The dismissal of a petition on the ground of maintainability due to the availability of an alternate remedy may be erroneous if there is a significant efflux of time during the pendency of the writ proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dismissing his petition on the ground of maintainablity, since, to him, an alternate remedy to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 ('the Act' for short) is available for seeking adjudication thereunder.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the dispute are as follows : the appellant was employed in the 1st respondent-Bank to which nomination of certain Directors is made by the State Government to the Board of Directors. The appellant was appointed as a local candidate to the post of a clerk on July 31. 1972. It is conceded that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were appointed earlier to the appellant as local candidates. The appointments so made arc purely on an ad hoc basis since 1st respondent-Bank could not make regular appointments at that time. In the year 1974, the 1st repondent Bank having decided to fill up the vacancies by regular recruitment, an interview was conducted by a sub-committee of the Bank to select the candidates for the posts in question which were also open for candidates who were already working as ad hoc employees. In the interview held on January 20. 1974, the appellant was selected as a Clerk along with several other candidates, including respondent Nos 3 to 5. It is not disputed that the appellant was shown at SI, No. 1 while respondent nos. 3 to 5 were 35 shown below him in the select list later, by a resolution dated June 3, 1974, the selection of the candidates mady by the committee on the basis of the interview was approved. According to this resolution also, the name of the appellant appears at the top of the list.

( 3 ) IT appears that the 1st respondent Bank reopened the question of seniority and, pursuant to their resolution dated June 26, 1975, the seniority list was sought to be reviewed and modified as per Annexure-C to the writ petition on the basis of an interview stated to have been held by the Screening committee. However a perusal of Annexure. C discloses that the Committee which selectd the candidates earlier did not fix the seniority of the candidates which had necessitated the Bank to pass the resolution on June 26, 1975, to the effect that seniority will have to be decided by the Selection Committee after interviewing the employees. In this view of the matter, the screening Committee sought to interview the employees on July 24, 1982 in which seniority of 39 Clerks, Supervisors and Clerk-cum-Typists was fixed. In that list, (he appellant has come down in ranking to SI. No 4, The refining of this ranking by the Screening Committee is challenged by the appellant on the ground that it is arbitrary, illegal and opposed to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to the appellant, the Bank had no authority to disturb the ranking which had been assigned by the Selection committee at the time of initial selection of the candidates to the posts in question. It is this list that was challenged in the writ petition, which was rejected on the ground that alternate remedy to raise and adjudicate the dispute under Section 70 of the Act was available.

( 4 ) SRI H. Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for the appellant, urged, the following contentions: firstly, that the alteration of the seniority enjoyed by the appellant could not have been made without valid notice and without following the normal procedure in this behalf; secondly, assuming that the dispute relating to fixation of seniority inter se between the employees is covered within the disputes enumerated under Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act, having regard to the efflux of time between the filing of the petition and the date of bearing, it was inequitable and unjust to drive the appellant once again to pursue the alternate remedy under Section 70 of the Act; thirdly, it is urged that having regard to the short point involved in the dispute, the court in its discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitut