JUDGMENT : C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. 1. This intra court appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18247/2020 dated 09-12-2020. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. He filed the writ petition seeking to call for the records leading to the appointment of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari. Furthermore, he sought for a declaration that the 3rd respondent being a member and stake holder of the 2nd respondent Society, is not eligible and entitled to get appointment in the Society as peon and therefore the appointment and continuance of the 3rd respondent in the service of the Society is bad in law and against the provisions of the K.C.S. Act and Rules. He also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P8 complaint and pass orders in accordance with law and to effect appointment to the next eligible candidate as peon in the service of the Society. 2. Taking note of the fact that it is a service dispute and that an alternate efficacious remedy is available in the statute, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail such statutory remedy, the writ petition was disposed of. It is feeling aggrieved by such judgment that he comes up with appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that existence of an alternate remedy is not always a bar for entertaining everything. However, when an alternate efficacious remedy is available, only in exceptional cases, a writ petition would be entertained ignoring the existence of such alternate remedy. The fact that the issue in the case on hand involves a service dispute is indisputable. In such circumstances, it is only worthy to refer to Chapter IX of the K.C.S. Act dealing with settlement of disputes. Section 69(1)(h) thereunder would reveal that monetary disputes are to be dealt with by the Registrar and non-monetary disputes are to be entertained by the Arbitration Court. In such circumstances, it is only worthy to refer to Chapter IX of the K.C.S. Act dealing with settlement of disputes. Section 69(1)(h) thereunder would reveal that monetary disputes are to be dealt with by the Registrar and non-monetary disputes are to be entertained by the Arbitration Court. An amendment was brought to Section 69 of the K.C.S. Act, whereby Clause (d) was inserted to Section 69(2) as hereunder: “69(1) ….......................................................................... (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputed, namely:- (d) any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 80, including their promotion and inter se seniority.” 5. The 3rd respondent herein, had part taken in a selection process initiated by the 2nd respondent Society and on getting selected he was appointed as peon in the Bank. Evidently, the appellant is raising violation of the provisions under the K.C.S. Act and the Rules in the matter of the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the Bank. Admittedly, the rd respondent was appointed in the bank on 19-12-2019 and since then, he has been working as peon in the service of the Bank. 6. In the light of the provisions under Sec. 69(1)(h) and 69(2)(b) of the K.C.S. Act, and in view of the admitted factum of continuance of the 3rd respondent in the service of the bank since 19-12-2019, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. The learned Single Judge only declined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage and relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. When that be so, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment warranting any interference in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction under Section 5 of the High Court Act. In the circumstances, the appeal must fail. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.