The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the authority to supervise and intervene in the working of a co-operative society, including the selection process of its employees, as provided under S.66, S.29, and Rule 176.

Pareed Pillay, AG. CJ.

Appellants in W.A. 345 of 1992 challenges the judgment in O.P. 6781 of 1991. They are third parties. W.A. 672 of 1992 is Hired by the petitioner in the O.P. W.A. 664 of 1993 is filed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha and W.A. 272 of 1993 is filed by third parties challenging the decision in O.P. 15848 of 1992.

2. The position of the parties as arrayed in O.P. 6781 of 1991 is followed in the discussion hereunder.

3. O.P. 6781 of 1991 was filed by the President of the Alleppey District Cooperative bank Limited, Alappuzha challenging Exts. P-4 and P-5 orders of respondents 1 and 3. As per Ext. P-4 order, first respondent directed the petitioner to keep in abeyance all further proceedings including interview and appointment proposed by the bank till the enquiry on the complaint petition is over and the fact intimated to the bank in writing. Ext. P-5 is a telegraphic communication issued by the third respondent staying appointments.

4. The learned Single Judge did not find any justifiable reason for cancelling the entire process of selection but directed the Joint Registrar to proceed with the inquiry with notice to the petitioner and the Board of Directors. The Joint Registrar was directed to scrutinise the records relating to the selection of candidates and to pass final order after inquiry on or before 21-2-1992. In O.P. 15848 of 1992 filed by the Bank to direct the Joint Registrar to permit the petitioner-bank to proceed with the interview, the learned single judge held that it is only fair and proper that the petitioner is permitted to go ahead with the interview provided the five persons named in Ext. P-7 constitute the Interview Board and actually interview the candidates.

5. Itis as per Ext. P-3 dated 19-5-1990 (marked in O.P. 6781 of 1991) that the applications were invited. Written test was conducted on 2-12-1990. Interview was scheduled on 1-7-1991 and other days. Complaints were filed against the selection process. Consequent to the complaints, Exts. P-4 and P-5 were issued.

6. At the outset, it has to be stated that the Government has no power under any provisions of the Act or rules to, interfere with the selection process of a co-operative society. As there is no provision under the Act or Rules which authorises the Government to interfere with the selection process of the society, Ext. P-5 order cannot be sustained. In Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1992 (1) KLT 381) a Division Bench of this Court held that Government has no such power. In Kottayam Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State 0/#era/rt (19.88 (1) KLT 827) it was held that there cannot be an assumption that the Government has got the powers to intervene in the day-to-day administration of the co-operative society. In the said decision it was made clear that Government cannot restrain bank from conducting interview for appointment of clerks. With regard to the power of the Court in Government in issuing Ext. P-5 order, counsel on both sides conceded the position that it cannot do it.

7. The central theme of the arguments on both sides is regarding the power of the Registrar to intervene in the selection process of the staff of the society. Whereas the petitioner contended that Registrar is not clothed with any power to interfere with the day-to-day working of the society particularly the selection process of the staff, 1995 (1) counsel for the respondent and the Government Pleader contended that the Registrar is vested with ample powers under the Act.

8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Registrar's supervision as envisaged under S.66 can only be with regard to the financial involvements or crisis of the society and it can never be construed that the Registrar is competent to interfere with the day-to-day working of the society or the selection process of its employees. It is contended that the Registrar is not empowered to interfere with the selection process of the s