Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The petitioners, 23 in number, are the Daily Deposit Collectors working in the first respondent Bank. Petitioners 3, 5, 10, 14 to 16 and 23 were appointed in 1989; whereas other petitioners were appointed subsequently on different dates. Their singular grievance is that despite clear, binding directions by the Government as well as the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the first respondent Bank has not regularised them. On 13.04.2005, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Exhibit P1 circular commemorating the centenary of the Co-operatives and also on humanitarian grounds. The purpose of the circular, inter alia, is to regularise the Daily Wagers and the Deposit Collectors. Later, the same authority issued Exhibits P2 and P3 consequential circulars enhancing the monthly emoluments of and providing other service benefits to the Daily Deposit Collectors.

2. On the Government's part, it has issued Exhibits P4 and P7 orders improving the pay and other service conditions of the Daily Deposit Collectors. Exhibits P5 and P6 are said to be the orders issued by two other District Cooperative Banks regularising the services of Daily Deposit Collectors working in their establishments.

3. Initially, questioning the non-implementation of the circulars issued by the Registrar and also the orders issued by the Government, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 20828/2011 and invited Exhibit P9 judgment: This Court directed the Registrar to consider the issue and take appropriate decision. In compliance thereof, the Registrar issued Exhibit P10 circular directing the first respondent Bank to create the required number of posts by obtaining necessary approval and thereafter regularise the petitioners in those sanctioned posts.

4. In furtherance of Exhibit P10 order of the Registrar, the Administrator of the first respondent Bank, then being at the helm of affairs, issued Exhibit P11 proceedings resolving to create 29 posts and forwarded the same through Exhibit P12 to the Registrar. Exhibit P14 is another forwarding letter.

5. Eventually, the Registrar, through Exhibit P15, sanctioned 29 posts as had been required by the first respondent Bank. At this juncture, once again ventilating their grievance that their services had not been regularised despite all the exercise that had been undertaken so far, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 30087/2013 and invited Exhibit P16 judgment. This Court, this time, directed the respondent Bank to take a decision keeping in view the earlier circulars and orders. As a result, the respondent Bank has passed Exhibit P17 resolution concluding that it is not viable for the Bank to regularise the petitioners' services.

6. Subsequently, on 15.07.2015, the Government issued Exhibit P25 order, which is said to be based on the findings of a Commission appointed by it. As can be seen, the Government having considered the Commissioner's report issued many directions for improving the service conditions of the employees in the co-operatives across the State.

Submissions:

Petitioners':

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, to begin with, contended that Exhibit P17 resolution is illegal, irrational and ultra vires of the Executive Committee of the Bank. He has submitted that this Court in Exhibit P16 has given a peremptory direction to regularise the petitioners' services.

8. Drawing my attention to the specific reason assigned by the respondent Bank in Exhibit P17 that the regularisation would not be viable, the learned counsel has further contended that the committee of the Bank has failed to make it clear how the proposal was unviable.

9. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Government Orders and administrative directions of the Registrar squarely bind the respondent Bank, and it cannot wriggle itself out of its statutory obligation to regularise the petitioners. Eventually, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners have been working for the last 11-26 yea