1. The petitioners in these Original Petitions are employees of the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank. The petitioners entered service prior to 1.1.1974 on which date Chap.15 was introduced in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Thereunder by R.186 of the Rules qualifications were prescribed for appointing for the posts in Co-operative Societies. R.185 of the Rules dealt with promotion. Under R.186, all posts other than those requiring technical qualifications, the starting pay of which is Rs.250.00 and above would be filled only by candidates who had a degree in Commerce or Masters degree in Arts of a recognised University, with Co-operation as special subject or a

degree from any recognised University and a Higher Diploma in Co-operation or a Diploma in Rural Services with Co-operation as optional subject or B.Sc. (Co-operation & Banking) Degree of the Kerala Agricultural University. The petitioners in these Original Petitions did not have the educational qualification of graduation. The petitioners in O.P. No.11154 of 1997 obtained promotion as Branch Managers in the light of the protection offered by R.200 of the Rules. The contesting respondents therein though juniors to the petitioners, are graduates and hence possessed qualification contemplated by R.186 of the Rules. The petitioners challenge the promotions given to the contesting respondents on the basis that the petitioners are not entitled to promotion since they had not possessed the requisite qualification. The petitioners rely upon R.200 of the Rules to put forward the claim that their right to promotion is protected notwithstanding the fact that they do not have the qualification as prescribed by R.186 of the Rules.

2. The petitioners in O.P.11154 of 1997 were seeking promotions to the post of Branch Managers. They were not given that promotion on the basis that they did not have requisite qualification in terms of R.186 of the Rules.

3. The petitioners in O.P. No.12750 of 1997 were also denied promotion to the posts higher than Branch Managers on the basis that they did not have the requisite qualification and on the basis that only graduates could be promoted in the light of the qualification prescribed in the Rules.

4. The petitioners made a representation before the Registrar claiming that they are entitled to be promoted to the next higher post even though they did not have graduation since they were entitled to protection under R.200 of the Rules as amended and the promotion given to the contesting respondents ignoring the seniority of the petitioners was not justified. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies by order dated 23.2.1996 rejected the claim of the petitioners on the basis that going by the ratio of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary (1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB)) the petitioners cannot aspire for further promotion since they did not have the requisite qualification prescribed under R.186 of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeals before the Government. By Ext.P10 order dated 13.6.1997, the Government dismissed those appeals again relying on the decision of the Full Bench.

5. According to the petitioners, subsequent to the decision of the Full Bench in Bhaskaran's case, R.200 itself was amended and in the light of the amendment, the promotion was not confined to one post as far as the petitioners are concerned and that they could have promotion on the basis of their seniority to any of the posts to which they become eligible for promotion as and when the vacancy arose. This plea of the petitioners is met by the contesting respondents and the State by submitting that the essential ratio of the decision of the Full Bench in Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary (1987 (2) KLT 903 (FB)) was accepted by the Government and it amended R.200 of the Rules subsequent to the decision of the Full Bench and only on one aspect, the Rule was a