IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 11794, 22984 of 2006 and 23457 of 2007 W.P.No.11794 of 2006 Between: The T.T.D. Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Rep by its President-Cum- Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of - Cooperative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3 The Assistant Registrar-Cum-Inspecting Officer, O/o.The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4 M.Munigovindaiah, S/o.Desaiah, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5 S.Lokanadham, S/o.Tyagaraju, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 6 S.Nagaraju, S/o.Jayaramaiah, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 7 J.Dharani Babu, S/o.Gangi Chetty, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 8 G.R.Babu, S/o.Not Known, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 9 S.Ramakrishna, S/o.Not Known, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 10 K.Gurumurthy, S/o.Not Known, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. 11 B.Madhusudana Reddy, S/o.Not Known, R/o.Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Roc.No.25345/2004-U.B-IV, dt.23-3-2005 and 15-12-2005 in appointing the Respondents 4 to 11 as employees of the bank is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice and also declare the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent and the report dt.17-2-2005 submitted by him is violative of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1738/2001 and consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner for appointing the Respondents 4 to 11 as employees of the petitioner's bank and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION *** W. P. No. 22984 of 2006 Between: S. Ramakrishna S/o. Bathaiah R/o. Sripuram Colony, K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,Rep. by the Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Coop. Bank Ltd., Rep. by its President, Having its Office at .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents herein in not implementing the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in RC No. 25254/2004ECCS-VB-IV dt. 15-12-2005 through which the 1st Respondent has, inter alia, held that my initially appointment to the post of attender in the 4th Respondent Bank is in accordance with the post of attender in the 4th Respondent Bank is in accordance with the statutory rules and regulations, and that I shall be reinstated forthwith is illegal and arbitrary, apart from being violative of the very directins of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WA No. 1738 of 2001 dt. 15-7-2004 and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate me as attender with back wages by reckoning my seniority from the date of my initial appointment, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.SESHADRI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION NO : 23457 of 2007 Between: 1 M. Munigovindaiah, S/o. Desaiah, R/o. Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 S. Lokanatham, S/o. Munirathanam, R/o. Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The TTD Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its President/ Executive Officer, TT Devasthanams, Tirupathi. 2 The Commissioner of Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, AP., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not reinstating the petitioners into service as per the proceedings Rc.No. 25245/2004-UB-IV dt. 23-3-2005 and 15-12-2005, issued pursuant to the directions granted by this Hon'ble Court as arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioners into service in terms of the said proceedings dt. 23-3-2005 and 15-12-2005 of the 2nd respondent and extent all the consequential attendant monetary benefits to the Petitioners in terms of the Judgment dt. 6-6-2001 in WP No. 27100/1996 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent : MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD FOR RMAPP The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: 1. The issue involved in these three writ petitions is identical and therefore they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Employees Cooperative Credit Society (for short Society) is a Society registered under A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It has been established to provide credit facilities to the employees of TTD. The petitioner society opened a branch at Tirumala in the year 1992. A request was made by the society to the Commissioner for Cooperation-Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad – 1st respondent to accord necessary approval for creation of posts in different categories to meet the requirements in the newly opened branch at Tirumala. The 1st respondent considered the proposal of the society and accorded sanction-vide proceedings dated 9.3.1992 for creation of 12 additional posts to run the branch at Tirumala. A notification was issued calling for applications to the posts of Junior Assistants, Assistants and Attenders. The list of eligible candidates was also called for from the concerned District Employment Exchange. The Board considered the applications and appointed 16 candidates for various posts. Soon after the appointments, a news item appeared pointing out certain irregularities in the appointments and attributing motives to the then Vice President of the Society. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies by proceedings dated 12.12.1996 directed the petitioner society to cancel the appointments. When the termination orders were issued, the employees filed writ petition challenging the order of termination. When it was brought to the notice of the employees that the termination orders were passed consequent on the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar dated 12.12.1996, they filed an application seeking amendment of prayer to challenge the direction dated 12.12.1996. The W.P.No.27100 of 1006 filed by the employees (16 nos) came to be allowed on 16.6.2001 and consequently a direction came to be issued to the society as well as other official respondents to re-appoint the employees. The penultimate para of the order in the said writ petition reads as under: “ The writ petition is accordingly allowed with consequential direction to respondents to re-appoint the petitioners. As the services of the petitioners were terminated within a short period after their appointment I feel that it is not a fit case to grant backwages. The second respondent shall comply with the orders of this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be o order as to costs.” 3. The Society filed W.A.No.1738 of 2001 assailing the order passed in WP.No.27100 of 1996 and the said appeal came to be disposed of on 15.7.2004 with certain observations. Para 6 of the order in the appeal reads as under: “ 6. Admittedly, as seen from the material referred to by the learned single Judge, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as early as on 9.3.1992 vide his proceedings roc.No.4304/92/ Ecc/Cocs has sanctioned twelve (12) posts for recruitment by the society and thereafter he has also sanctioned ten (10) backlog posts. In all, 22 posts were available for recruitment by the society. Under those circumstances, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Cooperative societies cannot be said to be valid. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. But the question that falls for consideration is whether the employees are to be reinstated straightway in view of the orders passed by the learned single Judge. We find that even though the Registrar of the Cooperative societies appears to have sanctioned total 22 posts including backlog posts, but it is not understood whether the recruitment made by the society is in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in filling up such posts keeping in view the reservation policy, roster etc. therefore, for this purpose, it is necessary that the Registrar of Cooperative societies shall cause enquiry into the availability of the posts vis a vis the recruitment made by the society and if the Registrar of Cooperative Societies finds that the recruitment made by the society is in conformity with the directions issued by him with regard to filling up of vacancies, such of those appointments which are in conformity shall not be disturbed. But however, if the Registrar finds that the appointments made by the society do not confirm to the guidelines issued by him on 9.3.1992 or subsequent dates, the same shall be cancelled to that extent. The Registrar shall cause an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. In compliance of the directions given in the appeal, The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad directed the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor under section 52 of A.P. Cooperative societies Act to submit a report. Thereupon, The District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor conducted enquiry and submitted a report dated 25.8.2005. According to the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor the appointment of the following persons is in accordance with the recruitment procedure and rule of reservation: 1) M.Munighovindaiah, Junior Assistant, SC 2) P.Sudhaker, Junior Assistant, SC (not joined) 3) S.Lokanadham, Junior Assistant, BC-B 4) G.R.Babu, Assistant, SC 5) S.Ramakrishna, Assistant, SC 6) S.Nagaraj, Attender, SC 7) J.Dharani Babu, Attender, BC-A 8) K.Gurumurthy, Attender, ST The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies considered the report and came to the conclusion that appointments of 9 individuals is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and Rule of Reservation. Accordingly, he directed the President and General Manager of the Society to take necessary action for appointment of 9 individuals in the existing 9 vacancies vide Rc.No.25245/2004-ECCS-UB-IV, dated 15.12.2005. The appointments which are stated to be in accordance with the recruitment rules and the rule of reservation are as follows: Junior Assistant: 1) M.Munigovindaiah, SC Assistants: 2) G.R.Babu, Assistant, SC 3) S.Ramakrishna, Assistant, SC Attenders: 4) S.Nagaraju, Attender, SC 5) Dharani babu, Attender, BC-A 6) K.Guru Murthy, Attender, ST 7) B.Madhusudan Reddy, Attender, OC (PHC) 8) S.Lokanadham, Attender, BC-B The inspection report dated 17.02.2005 of the Asst. Registrar-cum- Inspecting Officer-3rd respondent and the proceedings bearing Rc.No.25245/UB-IV, dated 23.03.2005, and Rc.No.25245/2004-ECCS- UB-IV, dated 15.12.2005, issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderabad are challenged by the Society in W.P.No.11794 of 2006. S.Rama Krishna, who is one of the employees filed W.P.No22984 of 2006 assailing the inaction of the Society in not implementing the proceedings bearing Rc.No.25245/2004- ECCS-UB-IV, dated 15.12.2005, issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderabad. Two other employees viz., M.Govindayya and S.Lokanadham filed W.P.No.23457 of 2007 assailing the action of the Society in not reinstating them despite the proceedings bearing Rc.No.25245/2004-UB- IV, dated 23.03.2005 issued by Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderabad. The petitioners in W.P.No.22984 of 2006 and 23457 of 2007 are arrayed as R4, R5; and R9 respectively in W.P.No.11794 of 2006. 5. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.11794 of 2006. 6. Heard Sri.Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the society, Sri.Jagapathi, learned counsel appearing for R4 to R7, Sri.D.Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel appearing for R8 and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the society submits that R1 has not conducted the enquiry himself as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal and therefore any direction given by R1 pursuant to the report of the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor is illegal and irregular. A further submission has been made that provisions of Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act cannot be pressed into service in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in which case the report submitted by the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor has no sanctity in the eye of law. He referred Sections 51, 52 and 60 of the A.P. Cooperative societies during the course of his arguments. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the judgment of this court in TAJ ELECTRONICS COMPANY V. COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATIVE ENQUIRIES AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (COOPERATIVE III) DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS[1]. He would also contend that there is no consistency with regard to the number of posts, which are held to be in accordance with the Rules of recruitment and the rule of reservation in the report submitted by the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor and the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderabad. Learned counsel would submit that the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, having passed order on 23.03.2005 would not have directed the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor to conduct enquiry. The learned counsel referred the order dated 23.03.2005 vide Rc.No.25345/2004-UB-IV, and the order dated 15.12.2005 vide Rc.No.25345/2004-ECCS-UB-IV. By referring the orders, the learned counsel contends that there is no consistency in these two orders and therefore, neither of them could be given effect. 8. On the first blush the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be appealing force. But on close scrutiny of the order dated 15.12.2005, I do not detain myself long to reject his contention. The first order passed by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, on 23.03.2005 is based on the inspection report dated 17.02.2005 of the inspection officer. When the said order is communicated, the T.T.D. issued proceedings rejecting the claims of the following persons for re-induction to the society: (1) Sri M.Munigovindaiah, (2) Sri S. Lokanadham, (3) Sri G.R.Babu, (4) Sri S.Ramakrishna, (5) Sri S. Nagaraju and (6) Sri J.Dharani Babu. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the proceedings issued by the T.T.D., which reads as hereunder: “In pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.A.No.1738/2001 dated 15.07.2004, the Commissioner and the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad has issued the proceedings in Roc.No.25245/2004-UB-IV, dated 23.03.2005, basing on the inspection report of the Co-operative Sub-Registrar stating that out of the 29 sanctioned posts, 17 persons are already existing and 9 persons were engaged irregularly in various cadres on daily wages and absorbed them on regular basis without following the recruitment procedure and also rule of reservation. Four persons were resigned and thus causing 7 clear vacancies. Against these 7 vacancies, the Managing Committee appointed 16 persons in different categories (i.e., 8 Junior Assistants, 4 Assistants, 4 Attenders). Finally in the said proceedings, it is stated that the appointments made by society in respect of SCs and BCs of 6 are according to rules and Roster points. It was also reported that the appointments of the General Category of 10 made by the Board of Directors of the Society are not in confirming with the rules. The Board of the Society has violated the recruitment rules and followed the rule of reservation and provision of the bye-law No.62(3) of the society. In pursuance of the Judgment in W.A.No.1738/2001 giving direction to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to enquire into the appointments and submit its findings within 4 months, the Registrar has conducted thorough enquiry into the whole issue and furnished his report as detailed below: a) The appointment of the 16 persons were not approved by the present of the Co-op. Society or by the authority ordered by the President. b) The posts though notified by the Co-op. Society in the news papers the Roster Points were not specified against the Posts. c) Though there was ban not to make appointments by the High Court, the Directions of the High Court was violated and 16 appointments were made illegally as per the opinion of the D.L.O., in his note dated 28.03.1997. d) The illegal appointments of these 16 persons are purely based on favouritism and Nepotism, as some of the appointees are related to the staff of the Cooperative Society and Directors. e) At this stage, there is no need to appoint additional staff in the Co-op. Society, in view of the introduction of the Computers, since 2001. f) The question of disturbing the appointees who were appointed in conformity with the rules and roster points as per the direction of the High Court does not arise since their service were terminated from 14.12.1996, the date on which they were permitted for duty by an in competent authority. While the enquiry report of the Registrar of Co-Op. Societies and facts of the case as stated above the following some of the persons who got irregular appointments and who were terminated have put in a representation to consider their cases for re-induction to society to join their posts. 1) Sri M.Muni Govindaiah 2) Sri S.Lokanadham 3) Sri G.R.Babu 4) Sri S.Rama Krishna 5) Sri S.Nagaraju 6) Sri J.Dharani Babu In the light of the above facts and in view of the fact that their appointments to the TTD Co-Operative Credit Society are irregular without the orders of the competent authority, they are hereby informed that their case deserves no consideration and hence their representation is considered and rejected.” In view of the proceedings issued by the TTD rejecting the claims of the above named persons for inducting into Society, the Registrar of Co-Op. Societies issued proceedings vide Rc.No.25245/04-ECCS-UB-IV, dated 01.06.2005 directing the District Co-operative Officer, Chittoor to conduct enquiry as to the validity of the appointments made by the ex-managing committee. The District Co-op. Officer verified the records and submitted his report. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, re-considered the entire material on record and passed orders on 15.12.2005, vide Rc.No.25245/2004-ECCS- UB-IV. Various proceedings mentioned in the order dated 15.12.2005 indicate the necessity to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for passing fresh order in place of earlier order. Ultimately, the order dated 15.12.2005 binds the TTD and it is bound to implement the same. 9. Learned counsel appearing for R4 to R7 submitted that the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is to cause enquiry and it does not mean that he has to necessarily conduct enquiry personally. Learned counsel took me to the report submitted by the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor and the proceedings issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderbad to convince that appointment of respondents 4 to 7 is in accordance with the recruitment rules and the rule of reservation. 10. The direction given by this court in the appeal to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is to cause enquiry with regard to the appointments made by the society. The word ‘cause enquiry’ indicates that the person to whom direction is given can either himself enquire or get the matter enquired by his subordinate officer and submit a report. The Registrar called for the report from the District Cooperative Officer, Chittoor and then proceeded to record a finding as to which of the posts are filled up in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and the rule of reservation. The report of the District Cooperative Officer is explicit that the appointments made by the society in respect of backlog vacancies are in accordance with the recruitment Rules and the Rule of reservation. The Registrar by referring the report submitted by the District Cooperative Officer came to the conclusion that the appointments of 9 individuals are in accordance with the recruitment rules and the rule of reservation. In my considered view the Registrar caused the enquiry with regard to the appointments made by the society and proceeded to issue proceedings dated 23.12.2005 directing the society to issue appointment orders to 9 individuals. It is immaterial as to under what provision the Registrar got the enquiry conducted with regard to validity of the appointments made by the society. The District Cooperative Officer had gone through the records of the society in detail and submitted report. The Registrar considered the report and directed the society to appoint 9 individuals whose appointments were in accordance with the recruitment rules and the rule of reservation. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, A.P. Hyderbad. 11. In view of the above, W.P.No.11794 of 2006 is dismissed, W.P.No.22984 of 2006 and W.P.No.23457 of 2007 are allowed. In the circumstances no costs. 17th March, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NOS.11794, 22984 OF 2006 AND 23457 OF 2007 (COMMON ORDER) 17TH MARCH 2009. [1] 2002(1) ALD 171