The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding inter se seniority between the employees of the society under Sec. 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act.

K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

1. This O.P. is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from reverting the petitioners to the lower post from the post they are presently holding, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P4 and P6 orders.

2. Petitioners 1 to 3 and the 4th respondent were selected and appointed by the 3rd respondent Bank on 14-3-1983 as per Ext.P1 resolution and Ext.P2 appointment order. According to the petitioners, a seniority list as on 1-1-1987 was prepared by the 3rd respondent and since the petitioners were ranked below the 4th respondent in the seniority list, they objected and accordingly Ext.P3 seniority list was published by the Bank as on 31-12-1989 showing the seniority of the petitioners and the 4th respondent correctly being serial Nos. 18, 19, 20 & 22 respectively. The petitioners contended that though the seniority of the petitioners and the 4th respondent was correctly shown in Ext.P3, the 4th respondent raised objections against Ext.P3 seniority list before the Joint Registrar passed Ext.P4 order in that representation on the basis of the direction of this court in the order dated 21-10-1992 in O.P.No. 13534/92 filed by the 4th respondent. Though the petitioners preferred appeal before the Government against Ext.P4 order and filed Ext.P5 stay petition, no order is passed by the Government either in the appeal or in Ext.P5 petition. In the meanwhile the petitioners were promoted to higher post basing Ext.P3 seniority list and since the petitioners feared that they will be reverted on the basis of Ext.P4 order, they have filed the above O.P. seeking direction to the Government to dispose of the appeal and Ext.P5 stay petition expeditiously and directing respondents 2 and 3 not to revert the petitioners to a lower post from the posts presently held by them.

3. During the pendency of the above O.P. by Ext.P6 order dated 2-2-1994 the Government found the objections raised by the petitioners against Ext.P4 order are devoid of any merits and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioners amended the O.P. by incorporating the prayer to quash Ext.P6 order.

4. The petitioners have contended that the petitioners and 4th respondent were appointed on the basis of the rank list prepared by the 3rd respondent in accordance with the marks secured by them in the written test and interview and Ext.P2 appointment order dated 14-3-1983 is issued on the basis of the selection list as per the marks secured in the written test and interview and they are entitled to ranking as mentioned in Ext.P2 appointment order. Therefore, according to them, the ranking as given in Ext.P3 seniority list is correct and the revision of the seniority list by the Joint Registrar as per Ext.P4 order reckoning the age of the petitioners and the 4th respondent and giving seniority in accordance with the age of the petitioners and the 4th respondent is absolutely illegal and untenable. They have also contended that there is absolutely no provision either in the Cooperative Societies Act or the Rules framed thereunder or the bye laws of the 3rd respondent Bank to the effect that the age at the time of appointment should be the consideration for seniority as is seen in the regulations of certain other authorities regarding seniority of the employees.

5. The respondents have contended that absolutely no selection list was prepared by the 3rd respondent on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the written test and interview and there is absolutely no evidence to show that the appointment as per Ext.P2 order was on the basis of the selection list prepared on the basis of the marks secured in the written test and interview. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioners are seniors to the 4th respondent, the order passed by the Joint Registrar adopting senior in age as senior in service with re