The Assistant Registrar cannot rescind an appointment after significant delay without proper jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner entered the service of the 2^nd respondent Co-

operative Society in the year 2007. The Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies (General) approved the feeder category rules in the year 2007 wherein, a post of Assistant Secretary was also created. The petitioner, who was working as the Internal Auditor, was appointed as a Assistant Secretary in the 2^nd respondent Society with effect from 23.10.2014 on the basis of a resolution taken by the Managing Committee of the 2^nd respondent Society. Her probation was also declared by the Managing Committee. Still later in the year 2023, the petitioner was promoted as the Secretary, pursuant to Ext.P2. The petitioner, while working as Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Society, is stated to have retired from service on 31.05.2024.

2. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition since the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1^st respondent) had issued Ext.P4 communication addressed to the President /

Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Society dated 07.07.2023, informing that the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Secretary was illegal since the petitioner was not having the required qualification.

3. Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

1^st respondent herein had no jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of one at Ext.P4. He would also contend that, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Secretary in the year 2014 and the finding in Ext.P4 has been arrived at almost after nine years and therefore, the same could not be enforced against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader sought to rely on the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent dated 23.08.2024, in which it is stated that Ext.P4 is only a “communication” and not an “order” and therefore, the petitioner is not justified in challenging the same.

6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

7. The factual position is not a dispute. The petitioner has been appointed as an Assistant Secretary in the year 2014. Her appointment as Assistant Secretary is also approved. She continued to function as the Assistant Secretary and she is still later promoted as the Secretary in the year 2023. It is only pursuant to an internal audit that the order / communication at Ext.P4 has been issued.

8. I find much force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 (for short “ the Act”) read along with the provisions of Rule 176 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short “ the Rule”) that it is only the Assistant Registrar appointed under the provisions of (2) of the Act, who could rescind the resolution of the Managing Committee. This Court also notices that with reference to the notification at SRO 198/1969, the Assistant Registrar of Co-

operative Societies, though has been conferred with certain powers available to the Registrar, such extension of power is not admittedly with reference to the provisions of Rule 176 of the Rules. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in contending that the 4^th respondent could not have interfered with the appointment of the petitioner as the Assistant Secretary.

9. Further more, I take note of the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P4 is only a communication. However, even in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, he has stated that the Bank ought to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P4 and if not compl