Seniority of employees is to be construed as action under special bye-laws of co-operative union.

1. Theshort question to be decided in this writ petition is whether first respondent-Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies is correct in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the order of the 2nd respondent on the ground that it is not maintainable under section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act since the said order is not an order under the Act/ Rules or Bye-laws of the second respondent Union.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are stated hereunder:-

3. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent on 20.11.1974 as a Care-taker. On 16. 1978, the second respondent appointed him as a clerk on the basis of a letter of the Registrar dated 6. 78 in the time scale of pay. While in employment, he underwent Co-operative Supervisor training course in 1978-79 and the results were announced in February, 1980. Though he passed in February, 1980, he was appointed as Junior Assistant (Clerical cadre) only with effect from 1. 1981. In the meantime one A. Rathinam was appointed as Attender in October, 1976. The second respondent appointed the said Rathinam in the post of Junior Assistant which was sanctioned by the Registrar in relation to the petitioner on the basis of the appointment as Junior Assistants, the respondent placed him (petitioner) below the said Rathinam in the list of seniority. Since the seniority list published by the 2nd respondent is not legal and justified, he filed objections to the list of seniority. The second respondent, by an order dated 18. 92, rejected his objections and claim for seniority over and above the said Rathinam. Therefore, he filed a revision petition against the first respondent against the order of the second respondent dismissing his petition. By the impugned order dated 212. 92, the first respondent dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that his revision petition is not maintainable, hence he has filed the present writ petition.

4. The first respondent has not chosen to file counter affidavit.

5. The 2nd respondent-Special Officer has filed a counter affidavit highlighting their defence and the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.

7. There is no dispute that the second respondent published a seniority list and called for objection, if any from the persons working under him, on or before 92. According to the petitioner, he was wrongly placed below one Rathinam. He made a representation to the second respondent. The second respondent in his proceedings dated 18. 92 informed the petitioner that there is no need to alter the position in the seniority list and rejected the request of the petitioner, against which he preferred a revision petition under Section 153 (1) of the Tamil Nadu cooperative Societies Act. 1983 and Rule 169 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and "the Rules" respectively). By the impugned order, the first respondent has passed the following order:-

"Under Section .153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, a revision shall lie only in respect of any proceedings under the Act or the Rules or the by laws. The impugned order is not an order under the Act, Rules or the by laws of the Union. The revision petition is not therefore maintainable. Hence it is not entertained."

The said order is being questioned in this writ petition. According to Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, since the 2nd respondent has prepared and published a seniority list on the basis the by laws of the second respondent Union, since the petitioner being aggrieved by the seniority list, the second respondent did not consider his objection, the only remedy open to him is to file a revision under Section 153 of the Act before the first respondent. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer the releva