Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the regularization of appointments in cooperative societies in Tamil Nadu:

1. Illegality of Appointments Violating Mandatory Statutes - An appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions of the Statute, particularly by ignoring minimum educational qualifications and other essential qualifications, is wholly illegal. - Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularization. The court held that "those who come by backdoor should go through that door." (!) (!)

2. Regularization is Not a Mode of Recruitment - Regularization is not and cannot be a mode of recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, or by any body governed by a Statutory Act. - Regularization cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad-hoc in nature. (!) (!)

3. Invalidity of State Government Orders (G.O.Ms. No. 86) - The State Government lacked the requisite authority under Sections 170 and 182 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, to issue orders directing the regularization of services of employees of cooperative societies. - Consequently, G.O.Ms. No. 86 dated 12.3.2001, which sought to regularize appointments made after 8.7.1980, is a nullity. (!) (!) (!)

4. Applicability of Industrial Establishments Act - Cooperative Societies are not necessarily "Commercial Establishments" under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. - The State failed to declare them as such in the impugned order, rendering the application of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, improper. (!) (!)

5. Violation of Recruitment Rules - A large number of employees were appointed without notifying vacancies to Employment Exchanges, without following mandatory provisions, without requisite educational qualifications, and without adhering to the reservation policy. - Recruitments were made beyond the permissible cadre strength. (!) (!) (!) (!)

6. State's Lack of Control and Financial Burden - The State has no administrative control over the day-to-day affairs of cooperative societies (except nodal center functions), did not create the posts, and did not bear the financial burden. - Therefore, it was impermissible for the State to direct regularization of these employees, regardless of the length of their service. (!)

7. Rejection of Compassionate Grounds - Even appointments made on compassionate grounds (e.g., due to desertion) were found to be illegal as there was no scheme in terms whereof deserted women could be appointed on compassionate grounds. - Sympathy cannot be a ground for passing orders contravening statutory provisions. (!) (!) (!)

8. Precedents on Backdoor Recruitment - The court cited numerous precedents (e.g., State of H.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma, State of U.P. Vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association, Ashwani Kumar) establishing that backdoor direct recruitments cannot be permitted and cannot be regularized. (!) (!) (!) (!)