Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2006 made in W.P. No.1406 of 2004. The parties are arrayed as shown in this Writ Appeal. 2. The second respondent has approached this Court questioning the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai dated 15.06.2004. Against that order, the appellant, had filed a Revision Petition and the same was allowed. According to the second respondent, he joined the services of the bank as Jewel Appraiser on 01.07.1380. Though he was appointed as Jewel Appraiser, he performed the functions of clerks as well. On 01.07.1991 a settlement was concluded in the third respondent-Bank under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequently, there was another settlement dated 10.10.1994 was concluded in the Bank. Based on the above settlements, the second respondent was placed as Senior Assistant over and above the appellant for fixation of scale of pay eligible to that post. Therefore, based on the above, he was promoted as Assistant Manager, as per the order dated 17.08.1998. On that day when he was promoted as Assistant Manager, he possessed the educational qualification of a decree with Co-operative Training. 3. The appellant joined the services of the Bank as clerk on 07.03.1983 and was promoted as Manager on 17.08.1998. Subsequently, on 06.11.2000, the request of the appellant to place him over and above the second respondent was rejected by the Managing Director of the Bank. Questioning the same, the appellant filed a Petition for arbitration under Section 90 of the Co-operative Societies Act before the Circle Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivaganga. The said Petition was dismissed on 30.05.2003 on the ground that the settlement dated 10.10.1994 was concluded and the cadre of Jewel Appraiser and the Clerk were fixed as Junior Clerks and inasmuch as the said settlement was given effect to, the settled seniority cannot be reopened. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had filed a Revision Petition under Section 153(1) of the Act read with Rule 169 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988. By an order dated 15.06.2004, the Revision Petition was allowed in favour of the appellant. Questioning the said order, the second respondent preferred the Writ Petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. By an order dated 15.06.2004, the Revision Petition was allowed in favour of the appellant. Questioning the said order, the second respondent preferred the Writ Petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Government Advocate for the first respondent, Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr. S. Seenivasagam for third respondent-Bank. 5. The main challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge is that on the date when the second respondent was appointed as Jewel Appraiser, he did not possess the Co-operative Training and therefore, considering him to be the senior to the appellant, is erroneous. Further, the second respondent had not functioned as Senior Assistant (i.e.) feeder category, for further promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that insofar as educational qualification is concerned, the relevant date is the date of consideration and the qualification possessed by the second respondent on the date when he was considered, namely, December 1993, alone should be taken into consideration and considering the length of service from 01.07.1980, is totally erroneous. For the said proposition, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments reported in (1) Puran Das v. Union of India and others, 2000 (3) SCC 97, ad (2) Sanjay K. Sinha II and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2004 (10) SCC 734 . He would submit that for the purpose of considering seniority only the substantive appointment alone should be taken into consideration. If that be so, the substantive appointment of the second respondent is only with effect from the date of his qualification and if that is taken into consideration, he is junior to the appellant. For the said submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in K. Malaimuthu v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2006 (3) MLJ 161 (SC). 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that as early as on 01.07.1991, when the settlement Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was concluded, the second respondent was treated to be the senior to the appellant and the appellant had never questioned the said settlements. 7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that as early as on 01.07.1991, when the settlement Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was concluded, the second respondent was treated to be the senior to the appellant and the appellant had never questioned the said settlements. In fact the said settlement was followed by a further settlement dated 10.10.1394, wherein also, the second respondent has been shown as senior. Hence, in the absence of any challenge to these settlements, the appellant is not entitled to question the seniority, which has already been concluded, after a lapse of nearly ten years, when the application was made before the Deputy Registrar. 8. Mr. Seenivasagam, learned counsel for the third respondent-Bank also has submitted almost on the same line as the learned counsel for the second respondent had submitted. 9. Though the appellant claims to be the senior and the second respondent had not functioned in a substantive post, he should not have been placed over and above the appellant. Considering the fact that there is unexplained delay in raising the issue by the appellant we are not inclined to go into that question in detail. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that it is a normal rule that for the purpose of seniority, the total length of service should be taken into consideration. Though it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the services put in by the second respondent as Jewel Appraiser till he obtained Co-operative Training and qualified for further promotion in the year 1993, cannot be taken into consideration, it must be kept in mind for the purpose of Jewel Appraiser there is no requirement of minimum qualification of Co-operative Training. It is not the case of the appellant or the third respondent/Bank that the second respondent did not possess necessary qualification when he was appointed as Jewel Appraiser on 01.07.1980. On that day when the settlement dated 10.10.1994 was concluded, the second respondent was fully qualified for promotion. Though, the settlement speaks of only for fixation of pay scale, nevertheless in the absence of any rules to maintain seniority list, the seniority assigned in the settlement for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, shall be relevant for the purpose of further promotion. Though, the settlement speaks of only for fixation of pay scale, nevertheless in the absence of any rules to maintain seniority list, the seniority assigned in the settlement for the purpose of fixation of pay scale, shall be relevant for the purpose of further promotion. It is also to be noted that the settlement is not only for fixation of pay scale but also it relates to categorization of employees, namely, Jewel Appraisers and Junior Assistants were clubbed and were shown as the common category. By that settlement the second respondent was shown as senior to the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the said settlement had become final and was given effect to and the appellant had never questioned the settlements. Even today, except challenging that the said settlement on the ground that it was in respect of fixation of pay scale and the categorisation is not questioned. 10. In our considered view, in the absence of any seniority list drawn for want of rules, the settlements could be the basis for fixing the seniority and when such seniority is fixed and the appellant having failed to question the same, till further order was passed on 06.11.2000, he cannot now question the settled seniority after longer period. It is well settled in law that in a matter of seniority and promotion, the settled position cannot be unsettled after a lapse of longer period. Once we come to the conclusion, the claim for such seniority cannot be entertained after a lapse of nearly 10 years. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to go into the other questions. In view of the above we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this Appeal. 11. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.