The petitioner, who is to retire on 31.05.2015, laid a challenge in this writ petition against the final seniority list prepared and published on 16.08.2006–more particularly after an initial round of litigation, beginning with proceedings before an Arbitrator and culminating in a writ petition before this Court, as could be seen from Exhibit P3 judgment.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent Co-operative Bank in 1976 as a Peon and had his services confirmed in 1977. When the petitioner acquired the qualification of Junior Diploma in Co-operation (JDC) in 1993, the respondent Bank provisionally promoted the petitioner in 1994 against a leave vacancy. After joining the promotional post, while on probation, the petitioner went on leave without allowance in November 1994 seeking greener pastures abroad. After three years, when the petitioner returned on 13.08.1997, the respondent Bank placed him in his entry carder as Peon, instead of letting him discharge duties as a Junior Clerk, which position the petitioner held while he proceeded on leave.

3. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank, after initial unsuccessful representations to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, the petitioner eventually raised a dispute before the learned Arbitrator by invoking Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act (‘the Act’ for brevity) in ARC No. 7/2005. After the dismissal of the said arbitration proceedings through Exhibit P1 Award, dated 19.09.2007, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in A.P. No. 26/2008, which was also dismissed through Exhibit P2 judgment dated 28.05.2010.

4. Further aggrieved, when the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 24043/2010, this Court closed the writ petition through Exhibit P3 judgment dated 28.02.2014, holding that the petitioner might challenge the final seniority list in respect of the Junior Clerks in the Bank, if such a right survives. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning Exhibit P4 seniority list dated 16.08.2006.

5. In the above factual background, Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has, to her credit, fairly begun her submissions by admitting that the petitioner did not assail the seniority list in the earlier round of litigation. However, as it is, according to her, a pure question of law, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition laying challenge against Exhibit P4 final seniority list. The singular contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that in terms of Clause 4 of Appendix XII A of Kerala Service Rules, the petitioner on his resumption of duties after initial leave without allowance ought to have been continued by the respondent Bank in the same position that the petitioner occupied when he had left the service. In other words, since the petitioner was functioning as a Junior Clerk prior to his going on leave in November 1994, on his return after three years, he ought not to have been placed in a lower position than what he had occupied earlier. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it is nothing but a demotion. In support of her submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Mohammed Abdulla v. State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 712 (SC)].

6. Eventually, the learned Senior Counsel has urged this Court to allow the writ petition without disturbing the seniority list by providing notional seniority to the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner is to retire by 31st of this month.

7. Sri. B.K. Gopalakrishnan, the learned counsel for the respondents 3, 4, 6 to 9, 11, 13 and 14, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. To begin with, the learned counsel would contend that on 18.06.1994, the petitioner was only provisionally placed as a probationary Junior Clerk against the leave vacancy of one Mr. Mohandas, but not against any substantive vacancy. Wh