Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This common judgment shall dispose of WP Nos.11075 and 11270 of 1999 as the question of law that arises is the same in both the writ petitions. WP No.11270 of 1999 is filed for declaration that the orders of the second respondent in proceedings No.B5/398/1/99-2000 dated 15-5-1999 as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and violative of principals of natural justice and violative of provisions of Rule 73(vi) and 73(ix) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operativa Societies Rules (hereinafter called as 'the Rules') and to set aside the same. The petitioner also prayed for a consequential relief td set aside the orders in Proceedings No.B5/3 99/99-2000 dated 15-5-1999 wnerein the respondents 4 and 5 were promoted to the cadre of Assistant General Managers in Karimnagar District Co-operative Central Bank (hereinafter called as the Bank). The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is working as Manager with effect from 14-4-1980 in the Bank. In the provisional integrated inter se seniority list as on 1-11-1991 file petitioner is placed at S.Nos.17 in the category of Managers (Category III). The provisional seniority list was communicated by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings No.1076/65/95-99 dated 12-8-1998. By the said order, the 3rd respondent also called upon all the concerned employees to file their objections, if any with necessary documentary evidence in support of their objections within 30 days from the date of proceedings. The respondents 4 and 5 were admittedly placed at S.Nos.26 and 31 respectively in the provisional seniority list dated 12-8-3998. Both the respondents were working in the cadre of Managers with effect from 12-1-1985 and 2-2-1988 respectively in the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank which was merged with the District Development Bank by the Act No. 1 of 1987. After communication of integrated provisional seniority list, the aggrieved persons made representations objecting to the placement. After receiving objections from the aggrieved employees, the 3rd respondent who is under statutory duty to issue final seniority list, placed the-entire matter before the Managing Committee of the Bank. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on 15-5-1989 resolved to approve the integrated seniority list of employees in cadre III, IV and V of the Bank. On the same day, the impugned integrated final seniority list of cadre HI employees was prepared and the consequential promotion orders promoting the respondents 4 and 5 were passed to the post of Assistant General Manager in the Bank were passed. In the integrated final seniority list approved by the Managing Committee, the petitioner was placed at S. No.21 and respondents 4 and 5 shown at S. No. 1 and 3 respectively. As the rule of seniority-cum-fitness has to be applied for promotion from the cadre III to the post of Assistant General Manager, the petitioner was not promoted to the said post. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 15-5-1999 communicating the final integrated seniority list of cadre III employees as well as the consequential order promoting the respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition for the beliefs noted above.

2. WP No. 11075 of 1999 is filed by nine Accountants working in the Bank. All of them were shown at S. Nos.12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 29 respectively in the provisional integrated seniority list of cadre IV employees of the Bank as on 1-11-1991. The provisional seniority list was communicated by the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 12-8-1998. After receiving the objections from the aggrieved employees, the matter was placed before the Managing Committee of the Bank. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on 15-5-1995 approved the integrated final seniority list of cadre IV employees of the Bank. In the final seniority list, the petitioners were shown below the respondents 4 to 13. Therefore, on the same day, the respondents 4 to 13 were promoted to the post of Managers and the petitioners were denied promotions. Aggrieved by the final integrated seniority list in Proceedings No.B5/398/199-2000 dated 15-5-1999 and the consequential promotion orders promoting the respondents 4 to 13 the present writ petition is filed.

3. In both the cases, notice before admission was ordered by this Court on 11-6-1999. The learned Standing Counsel Sri P.M. Gopal Rao and Sri P. Srinivas appearing for respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavits. The Counsel appearing for other (the officers who were promoted as per the impugned final integrated seniority list) have also filed counter affidavits in both the cases. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits. When the matter came up for admission on 1-9-1999 all the Counsel appearing for the respective parties requested that the matter be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Hence, the matter was taken up for final disposal and the matter was heard at length on 20-9-1999 and 21-9-1999. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 it is stated that the provisional seniority list prepared on 12-8-1998 is not in accordance with the statutory rules and the clarification issued by the first respondent. Therefore, the 3rd respondent placed the entire matter before the Managing Committee of the Bank which appointed Sub-committee to go into the matter and submit a report. The Subcommittee of the Managing Committee (second respondent) gave opportunity to all the parties and prepared a final seniority list on 10-5-1999 which was approved by the Managing Committee on 15-5-1999 and promotion orders are also issued to the contesting respondents on the same day. It is also stated that the General manager, the 3rd respondent herein is the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank working under the control of the second respondent and as the bye-laws of the Bank empower the Managing Committee to lookafter the day-to-day affairs of the Bank and prescribe the service conditions of the employees, there is no illegality in the final integrated seniority list prepared and approved by the Managing Committee, The availability of right of appeal under Rule 73(ix) does not in any manner render the final seniority list illegal as the final seniority list is not an order to carry in appeal to the Managing Committee and as the seniority list is prepared and approved by the Managing Committee, there is no right of appeal to the aggrieved party to the Managing Committee.

3. To what relief?

In Re : Point No.1:

As noticed above, the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that as per Rule 73(vi)(b) the General Manager, the 3rd respondent alone is competent to initiate action for fixation of inter se seniority and issue final seniority list and the Managing Committee is not competent to issue the final integrated seniority list as a primary authority. Under Rule 73(ix) any person aggrieved by the order of the General Manager of the District Central Co-operative Bank may file an appeal to the Managing Committee of the Bank. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned integrated final seniority list is not only illegal for the reason that the same has been issued by the Managing Committee but also illegal being contrary to Rule 73(ix). Such illegality has resulted in depriving the petitioners, the remedy of appeal because as the Managing Committee itself has approved the seniority list, the remedy of appeal to the same committee has become futile. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner who was shown very high up in the provisional seniority list issued in 1988 found himself to be below the respondents 4 and 5 in the final seniority list. As the action of the respondents 2 and 3 deprived the petitioner the valuable right of seniority, the same is bad because the petitioner was not given any notice.