Appointment by transfer should comply with statutory provisions, and writ petitions against cooperative societies are generally not maintainable.

By order, dated 29. 2001, the Special Officer of the respondent-Society, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Clerk in the said Society. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially employed on 20.4.1994 as daily wage salesman in Athiyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. Though his appointment was not through employment exchange, with the approval of the statutory authority, his services were regularised on 3. 1998 in time scale of pay. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for transfer to the respondent-society and having regard to the vacancy and the family circumstances, the President of Athiyur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, agreed for transfer and accordingly, a communication was sent to the President of the respondent-society. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Athiyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank to the respondent-society on 7. 1998. When the petitioner was working in a permanent vacancy, the Board of Directors were dissolved and that a Special Officer was appointed. On the basis of the instructions from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, to all the Co-operative Societies in the State to terminate the services of those persons, who were irregularly employed, the petitioner was terminated from service, by order, dated 29. 2001, on the ground that his appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The said proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Attacking the said order, Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the appointment of an employee by transfer from one society to another in a vacant place is permissible as per the proceedings in Mu. Mu. No. 1458/88, dated 2. 1988 of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai, addressed to the Special Officer, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union, Chennai, provided the concerned employee satisfies the qualification prescribed for the post. He further submitted that there is no need to resort to employment exchange and that the employee, who seeks for transfer can directly apply. He also submitted that age relaxation is also available to such employees.

4. Invitingthe attention of this Court to the proceedings, dated 3. 1998, by which, the services of the petitioner in the post of Salesman in Athiyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank were regularised and the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar, dated 26. 1998, addressed to the President of the respondent-society, wherein, he has stated that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder relating to appointment by transfer and the permission given by the said authority to take a decision on their own, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 7. 1998 in the vacant post of Clerk in Madapalli Agricultural Co-operative bank only after bringing it to the notice of the reason assigned by the Special Officer of the respondent-society that the petitioner was appointed, without recourse to the employment exchange, is erroneous. According to him, when there are clear instructions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, enabling appointment by transfer from one Society to another, without resorting to employment exchange, the above reason is liable to be rejected.

5. Per contra, placing reliance on Full Bench decisions of this Court in Marappan, K. v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal (2006) 4 MLJ 641: 2006 (4) CTC 689, T.K. Ananda Sayanam v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Vellore Region (2007) 5 MLJ 637: 2007 (5) CTC 1 and R. Rathakrishnan v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul (2007) 6 MLJ 455: 2007 (5) CTC 369, Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned counsel for the respondent-society submitted that the writ petition, challenging the termination of the petitioner for viol