THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11699 of 2009 Date : 07.09.2009 Between: T.G.Guru Murthy …Petitioner And The Commissioner/Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of A.P., Nampally, Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P.Sri Raghuram Counsel for the respondent No.1: G.P. for Co-operation Counsel for the respondent No.2: Mr.M.Ravindrnath Reddy Counsel for the respondent No.3: Mr. T.Janadhan Reddy THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11699 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as Chief Manager in the 2nd respondent Bank. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 10.06.2009, appointing the 3rd respondent herein as Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Bank as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the post of Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Bank fell vacant on 31.05.2009 on retirement of the 3rd respondent herein on attaining the age of superannuation and vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.05.2009, the petitioner herein was kept in-charge of the post of the Managing Director until further orders. However, under the impugned proceedings dated 10.06.2009, the 3rd respondent herein has again been appointed as the Managing Director for a period of one year from the date of assumption of charge. The said order dated 10.06.2009 is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that the appointment of the 3rd respondent is contrary to Rule 28 (6) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, which provides that every Officer of the society shall retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years. It is also contended that the impugned order which was issued by the 2nd respondent without obtaining the approval by the Board is illegal and unsustainable. On behalf of the 2nd respondent Bank, a counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the services of the 3rd respondent who had worked as Managing Director of the Bank for one year are required for proper administration of the Bank since during his tenure the Bank had gained huge profits. It is also stated that as there is no experienced, qualified, eligible employee available immediately to discharge the functions as Managing Director, the services of the 3rd respondent have been taken on contract basis for a period of one year and the said action cannot be held to be illegal or irregular. It is also contended that since the petitioner is not qualified for promotion to the post of Managing Director, he cannot be termed as ‘aggrieved party’ and as such he has no locus to challenge the appointment of the 3rd respondent. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India but it is purely a private society and therefore on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Rule 28 (6) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, runs as under : “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bye- laws/special bye-laws service regulations or common cadre regulations of the co-operative societies every paid servant and officer of the society other than those in the last grade service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last date of the month on which he attains the age of 58 years.” On a plain reading of the above Rule, it is clear that no Officer of the Society can be continued in service after attaining the age of 58 years. Admittedly the 3rd respondent had attained 58 years and therefore he was retired from the service on the afternoon of 31.05.2009. Having regard to the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 28 (6) of the Rules, he cannot be continued thereafter even on adhoc basis. The fact that he has been taken into the services of the society on deputation from Co-operative Department also does not make any difference so far his continuation in the Society’s services are concerned. Such continuation is impermissible even according to G.O.Ms.No.515, dated 14.6.2004, which dispenses with the service of all retired Government officials working against regular posts in terms of re-employment, contract basis, etc., in various Departments/Heads of Departments/State Public Sector Undertakings. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 10.06.2009 is ex facie illegal. Hence, the objections raised by the respondents that the 2nd respondent Bank is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the writ petitioner is not an aggrieved party and therefore has no locus to maintain this writ petition do not preclude this Court from exercising plenary powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.06.2009 is hereby set aside. So far as the entitlement of the petitioner to continue as Managing Director is concerned, the same being the subject-matter of W.P.No.15151 of 2009, both the parties are at liberty to urge their respective contentions in the said writ petition. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date:07.09.2009 gbs