Petitioners have no enforceable right to claim for appointment as a person-in-charge.

The facts require to be considered in all these three writ petitions are identical and the issues involved for determination are also identical. Therefore, all the three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioners were appointed as unofficial persons-in-charge under Section 32(7)(a) of A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the APCS Act). Their term has been extended from time to time by virtue of the said provision and they claim to be holding the said posts on the dates of the filing of the writ petitions. Whereas, the respondents contention is that they have been replaced by the official respondents by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.400 Agriculture and Co-Operation (Coop.I) Department, dated 31.05.2014 whereunder the official respondents were directed by the Government to appoint themselves as the persons- in-charge of the 5th respondent Union. The said G.O.Rt.No.400 is impugned in these writ petitions stating it to be illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the A.P.CS Act as well as the provisions of A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short the APRO Act) and also in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Under Section 32(7)(a) of the APCS Act, the government on their own can appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a period six months, if there is no committee or in the opinion of the government or the Registrar, it is not possible to call for a general meeting for the purpose of conducting election of members of the committee for a period of six months, the government, however, can extend such period beyond six months but the aggregate period including the extended period, if any, shall not exceed three years.

4. Section 75 of the APRO Act, 2014 which came into effect from 02.06.2014 deals with continuance of facilities in certain State institutions. This provision lays down that the institutions specified in the Tenth Schedule of the Act, located in that State, shall continue to provide facilities to the people of the other State which shall not in any respect, be less favourable to such people than what were being provided to them before the appointed day, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the two State Governments within a period of one year from the appointed day or, if no agreement is reached within the said period, as may be fixed by order of the Central Government. The A.P. Co-operative Union is included in the Tenth Schedule.

5. The version of the petitioners is that as per the memorandum of understanding which has to be entered into between the two States, the 5th respondent has to provide services to other State under the said MOU. Similarly, Section 79 of the APRO Act provides that every person who, immediately before the appointed day, is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh in any area which on that day falls within one of the successor States shall continue to hold the same post or office in that successor State, and shall be deemed, on and from that day, to have been duly appointed to the post or office by the Government of, or other appropriate authority in, that successor State.

6. The contention of the petitioners, therefore, is that in the light of the above referred provisions, they are entitled to continue in the posts of persons-in-charge till their extended period comes to an end. They submit that they have been effectively and efficiently discharging their functions during their period, and there are no irregularities or illegalities on their part, the issuance of the said G.O.Rt.No.400 without assigning any reasons displacing them with the official persons-in-charge is therefore arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They filed these writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the G.O.Rt.No.400 Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.I