1. The short facts of the case appears to be that the first petitioner is the Chairman of one Hadiyol Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) which is the member of the Sabarkantha District Cooperative Purchase and Sales Union Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the District Union/Federal Society”) and the and the petitioner No.2 is the delegate member of the said District Union. It appears that earlier, recruitment process was undertaken by the District Union in the year 2006 and during the said period, the auditor had examined the matter and in the audit, it was found that there were large number of illegalities and irregularities committed in the recruitment process inasmuch as the posts filled up were materially different than the posts so advertised and about 7 persons were given appointment at the later point of time and secondly, 41 persons were appointed as against the posts advertised of 37 in number. It was also found that the recruitment process was undertaken in collusion with the members of the managing committee of each other and for their vested interest, the recruitment process was undertaken. Such details of each post and the illegalities committed at the recruitment process is available in the copy of the audit report and the relevant pages are 39 to 41 of the compilation. It was recommended by the auditor that as the members of the managing committee have committed breach of confidence put by the members of the Union and have acted in contravention to the interest of the members, the proceedings under section 76B of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for removal be initiated. The case of the petitioners is that thereafter, no further concrete action was taken by the Registrar against the office bearers of the Society for initiation action under Section 76B of the Act. As per the petitioners, once again the similar recruitment process has been undertaken by the Sangh by giving advertisement in the newspaper on 21.11.2009 for various posts of Clerk, Auditor, etc. At that stage, the petitioner complained to the District Registrar and the District Registrar also called for the details. The District Registrar communicated to the District Union to stay the process of recruitment until the details are submitted. Inspite of the same, the District Union continued with the recruitment process. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached to this Court by the present petition.

2. The prayers inter alia in the petition are to direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 authorities to take action against the Chairman of the District Union under Section 76B of the Act and further direct the respondent No.3, the Chairman of the District Union not to make any further appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.11.2009.

3. The learned counsel for both the sides are heard for final disposal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if the interference is not made by this Court to the process of recruitment already undertaken by the office bearers of the District Union and more particularly its Chairman, not only the illegalities would be perpetuated this time also as was done in the year 2001 as per the report of the auditor, but it would create irreversible situation inasmuch as the very persons who are recommended to be removed will make appointment with their vested interest and once the persons are appointed on the posts, even if the officers are removed as members or Chairman of the District Union, there is no provision under the Act for termination of their services nor the Registrar can terminate their service on account of such illegal action of recruitment undertaken by the office bearers of the Society. He submitted that the District Union is a specified Society having huge public importance. The matter of appointment of its staff would fall in the domain of the public law, therefore,