AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The 332 Petitioners herein are all working in various Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies coming under the
jurisdiction of various District Central Cooperative Banks who are aligned as Respondents 3 to 16 in this writ petition.
The grievance of the Petitioners was that they are already working in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies and have experience
in dealing with the Bank procedures including the procedure in obtaining loan from the District Central Cooperative Banks. But, however, it is
found that Respondents 3 to 16 were going in for direct recruitment for various posts in their banks. Since the Banks have announced the selection
by way of written test and interview, it was their contention that the Petitioners will not be able to compete with the fresh candidates and that many
of them would have crossed upper age limit fixed for such employment. Insofar as fixing of maximum age for entry by Respondents 3 to 16 is
concerned, it was contended that earlier there were ratio given for employees working in various Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks to an
extent of 50% of the posts in the District Central Cooperative Banks.
It was claimed that G.O. Ms. No. 137, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 17.07.2008 guaranteed adoption of
quota for employees of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks and direct recruits. But the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 129,
Cooperation, dated 7.9.2009 withdrew the said G.O and had directed various District Central Cooperative Banks to appoint persons in terms of
Rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. Under Rule 149(2), the societies were directed to call for eligible candidates
from the employment exchange and also to give due publicity in the notice board of the society and also of the affiliated societies and by inviting
applications from eligible employees of such societies. In case where employment exchange issues a non availability certificate, the societies were
directed to invite applications by giving advertisement in more than one daily news paper calling for candidates. The exceptions to this method for
recruitment that were made in case of compassionate appointments, absorption of surplus employees of other societies and the employments
covered by the common cadre service.
It was claimed that though writ petitions were filed challenging the said order by various employees, subsequently writ petitions were withdrawn
with liberty to file individual writ petitions. The Petitioners in the present writ petition have come forward to challenge the order passed by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies addressing all the Special Officers of the District Central Cooperation Banks vide his communication, dated
27.5.2010. In that communication, certain guidelines were issued to these banks. Another set of employees have filed W.P. No. 24760 of 2010
challenging the very same circular. This Court while admitting the writ petition found that examinations conducted by the District Central
Cooperative Banks in Coimbatore and Erode can be allowed to proceed, but it should be subject to further orders in the writ petition. The
Petitioners herein were aggrieved by paragraphs 7 and 16 of the impugned circular. In paragraph 7, the Registrar had directed the District Central
Cooperative Bank to adopt G.O. Ms. No. 222, Cooperation, dated 13.7.2007 by which age relaxation up to 5 years will also apply to affiliated
societies. Therefore, the persons who are applying for the post in the society should not have crossed 40 years as on 1.1.2010 in respect of SC
and ST, 37 years in respect of MBC and BC and for all others it is 35 years. In paragraph 16, it was stated that while conducting examinations, it
should be conducted even in respect of employees of affiliated societies. In selecting candidates, the communal rotation and women quota must be
followed and that qualified persons must be taken. There was no separate quota fixed for employees of the cooperative societies.
Challenging these two paragraphs, Mr. R. Thyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. C. Prakasam, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners contended that these guidelines are contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under. Under Rule 149(3), which had
undergone change by an amendment made in SRO A-34/2005. In the matters of retirement alone, the rule applicable to the Government servant
will follow and that in the matters of appointment, the societies will have their own rules. Therefore, he contended that the District Central
Cooperative Banks have their own bylaws and that one such bylaw, i.e., in Vellore District Central Cooperative Bank, there is no maximum age
prescribed and therefore, the Registrar''s circular is without jurisdiction. He also contended that when persons who are ready and willing to serve,
by calling direct recruits from outside will amount to deny promotional chances to the existing employees of the societies.
Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate Genera, leading Ms. C. Devi, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. M.R.
Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for third Respondent and Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4,6,8 and 15,
contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The Petitioners are admittedly members of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks. The
bylaws relating to their service conditions were not changed or violated. Their getting into employment with the Central Cooperative Banks must
be based upon some statutory rules. Since under G.O. Ms. No. 129, Cooperation, dated 7.9.2009, the District Cooperative Banks were directed
to follow Rule 149(2) in the matter of recruitment. The said G.O is not under challenge and that the substance of the G.O was only reiterated in
paragraph No. 16. In the absence of any service condition of Petitioners enabling them to have either migratory right to another society or
promotional opportunity in the District Cooperative Banks, the present contention cannot be accepted. Therefore, there is no infirmity in paragraph
16 of the impugned order.
Without prejudice to the above contention, he also submitted that originally under Rule 149(3), the Government had prescribed the age of entry
for appointment and the Government rule to be followed. But that has been removed and that the District Cooperative Banks are subject to
supervisory control of the Registrar. In fact, special bylaws is to be framed by various cooperative societies in terms of Rule 149 which includes
the method of recruitment for each post initially was to have prior approval of the Government. But, by G.O. Ms. No. 251, Cooperation, Food
and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7.8.2007, now it is for the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to approve the same. In the present
case, in order to have uniformity, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the second Respondent herein had issued circular fixing uniform age of
recruitment. The learned Additional Advocate General had furnished a list of candidates who appeared for the written examinations. From a
perusal of the list it is found that 5183 persons were sponsored by the employment exchange. 1319 persons had applied from various affiliated
societies. In respect of these two categories, 5338 persons were given hall tickets and that 4896 persons had attended the test, out of which 412
belonged to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks. It is also stated that subsequent to the recruitment, appointments were made and they are
working in various cooperative banks.
The learned Additional Advocate General also referred to the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in R. Sivakumari and Ors. v.
Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam and Ors. reported in 2007 (5) CTC 561 for contending that recruitment will
have to be made only in accordance with the statutory rules and not otherwise.
He further referred to a larger bench judgment of this Court in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The
Special Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.K. Ananda Sayanan Vs. The Joint Registrar
co-operative Societies, Vellore Region and The Special Officer, Sinampattadai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, for contending that the
writ petition is not maintainable as against the cooperative societies.
In any event, each District Central Cooperative Bank will have to frame special bylaws. The Petitioners have not produced any such bylaws.
Even otherwise, the second Respondent Registrar of Cooperative Societies as an approving authority in respect of service conditions framed by
the cooperative societies in terms of Rule 149(1), he can also prescribe the maximum age of entry into any post so as to main uniformity.
Even earlier, a Division Bench of this Court in L. Justine v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ors. reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 has
held that under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, service conditions of the employees working in the Co-operative
Societies should be framed in accordance with the Registrar''s circular and approved by the Government.
Ultimately, on the question of age relaxation, the employer is entitled to prescribe maximum age for entry and that the Petitioners cannot seek
for either waiver or for relaxing the rule. With reference to the prescription of age and challenge being made to such prescription, it is necessary to
refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K. Jotheeswara Pillai (D) by LRs. and Others, . The following
passages found in paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 may be usefully extracted below:
Rule 4 gives a long list of rules made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the employees of the State Government which have
been made applicable to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams employees, which includes the Fundamental Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued
there under, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1963, etc. Rule 11 of the Rules clearly provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment to any
post in the service of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams in Annexure II if he has completed the age of 28 years or the age prescribed therefore in
the said annexure as on 1st July of the year in which the notification for recruitment is issued. It also provides for general relaxation of age in
accordance with the orders issued by the Government and also in respect of persons belonging to reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. Thus the Rules make complete provisions regarding qualification and age for direct recruitment and
also in respect of category of persons to whom relaxation can be granted which would be in accordance with the government orders. The Rules do
not mention anywhere that while making direct recruitment any services rendered as an NMR employee has to be taken into consideration or some
relaxation in age is to be granted on its basis. The writ Petitioners had worked for a brief period as NMR employees in 1984-86. It was after a
gap of more than six years that they were appointed by way of direct recruitment on 17-8-1992. Under the Rules they were clearly ineligible for
being given any appointment as admittedly they were overage.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that on two earlier occasions the Appellant had granted exemption from age
and qualifications and no material was placed before the High Court as to why such a discretion could not be exercised by the Appellant in favor
of the employees concerned, namely, the writ Petitioners. The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus to the Appellant to
consider whether Writ Petitioner 5 was entitled for exemption from the requirement of age-limit having regard to certain G Os issued by the
Revenue Department of the State Government.
....
The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus directing the Appellant to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 as to whether he
was entitled for exemption from age qualification. As already mentioned the Rules do not make any provision for granting exemption except to the
limited extent as provided in the second para of Rule 11. The principles, on which a writ of mandamus can be issued, are well settled and we will
refer to only one decision rendered in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh2 where this Court observed as under:
(SCC p.152, para15)
[A] writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the
part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute
and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that
mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the
aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance.
There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from eligibility criterion, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in issuing a
writ of mandamus against the Appellant directing it to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 for granting him exemption from the rule providing for
upper age-limit for fresh appointment.
In view of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However,
there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions stand closed.