AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—Though WAMPs are listed for stay and vacate stay, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the
appellants, Mr. G. Sankaran and the learned Government Advocate Mr. Duraisolaimalai, we take up the writ appeals themselves for disposal by
this common judgment.
The issue as to the appointment of the staff of the Cooperative societies has once again come up for consideration before this Court, after
disposal of the batch of writ appeals numbering more than 7000 by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 (L. JUSTINE
AND ANOTHER VS. THE REGISTRAR OF COOP. SOCIETIES, CHENNAI-10 AND TWO OTHERS). Before the Division Bench, the
question of appointment of staff to the various Cooperative Societies in contravention of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Society
requiring the sponsorship from the employment exchange and the appointment made without reference to the approved cadre strength came up for
consideration. Ultimately, the Division Bench issued the following directions:
i) that G.O.Ms.No.86, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 12.3.2001, has got the effect of only authorising the
regularisation of the employees recruited by the cooperative societies for the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001 exempting the intervention of
employment exchange.
(ii) that G.O.Ms.No.86, Cooperation, Food and consumer Protection Department, dated 12.3.2001, shall not operate for regularisation of any
employee recruited by the cooperative societies in violation of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, as
amended by G.O.Ms.No.212, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.7.1995;
(iii) in societies, where the cadre strength has not been fixed, direct them to adopt the special bye-law in conformity with sub-Rule (1) of Rule 149
of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.212, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
dated 4.7.1995;
(iv) direct the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to issue a circular within a week from today calling upon all the cooperative societies in the State
of Tamil Nadu to comply with the directions in clause (iii) supra.
(v) direct that within two months of the approval of the special bye-laws under sub-Rule (1) of the Rule 149 of the Rules, the respective Deputy
Registrars of Cooperative Societies having jurisdiction over the cooperative societies in their Divisions, shall enquire, by issuing notice to the entire
staff recruited from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001, and decided as to whether the said recruitment is in conformity with the special bye-laws approved by
the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and terminate the services of such staff members, whose appointments are in contravention of the
special bye laws so approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies; it is made clear that while considering the validity or otherwise of the
appointment of the staff cooperative societies, the requirement of notifying the vacancies to employment exchange shall not be taken cognizance of.
(vi) that no cooperative staff member appointed subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.86, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated
12.3.2001 otherwise than through employment exchange shall be continued in service and their services shall be terminated forthwith.
(vii) that either the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 or the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, or the settlements entered under Sections 12 or 18 thereof, shall have no application to the staff of the cooperative societies
appointed without adequate qualifications or beyond the cadre strength for the period from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001. This is equally applicable to
the staff appointed to the cooperative societies, otherwise than through employment exchange, for the period from 12.3.2001 onwards.
After the said directions were issued, the Division Bench by subsequent order clarified their directions by directing that the staff, who were
functioning on the date of the order, shall not be disturbed till the Special Bye-laws adopted by the respective Societies are approved by the
Government as directed in paragraph 5 of the above directions. All the appellants were holding different posts, before G.O.Ms.86, Cooperation,
Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 12.3.2001 came to be passed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that all the appellants were duly sponsored by the employment exchange after
Government Order dated 12.3.2001. The respondent Society, which ought to have adopted the special bye-laws in conformity with Sub Rule (1)
of Rue 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rule, as amended by G.O.Ms.212, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, dated 4.7.1995 has not been so far approved by the Government. In the absence of such an approval and in terms of the said
directions of the Division Bench, the appointment of the appellants made after 12.2.2003 cannot be cancelled or withdrawn solely on the ground
that the appointments were made contrary to Sub Rule (1) of Rule 149 and without reference to the cadre strength.
We have heard Mr. S. V. Duraisolaimalai, the learned Government Advocate also. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that after the order
of the Division Bench in L. Justine''s case, the Societies, where cadre strength have not been fixed, were directed to adopt the Special bye-laws in
conformity with sub Rule(1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rule, as amended by G.O.Ms.212, Cooperation, Food and
Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.7.1995. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that such special bye-laws, though
adopted by the Society, in question, have not been so far approved by the Government is not disputed by the respondent. Nevertheless, the fact
remains that in the absence of any cadre strength fixed by adopting special bye-laws, no appointments can be made to the post over and above the
cadre strength already in existence.
Our attention is drawn by the learned Government Advocate in G.O.Ms.No.186, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department
dated 16.8.2000. Pursuant to the said G.O. cadre strength has been fixed:
------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Approved No. of employees No. of employees
cadre on 15-10-1994 on 12.3.2002
strength
------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary111
Supervisors
(External)133
Supervisors
(Internal)1-2
Office Assistant111
------------------------------------------------------------
An argument is advanced that though the above Government Order has been superseded, the fact remains that as per the cadre strength that was
prevailing on the date of appointment and in the absence of new Special bye-laws, which was adopted by the respondent Society, Mr. V.
Pannerselvam, appellant in WA No.863 of 2003 was appointed on temporary basis as Supervisor on consolidated pay of Rs.3000/- per month
by the then President of the respondent Society on 29.8.2001. Likewise, V. Subramani and Mr. R. Ganesan were appointed on the same terms as
temporary Supervisor on 18.5.2001 and A. Murugan was appointed as temporary Supervisor on 9.5.2001. These appointments were made by
the then President without prior approval from the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and without there being any Constitution of recruitment
Committee contemplated under Rule 149 of the Rules. As detailed above, as against the post of two Supervisors, 10 Supervisors were appointed
over and above the approved cadre of two Supervisors, which resulted in passing the impugned order of termination of the appellants on the
ground that their appointments were made contrary to Rule 149 of the Rules.
The averments made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit are that after the appointment of D. Janarthanam, he accepted that his appointment
was irregular and left the job. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the absence of approval of the Special Bye-laws as
directed by this Court in paragraph iii(19) of the judgment, the appointment of the appellants shall be construed only as against the cadre strength.
This argument cannot be accepted, since as per the said directions, wherever cadre strength has not been fixed, the Society shall adopt the Special
bye-laws, which shall be approved by the Government, meaning thereby that wherever the cadre strength is already in existence, no fresh
appointment could be made over and above the cadre strength till such time the Special Bye-laws are approved fixing the revised cadre strength.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard is totally misconceived and is not in conformity with the directions of the
Division Bench. From the facts narrated, it is clear that the appellants were appointed as Supervisors. When admittedly no cadre strength is fixed
by adopting the Special Bye-laws, as could be seen from the fact that the Special Bye-laws, though adopted, have not been so far approved by
the Government.
It is the clear stand of the respondent that the then President, without even approval of the competent Authority, namely, the Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Society and also without reference to the recruitment Committee, has made the appointments to the posts over and above the cadre
strength. Merely because, the name of the appellants were sponsored by the Employment Exchange the same will not entitle them to contend that
they were appointed as against the cadre strength as the recruitment through the Employment Exchange is one of the conditions of appointment but
only as against the post created after cadre strength is fixed and not otherwise. Hence, the contention that the appellants were sponsored by the
Employment Exchange, and therefore their employments were not irregular cannot be accepted.
N. DHINAKAR, J. and D. Murugesan, J.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit to sustain the writ appeals. Accordingly, writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected WAMPs are also dismissed.