THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22667 OF 2000 Dated: 24.12.2010 Between: YSR Suryanarayana Murthy … petitioner And 1. The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22667 OF 2000 ORDER: The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Supervisor (NMR) on daily wage basis on 6.5.1986 in Kothapeta Taluq Agricultural Bank Limited, Kothapeta. Consequent to the merger of the said Bank with the 3rd respondent – District Co-operative Central Bank Limited w.e.f. 1.4.1987, the petitioner’s services were terminated. Similarly situated persons filed W.P.No.11060 of 1989 and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 23.10.1992 directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners therein and absorb them in the vacancies which had arisen in the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank prior to 1.4.1987. In the light of the said order, the petitioner made a representation and having considered the same, the Governing Body of the District Co- operative Central Bank, Kakinada passed Resolution No.24, dated 31.5.1999 resolving to request the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to reinstate the petitioner into service in Category-V Staff Assistant. Pursuant thereto, the necessary sanction was granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by proceedings dated 10.2.2000 and accordingly vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.06.2000 the petitioner herein was reappointed in Cadre-V as Staff Assistant. However certain conditions were imposed which included that the petitioner should get age relaxation from the Registrar of Co- operative Societies within a month since his age exceeded the age limit fixed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was also added that in case the age relaxation was not granted his services would be terminated after expiry of one month from the date of joining the service. Aggrieved by the said condition imposed in the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 30.06.2000 the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the said condition imposed by the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent contending that the impugned condition incorporated in the proceedings dated 30.06.2000 cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that in view of the recent amendment affected to the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 inserting Section 115-D, it is not necessary to seek age relaxation from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that the 3rd respondent Bank itself can take an appropriate decision. As could be seen, by virtue of the Amendment Act 16 of 2007, Section 115-D has been inserted into the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 thereby giving autonomy to the Co-operative Credit Societies in all financial and internal administrative matters subject to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India/ National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development with regard to personal policy, staffing, recruitment, posting and compensation to staff. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Bank has not disputed the legal position that in the light of Section 115-D (2) (iv) as inserted by Act 16 of 2007, it is permissible for the 3rd respondent Bank to take appropriate decision with regard to the relaxation of the age of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, without going into merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the age relaxation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation if he so desires within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Having regard to the fact that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court dated 17.7.2001, the petitioner is being continued in service all through, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner till appropriate order is passed by the 3rd respondent in terms of the above direction. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.12.2010 Note: c.c. in 3 days. Klp/gbs