Ashok Bhushan, J. :

” This Larger Bench has been constituted to answer the reference made by a three Judge Bench vide referring order dated 09-01-2012. The Division Bench which heard the writ petition, in turn, made a reference by their order dated 18-10-2010 on which a three Judge Bench was constituted. It is useful to quote the reference order of the three Judge Bench dated 09-01-2012 which is to the following effect.

' Pursuance to reference made by a Division Bench of this Court, this case is posted before us today. We notice from the reference order that the Bench which referred the matter does not consider the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.206/1982 and the decision reported in Bhaskaran & others v. Addl. Secretary & others, reported in 1987(2) KLT 903 : (AIR 1988 Ker 75) declaring that Co-operative Societies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction do not appear to be correct. In the reference order itself they have referred to decision of the Supreme Court in S.M.V.S.J.M.S.Trust v. V. R. Rudani reported in AIR 1989 SC 1607 and later decision of this Court in Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association v. State of Kerala, reported in ILR 2010(2) Kerala 753. There is yet another Full Bench decision in John v. Liquidator, reported in 2006(1) KLT 11 : (2006 AIHC 604 (Ker)) holding the position that writ is not maintainable against a Co-operative Society. Besides the contrary position declared by the Supreme Court cited by the Division Bench in the reference order, we notice in the decision in Sumangalam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Suo Motu High Court of Gujarat, 2007(2) SCC 301 : (AIR 2007 SC 671) the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the matter on merit assuming that writ is maintainable against a society. Above all, we notice that there has been an amendment by Act 7 of 2010 amending Section 9 and simultaneously introducing Section 66A in the Co-operative Societies Act which gives substantial Government authority on societies. We, therefore, concur with the view taken by the Division Bench that the earlier view that writ is not maintainable against society may no longer be good law. However, since judgments rendered are by Full Bench, we feel a larger Bench should decide the matter. We, therefore, refer this matter for decision by a larger Bench. Registry will take orders from the Hon” ble Chief Justice and post the case.'

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 7th respondent has attained the age of superannuation, hence reliefs claimed in the writ petition has virtually become infructuous. He, however, submits that reference having been made to the Larger Bench to answer the issues, the issues be considered on merit. Hence we proceed to consider the submissions for the purpose of deciding the questions.

3. Before we proceed to consider the submissions made and the issues raised by the parties, it is necessary to look into the relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition. The 1st petitioner is an Association of Officers working at Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., and the 2nd petitioner was working as Senior Manager in Charge of the said Union. Petitioners” case is that the 2nd respondent is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and governed by its own bye laws. The objectives of the Union are to carry out the activities conducive to the socio-economic development of the Milk Producers. The apex body of the Union is the Board of Directors. It is further pleaded that rules and regulations regarding appointment, termination and other matters regarding the conditions of service of the 2nd respondent was governed by the Staff Regulations of the 2nd respondent which are annexed as Ext.P1. It is their case that even though the 2nd petitioner was eligible to be appointed in the post of Senior Manager (Dairy), respondents 3 and 4 were taking hasty steps to appoint the 7th respondent to the said post. Pet