Ext.P3 and the 4th respondent was thus declared as senior to the appellant. An appeal, as provided under Section 87(1) (j) of the Co-operative Societies Act, was preferred by the appellant before the Government. That was also dismissed by the Government as per Ext.P9. He impugned the same in W.P.(C) No.3895/04. That also did have the same fate. Therefore, this writ appeal. 3. It is submitted that a promotion post was available while the 4th respondent proceed on leave for employment abroad. Clause 4 contained in Appendix XII-A provides that, when a promotion is effected during the period in which one was on leave for employment abroad, he will lose all benefits including the seniority over the person who had been promoted during such period of leave. The Co-operative Society had adopted a resolution to the effect that the petitioner would be regarded as senior to the 4th respondent in the promoted category of Senior Clerk. In such circumstances, Exts.P3 and P9 are illegal, being violative of Clause 4 of Appendix 12-A part I K.S.R. 4. It is an admitted case by the appellant that the promotion ordered by the society in favour of the 4th respondent is to take effect from 1.7.1992. As on that date, a vacancy of Senior clerk was available. Going by the seniority among the three, the said vacancy ought to have gone to the 4th respondent. But one way or the other, the promotion was delayed. As on that date, a vacancy of Senior clerk was available. Going by the seniority among the three, the said vacancy ought to have gone to the 4th respondent. But one way or the other, the promotion was delayed. The promotion was taken up when the 4th respondent was on leave. Even then, the society assigned him a post as on 1.7.1992 because, as on that date, he was the seniormost hand. In such circumstances, when he takes his promotion from 1.7.1992, the date on which he was available in service without leave, he could not have forfeited his seniority. The view taken in Ext.P3 and upheld by the learned single Judge is perfectly justified, according to us, because clause 4 of Appendix XII-A Part I K.S.R. clearly postulates that officers on leave for taking up other employment should lose “promotion chances as may arise with reference to their seniority in the posts from which they proceeded on leave.” The promotion that was granted to the 4th respondent was against a chance that had arisen to him before he proceeded on leave. So, he was entitled to seniority in the promoted cadre over the appellant/petitioner right from 1.7.1992. this is what has been done by the Joint Registrar in Ext.P3 which was duly upheld by the Government in Ext.P9 and found to be sustainable by the learned single Judge as per the impugned judgment. Moreover, a Full Bench of this court in the decision reported in Varghese v. State of Kerala {1981 K.L.T.458 [F.B]} has, considering situations of delayed promotions, clearly held as follows: “The relevant date must be definite and not depending upon the volition of the authorities as otherwise the determination would be arbitrary. If it were to be the date of promotion that is to be relevant for determining the title to such promotion the rule is capable of arbitrary exercise. Even if it is honest exercise that would be arbitrary because the date of the service career will depend in each instance upon the time taken by the concerned authority in passing the order of promotion. Even if it is honest exercise that would be arbitrary because the date of the service career will depend in each instance upon the time taken by the concerned authority in passing the order of promotion. On the other hand, there is definiteness in treating the date of occurrence of the vacancy as that which would determine the title of the person to be considered for promotion.” The dictum of the Full Bench decision is quite applicable to the fact situation in this case which reveals that the promotion ought to have been given to the 4th respondent was delayed from 1.7.1992 onwards. Hence we confirm the decision of the learned single Judge. Writ appeal, therefore, fails, dismissed.