Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Polavarapu Nagendra Babu vs Commissioner For Co-Operation And ... on 4 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD634, 2002(2)ALT173
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan, I. Venkatanarayana
JUDGMENT Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. By consent of both parties, both the writ appeal and Writ Petition No.21806 of 2000 are taken up for final hearing. Heard both sides.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 31-8-2001 in WPMP No.27771 of 2000 in WVMP No.1266 of 2001. The prayer in WPMP 27771 of 2000 is to suspend the operation of the proceedings dated 1-11-2000 issued by the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District pending disposal of the writ petition. The prayer in WPMP No. 1266 of 2001 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein is to vacate the interim order of the High Court dated 13-11-2000 made in WVMP No.27771 of 2000. The prayer in the main writ petition is to quash the proceedings issued by the third respondent herein dated 1-11-2000 as arbitrary and illegal.
3. By the said proceedings dated 1-11-2000 issued by the Divisional Cooperative Officer to the society directing it to terminate P. Nagendra Babu, Secretary, who was appointed on 31-3-1998 from the services of the society by 10-11-2000 and send the compliance report. By Circular Memo dated 18-11-1995 the Registrar Cooperative issued certain directions stating that inspite of the ban imposed on the recruitment of Paid Secretaries some of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies (PACS), have resorted to the recruitment of Paid Secretaries and other employees in violation of the instructions issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies causing erosion their own funds and emergence of huge imbalance between members' dues to the society and Societies to the Co-operative Central Bank. It is also stated that such appointment also led to serious financial and administrative complications and therefore the managements of PACS were informed that the ban on recruitment of Paid Secretaries was in force and any appointment made in violation of the instructions issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the management shall be held responsible for the consequences thereof and that the managements are also liable to for action under Section 21(AA) (1) and (2) wherein disqualification accrues to continue for a period of six years.
4. It is the case of the respondents in their counter- affidavit that the society never get approved any staff" pattern, pay-scales, etc., to its employees nor got prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as required under Section 116-C of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 leaving all other things aside. The society also did not get the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as required under the Section 116-C and as such the appointment of the second petitioner made by the first petitioner is found to be illegal. It is also stated that the second petitioner/appellant was appointed as Secretary of the Society when he was working as Clerk in Dwarka Tirumala Large sized Co-operative Credit Society in West Godavari District with effect from 25-9-1998. According to the society, for all purpose of service matters, Dwaraka Tirumala Large Sized Co-operative Credit Society Limited and Koriagunta Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society are separate establishments and as such the services rendered in one society cannot be treated as service rendered in other society for the purpose of seniority, etc.
5. The learned single Judge on consideration of the averments made in the counter and after hearing Counsel appearing on either side vacated the stay granted on 13-11-2000. We have perused the order impugned in this writ appeal. Since arguments in both the writ appeal and writ petition are one and the same, we heard both the appeal and the writ petition together.
It is clearly seen from the proceedings issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 18-11-1995 that ban was imposed on the recruitment of Paid Secretaries. It is also noticed in the said memorandum that some of the societies have resorted to recruitment of Paid Secretaries and other employees in violation of the instructions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies causing erosion of their funds and also causing serious financial and administrative complications. Therefore, by the said proceedings all the Societies were directed to terminate the services of the Secretaries and others whose appointments were made contrary to the Memorandum of the Commissioner for Co-operation dated 18-11-1995.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that since appointment has been made quite contrary to the above memorandum and also during the ban period, such appointment has to be construed as an illegal appointment and therefore the appellant will not entitled to continue in service or continue the interim order originally passed and later vacated by the learned single Judge. We see merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is well settled that if an order in passed against the condition specified in the memorandum banning the appointment during a particular period, such order has to be construed as an illegal order and therefore, such an order cannot be legalised through judicial process. In view of the said legal position, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge is right in vacating the interim order.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the respondent-society shall have the power to fix the staffing pattern; qualification, pay scales and other allowances for its employees with the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative societies, the Societies are always at liberty to consider the staffing pattern and therefore liberty may be reserved to consider the same. We are not expressing any opinion on this request. It is for the society to take appropriate steps in regard to staffing pattern of the society under Section 116-C of the Act, if it so desires.
8. Both the writ appeal and writ petition are disposed of accordingly. No costs.