Irregular cooperative society appointments made contrary to Rule 149 cannot be sustained.

The first respondent was appointed as a Clerk by the appellant-cooperative society on 4 November 1996.

His services were terminated on 23 September 2002 on the grounds that the Society had no sanctioned cadre strength and that his appointment was not made in accordance with the applicable rules.

He filed a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which was initially rejected as time-barred.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Revisional Authority to consider the revision petition on merits without reference to limitation.

Upon reconsideration, the Revisional Authority dismissed the revision petition on 18 September 2010.

The respondent thereafter filed W.P.No.27257 of 2010, which was allowed on 22 November 2023 with directions to reinstate him and pay 50% back wages.

The Society challenged that order in the present writ appeal.

Whether the Writ Court was justified in directing reinstatement with 50% back wages when the respondent’s appointment was allegedly made without sanctioned cadre strength and contrary to the applicable recruitment rules

Whether the principles governing irregular and illegal appointments in cooperative societies, as laid down in L. Justin v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and affirmed in A. Uma Rani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, applied to the respondent’s appointment

The Court applied Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, governing revision proceedings, and Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, which requires appointments in cooperative societies to conform to the prescribed recruitment procedure and conditions.

Relying on L. Justin v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 2002 (4) CTC 385, the Court held that irregular or illegal appointments made without following Rule 149 cannot be sustained, while appointments found compliant with the Rules may be regularised.

The Court further relied on A. Uma Rani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2004 (7) SCC 112, by which the principles in L. Justin were affirmed, making them binding for cases involving similarly irregular appointments.

The Division Bench treated the respondent’s appointment as falling within the category of appointments made without compliance with the applicable cooperative-society recruitment rules, particularly because there was no sanctioned cadre strength and the appointment was not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Applying L. Justin and A. Uma Rani, the Court held that an appointment of this nature could not be sustained merely because the employee had been appointed and had served for a period of time.

The Writ Court’s direction for reinstatement and 50% back wages was therefore inconsistent with the binding legal position established by the earlier Division Bench judgment and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

It held that the respondent’s appointment was an irregular appointment governed by the principles in L. Justin and A. Uma Rani, and that the Writ Court erred in directing reinstatement with 50% back wages.

The writ appeal was accordingly allowed; the order dated 22 November 2023 in W.P.No.27257 of 2010 was set aside.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.