Ramachandran Nair, J.

The connected Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing four writ petitions filed challenging the notification and follow up action taken by the appellant-Bank for appointment of an Attender, a Salesman and one Peon in the appellant-Bank. We have heard Senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for the appellant-Bank and counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and the Government Pleader for the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

2. Of the four writ petitions filed, one was filed by none other than a member of the managing committee of the appellant-Bank and one each by members of the Bank and the fourth one by an applicant who has applied for the post of Attender and Salesman. The allegations raised before the learned Single Judge were that the Bank was running on heavy loss and the accumulated loss as on the date of inviting application for the impugned appointments was Rs.36 lakhs and, therefore, the justification for appointment itself was questioned by the members. The more serious allegation is that the President and few members of the managing committee have already selected candidates and the written examination and interview both fixed on the same day after inviting applications through publication in two newspapers of limited circulation is a farce and the whole scheme and method adopted for appointment are illegal and against the norms applicable for selection. The learned Single Judge considered each and every allegation and found that all allegations are proved and accordingly he vacated the impugned notification and all follow up action taken for appointments. It is against this judgment, the appellant has come up in appeal for justifying their action.

3. Before proceeding to consider the grounds raised in support of the Writ Appeal, we are constrained to take note of the fact that the appellant-Bank on account of accumulation of losses and lack of business and deposits has lost two positions in grading in as much as, as on 4.1.2010 it is declared as a Class-V Bank as against the status enjoyed as Class-III Bank when appointments were proposed. The Government Pleader appearing for the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies submitted that under the classification of the appellant-Bank as Class-V, appellant is not entitled under Rule 188 of the Co-operative Societies Rules to make appointment to the posts for which the impugned notification was issued. Since decline in business is the trend in appellant-Bank in as much as in the course of two years it lost two positions in grade, it cannot make any appointments to non-existing posts because staff fixation is made based on grades of Banks under Rule 188 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and the Bank cannot violate the Rules and make appointments to non-existing posts. Even though this ground is very relevant to justify the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we feel the appeals on merit have to be considered on other grounds also found against the appellant by the learned Single Judge. We, therefore, proceed to consider the grounds of appeals raised by the appellant.

4. The first ground raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that this court should not have entertained the writ petitions challenging the notification inviting applications and the follow-up proceedings for appointment for the reason that dispute should have been settled through Arbitration under Section 69 of the Act. Counsel specifically brought to our notice that out of the four writ petitions, one is filed by a member of the managing committee of the appellant-Bank and two by members of the Bank and so much so, dispute should have been settled in Arbitration. However, admittedly one of the writ petitions which is also allowed by the learned Single Judge along with other cases is filed by an applicant for the post challenging the whole proceedings as malafide and against th