The issue in these writ petitions concerns the legality of an appointment made by the President of a Society. The appointment is said to have been ratified subsequently by the managing committee. Acting on the complaints of certain persons, the Assistant Registrar interdicted the appointment; the Society implemented his directive. But the employee was not heard before her termination. Thus, the Court is called upon to decide on the propriety of the procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar and the Society in removing the employee.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015 challenges Exts.P2 and P3, the order of the Assistant Registrar and the resolution of the society respectively, through which the petitioner’s appointment was sought to be cancelled.

3. In W.P. (C) No.2028 of 2016, the petitioner, who is said to be a rival candidate for the post, raises an issue concerning the competence of the President to appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015. The appointment is allegedly without a proper sanction from the managing committee in terms of Section 182 of the Co-operative Societies Act (‘the Act’).

4. I reckon both the writ petitions focus on the same issue, i.e., the legality of the appointment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015. For ease of reference and convenience, I take into account the facts and exhibits in W.P.(C) No. 38458 of 2015 for narrative purpose.

5. The petitioner was appointed a peon in the second respondent Bank on 10.05.2015. In time, the 4th respondent and some others are said to have complained against the appointment to the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, the first respondent. The principal allegation seems to be that the President appointed the petitioner though he has no power.

6. Ostensibly, acting on the complaint referred to above, the first respondent passed Ext.P2 order declaring that the petitioner’s appointment being contrary to law must be cancelled. The second respondent Bank passed Ext.P3 resolution implementing Ext.P2 directive. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that at no point in time has the petitioner been put on notice before the first respondent’s passing Ext.P2 order, not to speak of Ext.P3, the consequential order. According to the learned counsel, both Exts.P2 and P3 are illegal and unsustainable on the singular premise that those orders violate the principles of natural justice.

8. The learned counsel has also addressed the issue on merits. According to him, the first respondent lacks the vires to pass Ext.P2 order. Even if he were treated as the delegate of the Registrar, contends the learned counsel, no substantive provision of either the principal enactment or the Rules empowered the Registrar or its delegate to interdict any appointment. It is essentially in the realm of a service dispute, for which there is an efficacious remedial mechanism under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (‘the Act’).

9. Proceeding further, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Sections 3(2) and 66A of the Act to hammer home his contention that it does not lie in the power of the Registrar or Assistant Registrar to interdict a decision validly taken by the second respondent, the employer. In further elaboration, he has also submitted that even the managing committee of the second respondent cannot review its own decision--appointing the petitioner --absent any specific allegation of fraud by, say, the employee. Summing up his submissions the learned counsel has submitted that Exts.P2 and P3 orders cannot be sustained.

10. Sri P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, has contended with equal vehemence that Exts.P2 and P3 orders are unexceptional. According to him, the Assistant Registrar, as a delegate of the Registrar, has ample powers under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (‘the Ru