JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Application of a purported circular letter dated 6.08.1996 issued by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, State of Maharashtra is in question in this appeal.

3. Respondent No. 1 is a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). The Society framed rules prescribing terms and conditions of service of its employees. Service Rules framed by the respondent no. 1 Cooperative Society were approved by the Registrar.

4. We are concerned with the post of Higher Grade: Manager; the qualification wherefor is laid down as under:

"The candidate should be a postgraduate and should be graduate in Economics or Law also he should have experience in the field of Banking and Co-operative Sector. Preference will be given if he has passed G.D.C. & A exam or has obtained Diploma in Banking."

5. The controversy between the parties hereto arose in the following fact situation:

Appellant was appointed in the post of a clerk on 14.12.1974. He was confirmed in his service on or about 21.04.1994. Respondent No. 2, however, was appointed as Agricultural Development Officer on 26.02.1979 as a direct recruit. He was brought on the Select List for the purpose of promotion to the post of Manager in 1994. The name of the appellant did not figure therein. A seniority list was published on 1.04.1995 wherein the name of the appellant figured at Sl. No. 4; whereas the name of the respondent no. 2 figured at Sl. No. 1.

6. Respondent No. 2 was promoted to the post of Senior Manager on or about 3.10.1998.

7. Questioning the said seniority list as also the promotion of the respondent no. 2, the appellant raised a dispute before the Cooperative Court, Amravati. Issues were framed having regard to the rival contentions of the parties.

8. The following findings were recorded by the Cooperative Court in respect of Issue Nos. (5), (5A) and (6):

"(5) Whether the disputant is entitled to declaration that the name of opponent No. 2 is to be removed from the seniority list of the Select Grade Officers, in compliance with the Service Rules. No

(5A) Whether the disputant is entitled to declaration that promotion order issued on dt. 3.10.1998 of opponent No. 2 is liable to be quashed? Yes

(6) Whether the disputant is entitled to promotion on the post of Manager from deemed date? Yes"

9. As regards, Issue No. 6, the learned Cooperative Court opined:

"48. As far as concern about the seniority list published by the opponent No. 1 Bank Exh.37 in which the name of the disputant is at serial No. 4, and it is already held that the opponent No. 2 who stood at serial No. 1 is not eligible or qualified for the post of Manager. As far as about the persons who stood at Serial No. 2 and 3 is concern, at serial No. 2 one M.R. Kadam is there who is having the qualification of B.Com, H.D.C. and as per the service Rules for the post of Manager the employee should be post graduate and having the graduation degree in Economics or in Law. Therefore, those persons are also not having the qualification for the post of Manager, and the next person is the disputant who is having the qualification as per the service Rules who is M.A. Economics, B.Com. LL.B. and G.D.C. & A., D.C.B. Therefore, the disputant is entitled for the promotion on the post of Manager from the deemed date. Hence, I answer issue No. 6 in the affirmative."

10. The Cooperative Court allowed the said application of the appellant by a judgment and order dated 16.08.2005 opining that the respondent No. 2 did not possess the requisite qualification.

11. Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Cooperative Appellate Court, which by reason of an order dated 21.06.2006 was allowed, stating:

"15. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the right of the opponent No. 2 to be in the select grade candidates has been maintained by the learned Trial Judge by recording negative finding on Issue No. 5 in his judgment.