Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—This batch of writ petitions have laid challenge to the Provisions of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976 (1976 Rules) and more particularly, the amendments introduced therein by virtue of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service (14th Amendment) Rules, 2015 (14th Amendment) and the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service (16th Amendment) Rules, 2016 (16th Amendment). The 14th Amendment came to be introduced vide notification dated 24 April 2015 whereas the 16th Amendment Rules came to be introduced vide notification dated 31 May 2016.

2. With the consent of parties, the petitions assailing the 14th Amendment and 16th Amendment to the 1976 Rules were tagged and heard together. As agreed by the learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, Writ Petition No. 31649 of 2016 [Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 26 others v. State of U.P. and others] was treated as the lead petition. The challenge to the 14th and 16th Amendment is raised by employees of various cooperative societies who were at the time of their introduction functioning in the capacity of Officiating Secretaries. The post of Secretary stood included in the centralised services by virtue of the provisions of the 1976 Rules which themselves were framed in terms of the provisions of Section 122-A of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (1965 Act). The primary challenge which came to be advanced against the 14th and 16th Amendments was on account of their operation adversely affecting the rights of persons who were working at the relevant time as Secretary in an officiating capacity and/or were seeking absorption on the post of Secretary by virtue of the provisions of the Bank Ex-Cadre Regulations, 2012 (2012 Regulations) framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 121 of the 1965 Act.

3. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel who led the submissions on behalf of the petitioners has contended that cooperative societies as a class were conferred constitutional status by virtue of the Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 (97th Amendment). He submitted that the 97th Amendment to the Constitution conferred a right on citizens to form cooperative societies and this right was granted the elevated status of a fundamental right in terms of the addition to sub-clause (c) in clause (1) of Article 19. Referring to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution 97th Amendment, Sri Misra sought to highlight and underline the fact that the legislature recognised the need to confer autonomy in the sphere of operation and management of cooperative societies. He submitted that on account of various retrograde Governmental interferences, co-operative societies throughout the country were left in shambles financially and that the said interventions had, in fact, a negative impact on the cooperative movement as a whole. He therefore, submitted that the right of a co-operative society to appoint officers and employees was desired to be made independent and freed from all Governmental interferences. In his submission, the introduction of Section 29 A in the 1965 Act was a recognition of the legislative intent in conferring added autonomy and independence upon co-operative societies. Referring specifically to sub clauses (vii) and (viii) of clause (a) of Section 29-A, Sri Misra contended that full freedom and autonomy stood vested in a co-operative society statutorily to assess its manpower resources and requirements and to appoint such officers and staff for the conduct of its business as it thought fit.

4. Sri Misra contended that on account of the precarious financial condition of cooperative societies in the State, the appointment of a person as a Secretary was liable to be viewed as an optional measure or choice inhering in a particular cooperative society. According to Sri Misra, the appoin