JUDGMENT : Anil k. Narendran, J. 1. The common issue raised in this batch of writ petitions is the entitlement of the employees of various District Co-operative Banks in the State for provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018), against vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, which are lying vacant in the absence of candidates advised by Kerala Public Service Commission. Since common issues are raised, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2.1. W.P.(C)No.18684 of 2018:- Petitioners 1 to 3, who are presently working as Senior Accountant at Thottappilly Branch, Kayamkulam Evening Branch and Puthanangadi Branch, respectively of Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the 4th respondent Registrar of Cooperative Societies and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 2nd respondent Part-time Administrator to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Manager. By Ext.P7 communication No.E.M.53413/2017 dated 20.4.2018, the 4th respondent Registrar has informed all Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies that the Government by communication No.Co.op.2/25/2018/Co.op. dated 6.3.2018 has informed that no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in the District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Kerala Public Service Commission, and qualified employees can be given charge of those promotion posts, on charge allowance. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the recruitment to the post of Branch Manager in the 1st respondent Bank is by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio 3:1, as per Ext.P2 Recruitment Rules. Promotion shall be made from the post of Senior Inspector/Senior Accountant/ Chief Cashier. Out of 61 posts of Branch Managers sanctioned as per Ext.P3 order dated 21.2.2015 of the 4th respondent Registrar, more than 5 posts are lying vacant and the validity of the ranked list published by Kerala Public Service Commission expired on 16.11.2017. Promotion shall be made from the post of Senior Inspector/Senior Accountant/ Chief Cashier. Out of 61 posts of Branch Managers sanctioned as per Ext.P3 order dated 21.2.2015 of the 4th respondent Registrar, more than 5 posts are lying vacant and the validity of the ranked list published by Kerala Public Service Commission expired on 16.11.2017. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 1st respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, as done by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment dated 21.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No.34614 of 2017. The petitioners would contend that the 4th respondent Registrar issued Ext.P7 communication dated 20.4.2018 without any authority of law and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 2.2. W.P.(C)No.19204 of 2018:- Petitioners 1 to 7, who are presently working as Senior Accountant at various branches of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. have filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 2nd respondent Administrator to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Manager with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Kerala Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get promotion to the post of Branch Manager, provisionally. In the writ petition it is averred that out of 48 posts of Branch Managers sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order dated 3.1.2014 of the 3rd respondent Registrar, 6 posts are lying vacant. In addition to this, one post of Deputy General Manager is also lying vacant. Once a Branch Manager is given promotion as Deputy General Manager there will be one more vacancy of Branch Manager. Though 6 vacancies of Branch Mangers are reported to Public Service Commission, there is no valid ranked list. In addition to this, one post of Deputy General Manager is also lying vacant. Once a Branch Manager is given promotion as Deputy General Manager there will be one more vacancy of Branch Manager. Though 6 vacancies of Branch Mangers are reported to Public Service Commission, there is no valid ranked list. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 1st respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when the candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, as done by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment dated 2.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.40045 of 2018 and Ext.P5 judgment dated 19.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018. The petitioners would also rely on Ext.P6 interim order of this Court dated 21.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.37781 of 2016. The petitioners would contend that the 3rd respondent Registrar issued Ext.P3 communication dated 20.4.2018 without any authority of law and as such, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 2.3. W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018:- The petitioner, who is presently working as Executive Officer in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 2nd respondent Administrator to provisionally promote him to the post of Deputy General Manager with a rider that he will be reverted back as and when a candidate advised by Public Service Commission joins duty. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get promotion provisionally to the post of Deputy General Manager in the vacancy available in the 1st respondent Bank. In the writ petition it is averred that, as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 183 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 substantive vacancies in the post of Deputy General Manager has to be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio 1:1. The approved cadre strength of Deputy General Manager in the 1st respondent Bank is 3, as per Ext.P1 order dated 3.1.2014 of the Registrar. Though one vacancy of Deputy General Manager is reported to Public Service Commission, there is no valid ranked list. The approved cadre strength of Deputy General Manager in the 1st respondent Bank is 3, as per Ext.P1 order dated 3.1.2014 of the Registrar. Though one vacancy of Deputy General Manager is reported to Public Service Commission, there is no valid ranked list. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager in the 1st respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotee will be reverted back as and when the candidate advised by Public Service Commission reports for joining duty. In support of the said contention, the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 7.4.2003 in W.A.No.111 of 2003, Ext.P4 judgment dated 27.9.2017 in W.P.(C)No.29742 of 2017 and Ext.P6 judgment dated 19.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018. The petitioners would also rely on Ext.P6 interim order of this Court dated 21.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.37781 of 2016. 2.4. W.P.(C)No.19393 of 2018:- Petitioners 1 and 2 are Senior Accountants in Malappuram District Cooperative Bank. The 1st petitioner is given the charge of Branch Manager of Nilambur Town Branch and the 2nd petitioner is working as Senior Accountant at Kolathur Branch. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 2nd respondent Administrator to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Manager with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Kerala Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get promotion to the post of Branch Manager, provisionally. By way of amendment, they have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, whereby all Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies were informed that the Government by communication No.2/25/2018/Co-op. dated 6.3.2018 has informed that no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Public Service Commission, and qualified employees can be given charge of those promotion posts, on charge allowance. In the writ petition, it is averred that as per Ext.P1 Service Regulations of the employees of Malappuram District Co-operative Bank, approved as per G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/Co-op. dated 30.9.1986, interim vacancies exceeding 30 days and above are ordinarily be filled up by temporary promotion. In the writ petition, it is averred that as per Ext.P1 Service Regulations of the employees of Malappuram District Co-operative Bank, approved as per G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/Co-op. dated 30.9.1986, interim vacancies exceeding 30 days and above are ordinarily be filled up by temporary promotion. Out of 56 posts of Branch Managers sanctioned as per reclassification order dated 8.6.2016, 52 posts are filled up by substantive appointment. Out of the 9 posts to be filled up by direct recruitment, only 6 candidates were advised by Public Service Commission and 3 posts are lying vacant. At present there is no valid ranked list by Public Service Commission. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 1st respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty. In support of the said contention, the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 7.4.2003 in W.A.No.111 of 2003, Ext.P5 judgment dated 19.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018, Ext.P6 judgment dated 31.7.2017 in W.P.(C)No.25258 of 2017 and Ext.P7 judgment dated 9.12.2013 in W.P.(C)No.18999 of 2013. The petitioners would also rely on Ext.P8 interim order of this Court dated 21.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.37781 of 2016. 2.5. W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2018:- Petitioners 1 to 3, who are presently working as Senior Accountant at Nadakkavu Evening Branch, Chambakulam Branch and Pattanakkad Branch, respectively of Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank have filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication No.Co.op.2/25/2018/Co-op. dated 6.3.2018 of the 1st respondent State and Ext.P4 communication dated 20.4.2018 of the 2nd respondent Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 4th respondent Administrator to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Manager. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get provisional promotion to the post of Branch Managers and continue in that post till candidates recruited by Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get provisional promotion to the post of Branch Managers and continue in that post till candidates recruited by Public Service Commission join duty. By Exts.P3 and P4 communications, directions have been issued to the effect that, no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Public Service Commission, and qualified employees can be given charge of those promotion posts, on charge allowance. In the writ petition it is averred that 4 branches of the 3rd respondent Bank are functioning without Branch Managers. Provisionally promoted Branch Managers will get the salary admissible to regularly promoted Branch Managers. On the other hand, when Senior Accountants are given charge of Branch Manager, they will be paid only charge allowance, despite the fact that they discharge the same duties as that of the Branch Manager. At present there is no valid ranked list by Public Service Commission. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 3rd respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when the candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty. In support of the said contention, the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 31.7.2017 in W.P.(C)No.25258 of 2017, Ext.P6 judgment dated 21.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018, Ext.P6 judgment dated 31.7.2017 in W.P.(C)No.34614 of 2017 and Ext.P7 judgment dated 19.3.2018 in W.P. (C)No.6248 of 2018. 2.6. W.P.(C)No.20059 of 2018:- Petitioners 1 to 3, who are working as Senior Accountants at Manthuka Branch, Pullad Branch and in the Head Office, respectively of Pathanamthitta District Co-operative Bank have filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Cooperative Bank to promote them provisionally in the post of Branch Manager till regular hands join duty. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the 3rd respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to prohibit provisional promotion in the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the 3rd respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to prohibit provisional promotion in the 1st respondent Bank. By way of amendment, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent Registrar, whereby all Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies were informed that the Government by communication No.2/25/2018/Co-op. dated 6.3.2018 has informed that no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Kerala Public Service Commission, and qualified employees can be given charge of those promotion posts, on charge allowance. In the writ petition it is averred that there are vacancies of Branch Managers in the 1st respondent Bank, which are lying vacant, since no steps have been taken to fill up those vacancies by direct recruitment of candidates advised by Public Service Commission. The petitioners have passed the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Branch Managers, as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting them provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 1st respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when the candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, as done by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment dated 19.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018. 2.7. W.P.(C)No.21091 of 2018:- The petitioners, who are Senior Accountants at Mannarkad Branch, Agali Branch, Agali Mobile Branch and Kottayi Branch, respectively of Palakkad District Co-operative Bank have filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that they are eligible and entitled to be promoted to the post of Branch Manager provisionally. They have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Registrar of Cooperative Societies and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 4th respondent Administrator to promote them to the post of Branch Manager, subject to the condition that they will be reverted back as Senior Accountants as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty. In the writ petition it is averred that all the petitioners except the 1st petitioner have the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Branch Manager. In the writ petition it is averred that all the petitioners except the 1st petitioner have the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Branch Manager. The 1st petitioner who has crossed 50 years is exempted from passing the qualifying examination. There are 39 sanctioned posts of Branch Managers or equivalent post in the same scale of pay in the 3rd respondent Bank, out of which 5 posts of Branch Managers are lying vacant. There is no ranked list by Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the post of Branch Managers. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 3rd respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back, as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty as done by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment dated 21.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No.34614 of 2017 and Ext.P4 judgment dated 12.6.2018 in W.P. (C)No.17330 of 2018. 2.8. W.P.(C)No.23145 of 2018:- The petitioners, who are Senior Accountants at Narikkuni Branch and Perambra Evening Branch, respectively of Kozhikode District Cooperative Bank have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Co-operative Bank and the 2nd respondent Administrator to promote them provisionally to the post of Branch Manager, with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Kerala Public Service Commission report for joining duty, untrammelled by Ext.P6 communication dated 20.4.2018 of the 4th respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 communication and a declaration that they are entitled to get promotion as Branch Managers till candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, in the light of Ext.P7 judgment dated 19.6.2018 in W.P.(C)No.18652 of 2018 and Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.6.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17330 of 2018. In the writ petition it is averred that as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.5.2016 of the 4th respondent Registrar, there are 60 sanctioned posts of Branch Managers in the 1st respondent Bank. 15 vacancies are earmarked for direct recruitment by candidates advised by Public Service Commission. Though the 1st respondent Bank reported 15 vacancies, Public service Commission advised only 4. In the writ petition it is averred that as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.5.2016 of the 4th respondent Registrar, there are 60 sanctioned posts of Branch Managers in the 1st respondent Bank. 15 vacancies are earmarked for direct recruitment by candidates advised by Public Service Commission. Though the 1st respondent Bank reported 15 vacancies, Public service Commission advised only 4. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager in the 3rd respondent Bank, under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, untrammlled by Ext.P6 communication dated 20.4.2018 of the 4th respondent Registrar. The petitioners would rely on Ext.P7 judgment dated 19.6.2018 in W.P.(C)No.18652 of 2018 and Ext.P8 judgment dated 12.6.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17330 of 2018. 3. The reliefs sought for in the writ petitions are opposed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by filing a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.19204 of 2018. The learned Special Government Pleader has filed adoption memos to adopt the said counter affidavit in other writ petitions. 4. In the counter affidavit it is contended that the petitioners have no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when they are having a statutory remedy under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. The issue raised in the writ petitions is a dispute between the petitioners and the respective District Co-operative Banks, with regard to their service conditions. Hence the petitioners should have moved the appropriate authority under Section 69 of the Act. Based on a policy decision taken by the Government in the matter of formation of Kerala Bank, communication dated 20.4.2018 has been issued to all District Co-operative Banks to make suitable arrangements for deploying employees without hampering the functioning of the Society. In the said order it is clarified that arrangements can be made in the case of requirement of employees, rather than promotion from the feeder post. None of the District Co-operative Banks have raised any grievance against the said communication and in such circumstances, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same. In the said order it is clarified that arrangements can be made in the case of requirement of employees, rather than promotion from the feeder post. None of the District Co-operative Banks have raised any grievance against the said communication and in such circumstances, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same. The communication dated 20.4.2018 of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was issued based on Government communication dated 6.3.2018, directing that in District Co-operative Banks the vacancies of Branch Manager earmarked for direct recruitment need not be filled up by way of promotion from the feeder post, but the senior most employees in the feeder post can be given charge, by giving eligible charge allowance. When the senior most employees in the feeder post are provisionally promoted as Branch Manager, with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, they will get the benefit of pay fixation in the promoted post. When Public Service Commission hands join duty the provisionally promoted employees usually claim pay protection and in an such event, it may lead to a situation to retain them in supernumerary post and by affording these supernumerary posts the liability of the Bank increases. In the case of employees who are about to retire, the last 10 months emoluments are to be taken for pension calculation and in the case of calculating gratuity, the last months' salary is also to be taken. In such circumstances, in the case of provisionally promoted employees, the Society will be liable to pay excess amount based on the higher scale of pay in the promoted post, and the Bank will have to bear huge liability in this regard. It is contended in the counter affidavit that, as per Rule 189 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, the Government is the ultimate authority to fix and alter the pay and allowances in respect of the employees in the Cooperative sector and on that basis, the Government has issued the communication dated 6.3.2018. 5. In the counter affidavits filed by some of the District Co-operative Banks and its Administrators, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions, it is contended that the petitioners cannot seek the relief of promotion either provisionally or otherwise in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 5. In the counter affidavits filed by some of the District Co-operative Banks and its Administrators, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions, it is contended that the petitioners cannot seek the relief of promotion either provisionally or otherwise in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The dispute in the matter, if any, is one which has to be resolved under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, substantive vacancies in the post of Branch Manager and equivalent posts in the District Cooperative Bank shall be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio 3:1. All the vacancies existing in the cadre of Branch Manager, to be filled up by promotion, have already been filled up and the vacancies presently available are reported to the Public Service Commission as well. The entire vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment cannot be filled up since the advise of the Commission is interdicted by the orders of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10712-27 of 2017. Now the Apex court has disposed of those appeals with a direction to the Public Service Commission to complete the selection process. In the counter affidavit it is also contended that the qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Branch Manager is entirely different. The petitioners cannot seek filling up the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, without possessing the prescribed qualification. The petitioners, merely based on the fact that they are holding the post of Senior Accountants, claim promotion to the post of Branch Manager, which is in the supervisory cadre. Dehors the rule no person can claim provisional or regular promotion. There is no violation of any of the legal rights of the petitioner. The District Co-operative Banks cannot be compelled to fill up all the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, by provisional promotion. Since the vacancies are reported to Public Service Commission, it cannot be filled up by any other method. 6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel/the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and the official respondents, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respective District Cooperative Banks. 7. Since the vacancies are reported to Public Service Commission, it cannot be filled up by any other method. 6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel/the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and the official respondents, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respective District Cooperative Banks. 7. The learned Senior Counsel/the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that, in the absence of candidates advised by Kerala Public Service Commission, there is no legal impediment in granting provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018), under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, with a rider that such provisional promotees will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission report for joining duty, as done by this Court in the judgment dated 12.6.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17330 of 2018, the judgment dated 19.3.2018 in W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018, etc. The employees of the respondent District Co-operative Banks, who are governed by the Service Regulations framed by the respective Banks by adopting the Service Regulations framed vide G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/ Co-op. dated 30.9.1986 have a statutory right for being considered for provisional promotion, which cannot be denied based on Government communication dated 6.3.2018 and the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Neither the State nor the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has authority to interdict the District Co-operative Banks from effecting provisional promotion to the posts lying vacant under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, in the absence of candidates advised by the Public Service Commission. For effecting provisional promotion to the posts as per the staff pattern in Appendix III of the Kerala Co-operative Rules, no approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is necessary. The fact that, in the case of employees who are about to retire, the Bank will have to bear additional liability while calculating gratuity and other terminal benefits payable to such employees is not a valid ground to deny provisional promotion to the posts lying vacant under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment. By giving charge to the senior most employees in the feeder posts, such employees are burdened with the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Branch Manager, on payment of only charge allowance, which is per se illegal. 8. By giving charge to the senior most employees in the feeder posts, such employees are burdened with the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Branch Manager, on payment of only charge allowance, which is per se illegal. 8. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the petitioners have no legal right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when they have a statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Act in order to adjudicate any dispute with regard to their service conditions. None of the District Cooperative Banks have raised any grievance against the Government communication dated 20.4.2018 to make suitable arrangements for deploying employees without hampering the functioning of the Society. The communication dated 20.4.2018 of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was issued based on Government communication dated 6.3.2018, directing that in District Co-operative Banks the vacancies of Branch Manager earmarked for direct recruitment need not be filled up by way of promotion from the feeder post, but the senior most employees in the feeder post can be given charge, by giving eligible charge allowance. The learned Special Government Pleader would contend further that, in the case of employees who are about to retire, on granting provisional promotion to the posts lying vacant under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, the Bank will have to bear additional liability while calculating gratuity and other terminal benefits payable to such employees. As per Rule 189 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the Government is the ultimate authority to fix and alter the pay and allowances in respect of the employees in the Co-operative sector and on that basis, the Government has issued the communication dated 6.3.2018. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the District Co-operative Banks contended that the petitioners cannot seek the relief of promotion either provisionally or otherwise in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The dispute in the matter, if any, is one which has to be resolved under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, substantive vacancies in the post of Branch Manager and equivalent posts in the District Cooperative Bank shall be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio 3:1. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 182 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, substantive vacancies in the post of Branch Manager and equivalent posts in the District Cooperative Bank shall be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio 3:1. The petitioners, merely based on the fact that they are holding the post of Senior Accountants claim promotion to the post of Branch Manager, which is in the supervisory cadre. There is no violation of any of the legal rights of the petitioners and as such, the District Co-operative Banks cannot be compelled to fill up all the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment, by provisional promotion. 10. Clause (ia)of Section 2 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity 'the Act'), as amended by Act 14 of 2017, with effect from 10.4.2017, define 'District Co-operative Bank' to mean a Central Society having jurisdiction over one revenue district and having as its members Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks and the principle object of which is to raise funds to be lend to its members, including nominal or associate members. 11. Section 80 of the Act deals with officers, etc. of Co-operative Societies. As per sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, the Government shall classify the societies in the State according to their type and financial position. Going by sub-section (2) of Section 80, the Government shall, in consultation with the Registrar, fix or alter the number and designation of the officers and servants of different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1). As per subsection (3) of Section 80, the Government shall make rules either prospectively or retrospectively, regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowances, and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1). 12. In exercise of the rule making powers under Section 109 of the Act, the Government made the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for brevity 'the Rules') to carry out the purposes of the Act. Rule 182 deals with classification of societies under sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 182, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, the societies in the State shall be classified as shown in Appendix III. Rule 182 deals with classification of societies under sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 182, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, the societies in the State shall be classified as shown in Appendix III. The first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 182 provides that, the Government may on their own motion or otherwise, after consultation with the Registrar, revise such classification once in every three years. The second proviso to sub-rule (1) provides further that, while reckoning the financial position for the purpose of classification of societies, position of 12 months average of the year, each month's position based on the last day of the month, shall be considered. 13. Sub-section (3A) of Section 80 of the Act provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the Rules made or orders issued thereunder, or in the bye-laws of any society relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers and servants of societies, all appointments of officers and servants of the societies mentioned in Schedule I, for which direct recruitment is resorted to, shall be made from a select list of candidates furnished by Kerala Public Service Commission and in making such recruitment, the reservation principles under Rules 14 to 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 shall be followed. Going by sub-rule (2) of Rule l82 of the Rules, the Committee shall be the authority to appoint employees in a Co-operative Society. Going by sub-rule (3) of Rule l82, in respect of societies covered by subsection (3A) of Section 80 of the Act, the Committee shall appoint the employees from the list of candidates furnished by the Kerala Public Service Commission. 14. Rule 185 of the Rules deals with promotion. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 185, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (2), (3) and (4), appointment to the categories of posts in a society, other than those mentioned in sub-rules (2), (3) and (4), shall be made by promotion, on the basis of seniority in the feeder category. The feeder categories for this purpose shall be specified by the society by framing suitable regulations, with the approval of the Registrar. The feeder categories for this purpose shall be specified by the society by framing suitable regulations, with the approval of the Registrar. As per clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 185, substantive vacancies in the post of Branch Manager and the equivalent posts in the District Co-operative Banks shall be filled up by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio 3:1. As per clause (i) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 185, substantive vacancies in the post of Deputy General Manager in the District Co-operative Banks shall be filled up promotion and direct recruitment, in the ratio 1:1. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 185 provides that at no point of time the number of direct recruits shall exceed 25% of the total strength of the respective posts mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (2). 15. Rule 186 of the Rules deals with qualifications. As per clause (ia) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 186, no person shall be eligible for appointment to all posts to be filled up by direct recruitment under sub-rule (2) of Rule 185, unless he possesses graduation from a recognised University with not less than 50% of marks in the aggregate; and Higher Diploma in Co- operation [HDC or HDC&BM of State Co-operative Union of Kerala or HDC and HDCM of National Council for Cooperative Training or successful completion of Subordinate (Junior) Personal Co-operative Training Course (Junior Diploma in Co-operation)]; or B.Sc. (Cooperation & Banking) of Kerala Agricultural University or B.Com. (with Co-operation) of any of the Universities in Kerala with not less than 50% marks in the aggregate. 16. In this batch of writ petitions, one of the relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the respective District Co-operative Banks and its Administrators to provisionally promote the petitioners to the post of Branch Managers (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018) with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get promotion provisionally to the post of Branch Managers/Deputy General Manager in the vacancy available in the respective District Co-operative Bank. 17. Section 69 of the Act deals with disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to get promotion provisionally to the post of Branch Managers/Deputy General Manager in the vacancy available in the respective District Co-operative Bank. 17. Section 69 of the Act deals with disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. As per clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 69, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises between the society or its Committee and any past Committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, such disputes shall be referred to Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes, and the Arbitration Court or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such disputes and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. As per clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 69, for the purpose of sub-section (1), any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, including their promotion and inter se seniority, shall also be deemed to be disputes. 18. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 19. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 19. In Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra), i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v.Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 and Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 the Apex Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 20. In Thansingh Nathmal's case (supra) a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self imposed limitations. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily, the court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 21. In Titaghur Paper Mills' case (supra) a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336] at page 356 in the following passage: "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute ..... This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336] at page 356 in the following passage: "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute ..... But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it ..... the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in that passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., [1919 AC 368] and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. [1935 AC 532] and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. [ AIR 1940 PC 105 ]. It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights and has been followed by the Apex Court throughout. 22. In the instant case, the claim made by the employees of the District Co-operative Banks for provisional promotion to the post of Branch Manager (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018) is a dispute which has to be raised for adjudication before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, in view of the provisions under clause (c) of subsection (1), read with clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act, the Co-operative Arbitration Court is empowered to make such interlocutory orders as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice, pending award of a dispute referred to it under Section 69. An award passed by the Arbitration Court under sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Act is appealable before the Cooperative Tribunal, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. An award passed by the Arbitration Court under sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Act is appealable before the Cooperative Tribunal, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. The provisions under Sections 69 and 70 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that an effective statutory forum has been created under the Act for adjudication of disputes of the employees of a Cooperative Banks in connection with their employment, including promotion and inter se seniority. 23. In the instant case, in none of the writ petitions, any exceptional circumstance is pointed out for not availing the statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Act. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respective District Cooperative Banks and its Administrators to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Managers (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018) with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission join duty; or a declaration that they are entitled to get such promotion provisionally in the vacancy available in the respective District Co-operative Bank. 24. In Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala, 2015 (1) KLT 849 , one of the issues that came up for consideration before a Larger Bench of this Court was as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Cooperative Societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. After referring to the provisions under the Act, this Court held that writ petitions are maintainable against Co-operative Societies in certain circumstances, namely, when the action complained of in the writ petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Co-operative Society or the action of the Co-operative Society, if falls in a public domain or breach of public duty is complained of. In the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a writ petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society. In the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a writ petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society. In the said decision, the Larger Bench held that the Full Bench judgment in Bhaskaran and others v. Additional Secretary and others 1987 (2) KLT 903 , cannot be read as holding that writ petition will lie only against a Co-operative Society, which is State or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 25. In Association of Milma Officers' case (supra), the 2nd petitioner was working as Senior Manager-in-charge of Thiruvananthapuram Regional Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., who was governed by the Staff Regulations of the said Union. It was the case of the petitioners that even though the 2nd petitioner was eligible to be appointed in the post of Senior Manager (Diary), respondents 3 and 4 were taking hasty steps to appoint the 7th respondent to the said post. After referring to the Staff Regulations, this Court held that the said Regulation, being not of statutory nature, even if the submission is accepted that action of the respondent in proceeding to appoint the 7th respondent was in violation of the Staff Regulation, the said violation of the non-statutory provision could not have been made the subject matter of writ proceedings. Since no infraction of any statutory provision or violation of any public duty was alleged, this Court held that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. 26. After referring to Ext.P1 Service Regulation of the Employees of Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd., the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.19393 of 2018 contended that, the said Staff Regulation is having a statutory force, as it is approved by G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/Co-op. dated 30.9.1986. As per Ext.P1staff Regulations, interim vacancies exceeding 30 days and above may ordinarily be filled up by temporary promotion. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.20059 of 2018 contended that, the employees of other District Cooperative Banks in the State are also governed by Staff Regulations framed by the respective Banks, by adopting the Service Regulations of the Employees of District/Central Co-operative Banks of Kerala framed vide G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/Co-op. dated 30.9.1986, and as such they are governed by Staff Regulations having statutory force. 27. As evident from the Service Regulations of the Employees of District/Central Co-operative Banks of Kerala framed vide G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/Co-op. dated 30.9.1986, and as such they are governed by Staff Regulations having statutory force. 27. As evident from the Service Regulations of the Employees of District/Central Co-operative Banks of Kerala framed vide G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86/Co-op. dated 30.9.1986, a copy of which is made available for the perusal of this Court, the Regulations shall come into force on the date of adoption by each Bank. Though a copy of the Recruitment Rules of Alappuzha District Cooperative Bank is placed on record as Ext.P2 in W.P. (C)No.18684 of 2018 and the Service Regulation of the Employees of Malappuram District Co-operative Bank Ltd. is placed on record as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.19393 of 2018, the Service Regulations of other District Cooperative Banks are not placed on record in the respective writ petitions. In none of the writ petitions the petitioners have raised a specific contention that the Staff Regulations framed by the respective District Co-operative Banks are having statutory force. 28. In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 5 SCC 111 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that in deciding the question as to whether a non-statutory Society would come within the definition of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the six tests laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722 must be satisfied. The tests formulated in Ajay Hasia are not a rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within any one of them it must, ex hypothesis, be considered to be a State within the meaning of Article 12. The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. 29. Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive. If this is found then the body is a State within Article 12. On the other hand, when the control is merely regulatory, whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a State. 29. In Dukhooram Gupta Hari Prasad Gupta v. Cooperative Agricultural Association Ltd, Kawardha and another AIR 1961 MP 289 a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a co-operative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, being an authority or body of persons having the power of framing bye-laws would fall within the definition of 'State' in Article 12 of the Constitution. The terms and conditions of service between such society as an employer and its employees are not merely a matter of contract but are also governed by the bye-laws on the point. The bye-laws give a legal right to the servant apart from the contract and both the society and the servant are bound by it. The enforcement of such a legal right forms an appropriate subject matter for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of Constitution. The said view was overruled in Ram Swarup v. Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federation AIR 1976 MP 152 following the view expressed by another Division Bench in Ramnath Sharma v. State of Madhya Bharat AIR 1959 MP 218 and also the view expressed by the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi (1975) 1 SCC 421 , Sabhajit Tewary v. Union India (1975) 1 SCC 485 and Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Sharnli v. Lakshmi Narain (1976) 2 SCC 58 . 30. In Ramnath Sharma's case (supra) a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a cooperative society registered in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, cannot be treated as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such will not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Division Bench held that, a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not a statutory body. The Division Bench held that, a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not a statutory body. In Ram Swarup's case (supra), while overruling the view expressed in Dukhooram's case (supra) the Division Bench held that, before any institution can be said to be a statutory body, it must be created by a Statute and must owe its existence to the Statute. This is the primary thing which has to be seen for deciding the question as to whether a co-operative society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act is a statutory body. It will be necessary to mark a distinction between an institution which is not created by or under a Statute but is governed by certain statutory provisions for the proper maintenance and administration of its affairs, and the one which is created by the statute and owes its existence to the same. A number of institutions, which though not created by or under any statute, are after formation governed by certain statutory provisions regulating their affairs. Simply by doing so, they not become statutory bodies. For instance, a company being incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act cannot be said to be a body created by the Companies Act. A company so registered and incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act cannot be a statutory body because it is not created by the Statute. It is nothing but a body created in accordance with and governed by the provisions of the Statute. The same is the case of a co-operative society. According to the requirements of law, for the time being in force, certain number persons form a society with certain aims and objects. That society requires registration in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. After having been so registered, it becomes liable for following certain rules, regulations and directions framed and issued under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. But such a society is not created by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act itself. It still remains as a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of certain statute. But such a society is not created by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act itself. It still remains as a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of certain statute. It does not have a statutory character like the Oil and Natural Gas Commission or the Life Insurance Corporation, which institutions owe their existence to the statute itself and have been created by the statute. 31. In Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) the Apex Court held that a company incorporated under the Companies Act is not created by the Companies Act but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is not a statutory body because it is not created by the statute. It is a body created in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Following the above view, the Apex Court in Vaish Degree College's case (supra) held that there is a well marked distinction between a body which is created by the statute and a body which after having come into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of the statute. In other words, the position seems to be that the institution concerned must owe its very existence to a statute which would be the fountainhead of its powers. The question in such cases to be asked is, if there is no statute would the institution have any legal existence. If the answer is in the negative, then undoubtedly it is a statutory body, but if the institution has a separate existence of its own without any reference to the statute concerned but is merely governed by the statutory provisions it cannot be said to be a statutory body. 32. The question as to the legal status of a Cooperative Society, its bye-laws and amenability to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was examined by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N.Seetharam Raju, AIR 1990 AP 171 . The Full Bench held that, if a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Apex Court in that behalf), it would also be an 'authority' within the meaning, and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. The Full Bench held that, if a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Apex Court in that behalf), it would also be an 'authority' within the meaning, and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a society against its employee in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of a writ petition. This is not because the byelaws have the force of law, but on the ground that, having framed the bye-laws prescribing the service conditions of its employees, the society must follow them, in the interest of fairness. If it is left to the sweet will and pleasure of the society either to follow or not to follow the bye-laws, it would be inherently arbitrary, and may very likely give rise to discriminatory treatment. A society, which is a 'State', has to act in conformity with Article 14 and for that reason, it will be made to follow the bye-laws. The Full Bench held further that, the bye-laws made by a cooperative society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act do not have the force of law. They are in the nature of contract, terms of contract, between the society and its employees, or between the society and its members, as the case may be. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees, governed by bye-laws, cannot be enforced through a writ petition. However, in the matter of termination of service of the employees of a co-operative society, Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act provides a certain protection, and since the said protection is based upon public policy, it will be enforced, in an appropriate case, by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, of course, an employee has to follow the remedies provided by the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act; but, in an appropriate case, the High Court will interfere under Article 226, if the violation of a statutory public duty is established. It is immaterial which Act or Rule casts such a statutory public duty. 33. Ordinarily, of course, an employee has to follow the remedies provided by the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act; but, in an appropriate case, the High Court will interfere under Article 226, if the violation of a statutory public duty is established. It is immaterial which Act or Rule casts such a statutory public duty. 33. In K. Marappan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies 2006 (4) KLT 667 a Larger Bench of the Madras High Court held that, the bye-laws made by the society as held by the Apex Court in Co-operative Central Bank Limited v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad (1969) 2 SCC 43 and B.K.Garad v. Nasik Merchants' Cooperative Bank Limited (1984) 2 SCC 50 do not have the force of law. They are in the nature of contract, terms of contract, between the society and its employees or between society and its members, as the case may be. If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Apex Court in that behalf), it would also be 'an Authority' within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a Society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of writ petition. A society, which is not a 'State' would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may be issued to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions, a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions. The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition. In the absence of special circumstances, the High Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy. 34. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition. In the absence of special circumstances, the High Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy. 34. In Co-operative Central Bank's case (supra) a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute. That principle, however, does not apply to bye-laws of the nature that a co-operative society is empowered by the Act to make. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They may be binding between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute. In respect of bye-laws laying down conditions of service of the employees of a society, the bye-laws would be binding between the society and the employees just in the same manner as conditions of service laid down by contract between the parties. In fact, after such bye-laws laying down the conditions of service are made and any person enters the employment of a society those conditions of service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like conditions of service specifically forming part of the contract of service. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law. 35. The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law. 35. In B.K. Garad's case (supra) a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that bye-laws of a co-operative society can at best have the status of an Article of Association of a company governed by the Companies Act, 1956 and as held in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (1969) 2 SCC 43 the bye-laws of a co-operative society framed in pursuance of the provision of the relevant Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. They are neither statutory in character nor they have statutory flavour so as to be raised to the status of law. 36. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Service Regulations of the respective District Co-operative Banks, even when such Regulations have been framed by adopting the Service Regulations of District/Central Co-operative Banks of Kerala formulated vide G.O.(Ms.)No.79/86 Co-op. Dated 3.9.1986, cannot be treated as a Regulation having statutory character, which can be enforced through a writ petition, especially when the District Co-operative Banks cannot be characterised as a 'State' falling under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respective District Co-operative Banks and its Administrators to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Managers (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018) with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission join duty. The petitioners are also not entitled to the consequential declaration sought for in the writ petitions. 37. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioners are also not entitled to the consequential declaration sought for in the writ petitions. 37. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The said communication is one issued pursuant to Government communication dated 6.3.2018, whereby directions have been issued to the effect that no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Public Service Commission, and qualified employees can be given charge of those promotion posts, on charge allowance. The Government communication dated 6.3.2018 is under challenge only in W.P.(C)No.19633 of 2018. In all other writ petitions, the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies alone is under challenge. 38. As per the provisions under Section 80 of the Act, the Government has the power to classify the cooperative societies in the State according to their type and financial position. As per sub-section (6) of Section 80 of the Act, substituted by Act 8 of 2013, with effect from 14.2.2013, the Government shall have power to fix or alter the maximum and minimum limit of establishment expenses of co-operative societies, including the pay and allowances and other benefits of employees of co-operative societies. The provisions under Section 80 of the Act would make it explicitly clear that the Government have the power to classify cooperative societies according to their type and financial position and also to fix or alter the maximum and minimum limit of establishment expenses of such societies, including the pay and allowances and other benefits of its employees. 39. In Sunikuttan and others v. Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others 2016 (1) KLT 448 this Court, after referring to the law laid down in P.Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary 1987 (2) KLT 903 and Raghavan Nair v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies 1998 (2) KLT 1068 held that, either the Government or the Registrar has the power to fix the staff pattern of a society. By extension, it has got the power to sanction the posts as well. The filling up those posts based on the need and necessity is in the domain of the management. The manner and method of recruitment is certainly required to be prescribed by the Government, but not the actual timing of the recruitment. By extension, it has got the power to sanction the posts as well. The filling up those posts based on the need and necessity is in the domain of the management. The manner and method of recruitment is certainly required to be prescribed by the Government, but not the actual timing of the recruitment. Such power is unavailable either from Section 66 or Section 66A or even Section 80 of the Act. The Government can guide, even lead, a society, but it cannot take over the very administration of the society. There can be no usurpation. This Court held further that, Section 80 of the Act, which is regulatory in nature, does not empower the Government to compel the societies to go for recruitment, which includes regularisation. The regulatory role of the Government comes to an end the moment it creates the posts, which is usually at the request of a particular society or bank. It is for the management to fill up the posts based on its need and viability. 40. In Sunikuttan's case (supra) the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext.P10 circular directing the first respondent Bank to create the required number of posts by obtaining necessary approval and thereafter regularise the petitioners, who have been working on a contract basis in the first respondent Bank since 1989, in those sanctioned posts. In that context, this Court held that Section 80 of the Act, which is regulatory in nature, does not empower the Government to compel the societies to go for recruitment, which includes regularisation. In the said decision, this Court has also held that, the manner and method of recruitment is certainly required to be prescribed by the Government and the Government can guide, even lead, a society. 41. In Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Government of Kerala 2000 (3) KLT 389 a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the law laid down in Sherthallai Urban Cooperative Bank v. State of Kerala 1984 KLT 971 held that, for appointing staff as per the staff pattern fixed in Appendix III and the Rules according to the type and class to which the society belongs, no prior approval is necessary. The judgment of the Division Bench was in the context of the challenge made against the condition imposed in Ext.P1 order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that appointments in the upgraded credit societies should be with his prior approval, and also the validity of Ext.P2 order, whereby the Joint Registrar had interdicted appointment to various posts mentioned therein. The law laid down in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank's case was relied on by this Court in Kerala Primary Cooperative Societies Association v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies 2003 (1) KLT 352 where the challenge was made against Circular No.18/2002 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, prohibiting all appointments and promotions from posts below that of Junior Clerk in primary co-operative societies other than urban co-operative banks under the control of Reserve Bank of India and newly registered co-operative banks/societies, temporarily for a period of 6 months. 42. In N. Gouthaman v. Joint Registrar and others 1998 (1) KLT 275 this Court held that, filling up of the vacancies of Secretary and Attender which are statutorily sanctioned can only be considered as an act in the nature of day-to-day administration/internal administration of the society and there may not be any reason for the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to interfere in the process of appointment. This Court held further that, a co-operative society functions as an autonomous body and it has got its own freedom of activities, of course within and subject to limitation of the Act, Rules, bye-laws and directions of the Registrar. So long as the society acts within its jurisdiction in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Rules bye-laws and the general directions by the Registrar, it can enjoy and autonomy and can claim freedom from interference. But however, if the society violates the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws or the directions of the Registrar the society will be subject to the supervisory control of the authorities under the Act and the Registrar can issue suitable and appropriate orders by virtue of powers conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the Act. The committee cannot act against the interest of the society with immunity and if the actions are prejudicial to the interests of the society, the Registrar has the powers to curb and curtail their freedom. 43. The committee cannot act against the interest of the society with immunity and if the actions are prejudicial to the interests of the society, the Registrar has the powers to curb and curtail their freedom. 43. In Aji v. State of Kerala 1995 (1) KLT 363 a Full Bench of this Court held that the Government has no power under any provisions of the Act or Rules to interfere with the selection process of a co-operative society. As there is no provision under the Act or Rules which authorises the Government to interfere with the selection process of the society, Ext.P5 order of the Government staying appointments cannot be sustained. The Full Bench held further that, Section 29 of the Act enables the Registrar or any other person deputed by him to have the right to attend the committee or general body meeting of any society. Rule 186 of the Rules, which prescribes qualifications states that no person shall be eligible for appointment in any post unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post as shown under the Rule. This would definitely show that the committee cannot on its own appoint any person who does not have the requisite qualifications under Rule 186. If unqualified person is appointed the Registrar who has power of supervision in the working of the society can interfere and correct the same. In view of Registrar's powers of supersession of the committee being of widest amplitude and drastic in nature it is not possible to hold that his power is only of superintendence over the financial dealings of the society and that alone. 44. In the instant case, by Government communication dated 6.3.2018 and the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies directions have been issued to the effect that no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Public Service Commission, and qualified employees can be given charge of those promotion posts, on charge allowance. By the aforesaid communications, the District Co-operative Banks are not interdicted from effecting promotion or direct recruitment to the posts of Branch Manager in the ratio 3:1, as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 182 of the Rules. By the aforesaid communications, the District Co-operative Banks are not interdicted from effecting promotion or direct recruitment to the posts of Branch Manager in the ratio 3:1, as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 182 of the Rules. On the other hand, the District Co-operative Banks are interdicted only from effecting provisional promotion to the posts of Branch Manager which are earmarked for direct recruitment, and to give charge of those promotion posts to qualified employees in feeder posts on charge allowance. 45. The fact that, in the case of employees who are about to retire, on granting provisional promotion to the posts lying vacant under the quota earmarked for direct recruitment, the District Co-operative Banks will have to bear additional liability while calculating gratuity and other terminal benefits payable to such employees is not in dispute. As per sub-section (6) of Section 80 of the Act, substituted by Act 8 of 2013, with effect from 14.2.2013, the Government shall have power to fix or alter the maximum and minimum limit of establishment expenses of co-operative societies, including the pay and allowances and other benefits of employees of co-operative societies. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 189 of the Rules, inserted vide SRO No.733/14, with effect from 26.11.2014, the Government shall have power to fix or alter the maximum and minimum limit of establishment expenses of apex and each class of central and primary societies/banks/institutions. The term 'establishment expenses' as specified in sub-section (6) of Section 80 shall include expenses towards basic pay, special pay, dearness allowance and other allowances, medical aid, employers contribution to provident fund/pension fund, contribution towards gratuity fund and welfare fund, encashment of earned leave, leave travel concession, bonus payment and ex-gratia payment, if any, by the society/bank/institution to its employees. The term 'establishment expenses' as specified in sub-section (6) of Section 80 shall include expenses towards basic pay, special pay, dearness allowance and other allowances, medical aid, employers contribution to provident fund/pension fund, contribution towards gratuity fund and welfare fund, encashment of earned leave, leave travel concession, bonus payment and ex-gratia payment, if any, by the society/bank/institution to its employees. When the Government have the power to classify co-operative societies according to their type and financial position and also to fix or alter the maximum and minimum limit of establishment expenses of such societies, including the pay and allowances and other benefits of its employees, it cannot be said that the Government communication dated 6.3.2018, whereby directions have been issued to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to ensure that no provisional promotions shall be made to vacancies of Branch Managers in District Co-operative Banks, which are earmarked for direct recruitment by Public Service Commission, and to give charge of those promotion posts to qualified employees in the feeder posts, on charge allowance, cannot be said to be one issued without any authority of law. If that be so, the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot also be said to be one issued without any authority of law. 46. No employee has a vested right for promotion. None of the District Co-operative Banks have challenged the interdiction for provisional promotion to the posts of Branch Manager, vide Government communication dated 6.3.2018 and the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In such circumstances, the challenge made in this batch of writ petitions against the aforesaid Government communication and the consequential communication of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies can only be repelled and I do so. 47. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjid Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 it is contended that, since the principle of equal pay for equal work apply, on getting provisional promotion the employees are entitled to parity in pay and as such, their entitlement of the scale pay attached to the post of Branch Manager cannot be denied by granting charge allowance. A reading of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra would show that, in the said decision, the Apex Court was dealing with the entitlement of temporary employees who were working as pump operators, fitters, helpers, drivers, plumbers, chowkidars, etc. for minimum pay scale with permissible allowances. The principle laid down in the said decision has no application in the facts of the case on hand, wherein, the petitioners are claiming provisional promotion to vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. 48. Relying on the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No. 6248 of 2018 and also other judgments in W.P. (C)Nos.24614 of 2017, 40045 of 2017, 17330 of 2018 and 18652 of 2018, the learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that this Court has already exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by granting provisional promotion to similarly situated employees in the District Co-operative Banks to the post of Branch Managers, to the vacancies earmarked for direct recruits. It is also pointed out that the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C)No.17330 of 2018 and W.P. (C)No.18652 of 2018 were after taking note of communication dated 20.4.2018 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. From the Judges Papers in W.P. (C)No.17330 of 2018 and W.P.(C)No.18652 of 2018, it is seen that though the aforesaid communication dated 20.4.2018 was placed on record as Ext.P9 and Ext.P2 respectively, the same was not under challenge. Relying on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.40045 of 2017 and W.P.(C)No.6248 of 2018, which were placed on record as Exts.P10 and P11 in W.P.(C)No.17330 of 2018 and as Exts.P4 and P5 in W.P.(C)No.18652 of 2018, it was contended that in similar matters, this Court has directed provisional promotion of Senior Accountants as Branch Managers. When the communication dated 20.04.2018 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Ext.P9/Ext.P2) was not under challenge in W.P. (C)No.17330 of 2018 and W.P.(C)No.18652 of 2018, it cannot be contended that a similar exercise as done in that judgment has to be undertaken in this batch of writ petitions. 49. When the communication dated 20.04.2018 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Ext.P9/Ext.P2) was not under challenge in W.P. (C)No.17330 of 2018 and W.P.(C)No.18652 of 2018, it cannot be contended that a similar exercise as done in that judgment has to be undertaken in this batch of writ petitions. 49. The issue raised in the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that filed by the District Co-operative Banks as to maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also the legality or otherwise of the interdiction to provisional promotion by Government communication dated 6.3.2018 and the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 was never an issue before this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. In such circumstances, relying on the judgment of this Court in those writ petitions, it cannot be contended that, ignoring the legal questions raised in the counter affidavit as to maintainability of the writ petitions, the respective District Co-operative Banks should be directed to grant provisional promotion to the petitioners to the post of Branch Managers (to the post of Deputy General Manager in W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018) against the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. 50. One of the reliefs sought for in this batch of writ petitions (except W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018) is a writ of mandamus commanding the respective District Cooperative Banks and its Administrator to provisionally promote them to the post of Branch Managers with a rider that they will be reverted back as and when candidates advised by Public Service Commission join duty. Since no interference is made on the Government communication dated 6.3.2018 and the consequential communication dated 20.4.2018 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the petitioners are not entitled to a writ of mandamus sought for and also the consequential declaration. 51. In W.P.(C)No.19217 of 2018 one of the reliefs sough for is a writ of mandamus commanding Thrissur District Co-operative Bank and its Administrator to provisionally promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager with a rider that he will be reverted back as and when the candidate advised by Public Service Commission join duty. In the absence of any Government communication or that of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies interdicting provisional promotion to that post, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Act. In the absence of any Government communication or that of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies interdicting provisional promotion to that post, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Act. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. However, the dismissal of W.P. (C)No.19217 of 2018 will be, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Act.