The amendments to R.185, 200, and 201 were made to preserve the promotions of a class who came into service long ago and who were victims of uncertainty as to the rules governing their service conditions. The court held that the amendments are valid and not discriminatory.

1. The main question that calls for determination in this Original Petition is the validity and scope of amended R.185 and 200, and the newly added R.201 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules')

2. Petitioners and respondents 6 to 51 are the employees of the 5th respondent Cooperative Society which was registered in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act'). Respondents 6 to 41 were holding various posts in the society as on 1st January 1974. S.80 of the Act provided for the classification of Societies and for making rules regulating the qualification, remuneration, allowance and other conditions of service of the officers and servants of different classes of Societies. Even though the Act came into force in 1969, the rules under S.80 were framed and brought into force only with effect from 1st January 1974. The said rules are contained in Chap.15 of the Rules as Rules' 182 to 200. R.186 of the rules fixed the qualification for appointment. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bye laws 34 and 35 of the Society. Bye law 34 (1) provides that the 5th respondent shall not appoint any person as paid officer or employee in any category of service, unless he possesses the qualification and also furnishes security. Bye law 34 (2) enjoins that the bank shall not retain in service any employee if he does not acquire the qualification, unless the Registrar relaxes the provisions of sub clause (1) of the bye laws. Before the promulgation of the aforesaid statutory rules, the bank had adopted and was following the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank and therefore, that was the rules which governed the conditions of service, qualifications for holding different posts and other matters relating to service in the bank. Though the bank had approved another set of service rules on the model recommended by a committee constituted by the Government to go into the question of preparation of service conditions of employees of the District Cooperative Banks, the same did not get the sanction by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as required under clause ' 35 (2) of the bye laws. Therefore, according to the petitioner the service rules of the employees of the bank immediately before the coming into force of the Statutory Rules was the service rules of the Kerala State Cooperative Bank. In the petition the petitioner has given a comparative table as to the qualification under the said Rules and Statutory Rules as follows:      

3. According to the petitioner, respondents 6 to 49 did not have the qualification prescribed under the Statutory Rules. For the post of Branch Managers and Executive Officers, graduation was required both under the previous rule as well as under the Statutory Rules. According to the petitioner as per the previous rule, even for holding the post of Junior Accountant/Junior Inspector, Senior Accountant/ Inspector, graduation was necessary though under the Statutory Rule S.S.L.C. and J.D.C. were enough. Therefore, according to the petitioners since as per the Statutory Rule, the qualification for the said two posts is only S.S.L.C. and J.D.C. though respondents 6 to 49 may be entitled to hold the post of Junior Accountant and Senior Accountant under the existing as well as Statutory Rules, graduation is necessary for hol