Constitutional validity of common cadre service rules for cooperative societies upheld under Article 43B.

The petitioners, representing Cooperative Society employees, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 74 and 75(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, along with consequential Government Orders (G.O. Ms. No. 14 of 2019, G.O. Ms. No. 29 of 2024, and G.O. Ms. No. 12 of 2024)

These provisions enable the State to constitute a "common cadre of service" for high-ranking administrative and managerial posts (e.g., Secretaries, Managers) and establish Recruitment Bureaus

The petitioners argued that these provisions allow the State to exercise absolute control over recruitment, transfers, and disciplinary actions, thereby destroying the "functional autonomy" guaranteed to Cooperative Societies under the 97th Constitutional Amendment

1. Whether Sections 74 and 75(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, and the resulting Common Cadre Service Rules are ultra vires Article 19(1)(c) and Article 43B of the Constitution of India

2. Whether the constitution of a common cadre managed by a state-appointed "competent authority" unconstitutionally infringes upon the functional autonomy and professional management of Cooperative Societies

The court applied Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which recognizes the fundamental right to form cooperative societies

and Article 43B (Directive Principles), which mandates the State to endeavor to promote autonomous functioning and professional management

It further referenced Article 243ZI, which empowers State Legislatures to make laws for the "regulation" of societies based on principles of voluntary formation and democratic control

The court relied on the precedent of *C. Manoharan v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2019), which established that the right to self-governance in cooperatives is not unregulated or unbridled, and that appointment to such societies involves public office

It also noted *Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah* regarding the limits of the 97th Amendment's application to State laws

The Court reasoned that while Article 43B promotes autonomy, it does not mandate "absolute or full autonomy" to the extent of denuding the State Legislature of its power to regulate effective management through a common cadre

The Court found that the day-to-day policy implementation and member services remain with the elected Boards under Sections 32 and 33 of the Act, meaning the societies are not "completely denuded" of autonomy

The constitution of a common cadre for managerial posts was viewed as a "reasonable restriction" under Article 19(4) intended to ensure transparent recruitment and streamlined administration, rather than an attempt to thwart the cooperative movement

The Court emphasized that there is no "constitutional imperative" for unregulated self-governance, and the State retains the power to formulate rules for disciplinary control and transfers to ensure accountability

The Court concluded that the statutory scheme strikes a "fine balance" between functional autonomy and regulatory oversight

It specifically held that the Directive Principles under Article 43B are not independently justifiable to strike down a law that provides for professionalized management through a common cadre

All interim applications were closed