THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16502 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the member and share- holder of the 1st respondent -co-operative Bank. According to her, the aﬀairs of the Bank are to be administered by ladies, either as directors or employees, and contrary to the same, the 1st respondent had employed respondents 5 to 7. The managing committee of the Bank is said to have been superseded, on the ground that it has failed to remove respondents 5 to 7 from service. Placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.619, dated 31.08.2004, the petitioner submits that respondents 5 to 7 cannot be continued in service any longer. She seeks a declaration to the eﬀect that the action of respondents 1 to 4 in continuing respondents 5 to 7 in the service of the Bank is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.619. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co- operation. It is no doubt true that the managing committee of the Bank was superseded, vide orders, dated 30.11.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent. One of the reasons mentioned therein was that the appointment of respondents 5 to 7 is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.619. Certain other grounds are also mentioned. It is not known as to whether the order of supersession was challenged before any Forum or whether any new committee has since been elected. The emphasis of the petitioner is upon the failure of respondents 1 to 4, to enforce G.O.Ms.No.619, dated 13.08.2004. A perusal of the said G.O. discloses that the Government directed that the services of the advisors, consultants and retired oﬃcers/oﬃcials, who have been appointed prior to 13.05.2004 in the Departments of Government, public sector undertakings, local bodies and autonomous and other institutions running on grant in aid from the Government be dispensed with. It is not even alleged that the 1st respondent-Bank is receiving any grant in aid from the State Government. Therefore, the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No.619 does not apply to the 1st respondent- Bank. In that view of the matter, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 31.10.2008 JSU THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16502 of 2007 Date: 31.10.2008 JSU