The Feeder Category Sub-Rules framed under the unamended Rule 185 (1) of the Rules do not hold the field concerning the promotional posts which find exempted from the operation of sub-rule (1) of the amended Rule 185 of the Rules. Since the effacement of the Feeder Category Sub-Rules is by way of statutory operation, they do not require any judicial invalidation. Further, Ext.P8 judgement cannot be a precedent for an issue arising on application of the regnant statutory rules, which were not even in existence when the said judgment was rendered. Indeed, in the light of inapplicability of Ext.P7 sub-rules, recourse to Ext.R7 (d) Model Recruitment Rules by the respondent Bank cannot be found fault with.

The quintessential question this writ petition wrestles with is, does the sub-delegation survive even when the very source, the delegated legislation, dies out? In such an eventuality, does the formal demise of the sub-delegation still require judicial invalidation?

2. Hierarchically, the Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, an Apex Co-Operative Society, is manned by the managing Director, usually a civil servant on deputation. Below him is the officer on special duty followed by the General Manager. In terms of extant statutory scheme, there is one General Manager for the Society under whom there are two Administrative Officers followed by 21 Regional Managers. Below the Regional Managers are 21 Deputy Managers. Though to the level of cleaner and guest room keeper there are other hierarchical positions in the organisation, they may not be germane for the purpose of adjudication.

3. Since all the parties to the writ petition have staked claim or have been promoted to the post of Regional Manager, it suffices if I focus on the mode and method of recruitment and promotion concerning the said post. As could be seen from the record, for the promotion to the post of Regional Manager, the feeder channel comprises two streams; namely, Agricultural Development Officer and Deputy Manager.

4. Petitioners 1 and 2 in the present writ petition are presently working as Assistant Managers, the 3rd petitioner being the registered employees union espousing the cause of all other employees across the board. The singular grievance of the petitioners is that while effecting promotions either to the post of Regional Manager, the respondent Bank has not taken into account the Feeder Category Sub- Rules framed under Rule 185 (1) of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for brevity). Insofar as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, the grievance ventilated is that the respondent Bank shall take necessary steps to fill up all other posts that have been kept vacant for a long period.

5. In the above factual background, Shri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, having taken me through the entire record, has submitted that for many years, there are a large number of vacancies required to be filled up by respondents 2 and 3. It is his specific contention that promotions to the post of Regional Manager are to be effected from different feeder categories in terms of Rule 185 (1) of Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules, r/w Feeder Category Sub Rules ('the Sub Rules' for brevity).

6. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that insofar as the direct recruitment is concerned, the Public Service Commission is required to conduct examination and publish the rank list; however, concerning the in-service candidates in the feeder categories, it is mandatory on the part of respondents 2 and 3 to strictly comply with the Rules and the Sub-Rules referred to above.

7. The learned counsel has also contended that though an amendment was effected to Rule 185 of the Rules way back in 1999, to this day, no recruitment/promotions have taken place. Under these circumstances, when the petitioners filed the present writ petition, this Court on 04.02.2015 issued an interim direction, seeking the modification of which the respondents filed a petition but without any success. In the light of the interim order granted on 04.02.2015, the Bank eventually effected certain promotions on 12.02.2015.

8. The learned Counsel has strenuously contended that not only in violation of the Rules and the Sub-Rules, but also in violation of the interim order granted on 04.02.2015, has the respondent Bank promoted either to the post of Regional Manager or some other posts only from one stream ignoring other streams of feeder category to which the petitioners belong. In this regard, in dilation of his submissions, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Ext.P7 Sub-Rules to contend that insofar as the