The petitioner, having joined the fourth respondent Society on 27.12.1993 as a Bill Collector, is presently working as a Senior Clerk. He is said to possess graduation degree, apart from Higher Diploma in Co-operative Management.

2. When the vacancy in the post of Internal Auditor arose, as the Society could not find any candidate eligible from the feeder category, i.e. Accountant/Head Clerk, for none of the employees in the said category possessed graduation, it invoked Rule 185(8)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the 'Rules' for brevity) and applied to the second respondent for exemption of the basic qualification to the employees in the feeder category. At this juncture, the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 application before the Government and Exhibit P2 before the Joint Registrar ventilating his grievance that the respondent Society, instead of seeking exemption from the employees in the feeder category, ought to have considered his case, because he possessed all the necessary qualifications, apart from having been placed in the category immediately below the feeder category, in terms of Rule 185(1) second proviso. When neither the Government, nor the third respondent has acted on the petitioner's representation, he has approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that none of the additional respondents 5 to 7 possessed graduation qualification to be considered for the promotional post, though they are in the feeder category. Laying much emphasis on the second Proviso to Rule 185, the learned counsel would contend that there is ample power for the respondent Society to promote the petitioner to the feeder category by creating a supernumerary post and soon thereafter consider his case for promotion to the post of Internal Auditor.

4. The learned counsel, having taken me through Rule 185 as well as Rule 181 of the Rules, has contended that exemption sought from the second respondent is not automatic. In expatiation of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that the second respondent could consider the issue of exemption from possessing graduation only in deserving cases.

5. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has contended that instead of seeking exemption for candidates who do not possess the basic qualification of graduation, it will well serve the interest of the Society if the fourth respondent considers the petitioner's case to be promoted in terms of second Proviso to Rule 185.

6. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Society has sought exemption from the basic qualification for respondents 5 to 7, but the Government is believed to have already rejected the case of the 6th and 7th respondents, as could be seen from Exhibit P3. According to him, the application of only the fifth respondent is still pending.

7. The learned counsel for the additional respondents 5 to 7 has made strenuous efforts to refute petitioner's contentions. Initially, he has submitted that given the experience of the additional respondents 5 to7, apart from the fact that they are seniors already positioned in the feeder category, the question of the respondent Society considering the petitioner's case does not arise.

8. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that the second Proviso to Rule 185 could come into operation only when all the eligible employees in the feeder category relinquished their claim to the promotional post. Differently expressed, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the additional respondents 5 to 7 that so long as the aspect of relinquishment has not come into picture, the question of invoking the second Proviso to Rule 185, thereby considering the petitioner's case for promotion, does not arise.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, as well as the learned counsel for the additional respondents 5 to