Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The petitioner, a member of the fourth respondent Co-operative Society under the management of the third respondent Administrative Committee, assails Exhibit P3 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent, permitting the third respondent to fill up ten posts of Salesman/Peon lying vacant in the Bank.

2. As seen from the record, the term of the earlier Managing Committee came to an end in August 2011 for want of quorum; as a result, on 29.08.2011, the third respondent Administrative Committee was appointed. Though the Society initially proposed to have the election on 28.10.2012, the proposal could not materialise because of the pending litigation. It is represented that SLP No. 17632/2013 is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, in which status quo orders have already been granted.

3. In the light of the pending litigation, as there is no possibility of having a regular election to the Managing Committee in immediate future, the third respondent has proposed to fill up the vacancies in the Bank. Accordingly, acting on its representation, the second respondent issued Exhibit P3 order permitting the third respondent to fill up ten vacancies. The petitioner being a member has laid challenge against Exhibit P3 order.

4. Sri. M.K. Damodaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Administrative Committee comes into existence only as a stopgap arrangement either under Section 32 or 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'). It is, therefore, not authorised to take any policy decisions, which include the appointment of staff on a permanent basis. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Raghavan Nair v. Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, 1998 (2) KLT 1068, Dist. Industries Centre v. Kaithari Neithu Sahakarana Sangam, 1999 (1) KLJ 885, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala, 2003 (2) KLT606, Jt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (2000) 6 SCC 127, Hassan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1998 (2) KLT 746 (FB) and Karunakaran Pillai v. Venugopala Pillai, 2005 (3) KLT348.

5. Per contra, Sri. B.S. Swathy Kumar, the learned counsel for the third respondent, has submitted that the fourth respondent Bank for many years is without any Managing Committee. The Bank has 11 branches, apart from the Head Office, five retail ration shops, and a neethi store. If appointments are not made to the existing post of the salesman/peon, it is difficult for the Bank to continue the ration shops and the neethi store. Most of the ration shops are in the coastal areas, and the people of the locality mainly rely on the supply from the ration shop; it is impossible to keep the ration shop closed for a single day. In these peculiar circumstances, for the administrative convenience of the Bank, the third respondent has asked permission to make appointments. It is after a full-fledged enquiry by the Assistant Registrar that the second respondent granted sanction to the third respondent to make appointments.

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per Exhibit R3(a), showing the approved staff pattern, there are ten posts of Salesman/Peon. At present, there are no permanent Salesmen/Peons. and all the persons working in either position are employed on daily wages.

7. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that most of the authorities cited at the bar by the learned Senior Counsel concern themselves with the issue of policy decisions, especially as regards the admission of new members by an Administrator or Administrative Committee. About Dist. Industries Centre (supra), the learned counsel would contend that except a stray sentence that the Administrative Committee shall not make any appointment to any post till the next committee takes charge, it has not assigned any reasons, submits the learned counsel.

8.