THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 33880 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not permitting to discharge the duties of the petitioner as Clerk of the 3rd respondent society by taking into considering the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent Rc.No.102/2010-C1 dated 19.11.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner with all incidental and consequential benefits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The case of the petitioner in brief is: The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Govardhangiri P.A.C.S. Limited on 28.04.1987, which is now merged with the 3rd respondent society. On 25.12.2005, the 3rd respondent society without any notice, orally terminated the petitioner from the service on the ground of compliance of Act 2 of A.P. Cooperative Soceities Act and G.O.Ms.No.94 dated 28.02.2004. The petitioner had put in more than 17 years of service. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent society to continue his services in the society. The petitioner further submits that one Prabhakar Rao retired as Secretary of the Soceity and one clerk named K. Jagadish Goud got promoted as Secretary and hence, the post of clerk is vacant in the society and hence made representations dated 27.01.2010, 25.10.2010, 16.11.2011 to the 3rd respondent requesting to continue his services in the society as clerk. The 2nd respondent- President of the society issued proceedings Rc.No.102/2010-C1 dated 19.11.2011 directing the 3rd respondent to continue the services of petitioner as clerk, But the 3rd respondent has not taken any action on the said proceedings. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the resolution dated 28.04.1987 by the Govardhangiri PACS Limited on 28.04.1987 and since then serving as such and the said Govardhangiri PACS Ltd got merged with the respondent society. While so, the 3rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on 25.12.2005, without any notice and that the petitioner made representations dated 27.01.2010, 25.10.2010 and 16.11.2011 to the Mandal Cooperative Officer, Nagarkurnool. Having considere the said representation the Mandal Cooperative Officer, Nagarkurnool addressed to the President of the 3rd respondent society to continue the services of the petitioner in the 3rd respondent society, but the petitioner was not yet permitted to continue in service. Learned Government Pleader submits that since the Mandal Cooperative Officer vide Rc.No.102/2010-C1 dated 19.11.2011 addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent society, therefore the 3rd respondent may be directed to take necessary action. The Mandal Cooperative Officer in Rc.No.102/2010- C1 dated 19.11.2011, requested as follows: “Therefore the President, P.A.C.S. Koppunur is requested to continue the services of Sri K. Srinivasulu goud S/o Anjaneyulu Goud as per the services rules of the society and if any allegations are pending against him he should be given reasonable opportunity by giving notice and take action as per the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1964 section 115.” Clause (k) of Section 2 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, deals with the definition of word officer: “includes a person elected or appointed by a society in office of such society according to the by-laws and a President, Vice President, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and Assistant Secretary, Treasurer, Manager, Member of the Committee, Liquidator or any other person elected or appointed under this Act, Rules or by-laws to give directions in regard to the business of the society. Having regard to the said definition, if the president of the 3rd respondent society is considered as an officer of the society, the Mandal Cooperative Society Officer (addressing officer, at the bottom it is mentioned as Divisional Cooperative Officer), vide Rc.No.102/2010-C1 dated 19.11.2011, requested the 3rd respondent to take the services of the petitioner in accordance with the service rules of the society. Therefore, the same is binding on the 3rd respondent. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, pursuant to the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent, and take appropriate decision in the matter, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 22nd December, 2011 Note: C.C. in two days. B/o KSM