ORDER
Srinivasan, J.
1. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. It is directed against the communication sent by the first respondent viz., the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cuddalore, on 4.6.1991 in N.K. No. 3229/91 sent to the 2nd respondent. The said communication directs the second respondent to cancel to appointments given to the petitioners on the ground that the said appointments are made without getting the cadre strength fixed under Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and without conducting the interviews through a committee appointed with the permission of the Deputy Registrar. It is also stated in the communication that the second respondent has failed to abide by the directions given in the communications of the Deputy Registrar bearing No. N.K. 2596/91 dated 11.2.1991 and 18.2.1991. The contentions urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners are that the second respondent has powers to appoint staff to the cooperative society under Rule 149(3) read with Section 73 of the Co-operative Societies Act and there is no necessity for approval by any higher authority; there is no requirement for fixation of cadre strength and the only requirement is that the total expenditure shall not exceed 3% of the capital the petitioners are appointed after notification of vacancies through employment exchange and holding of interviews; the petitioners are all qualified for the posts to which they are appointed; there is no necessity for nomination of any appointment committee which is contemplated only for common cadre service; the instructions given by the Deputy Registrar in the communication dated 11.2.1991 and 18.2.1991 are applicable only to staff members appointed on daily wages and not permanent staff; and that the petitioners cannot many event be penalised for the mistakes committed by the second respondent.
2. This writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that there is no cause of action for the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned communication dated 4.6.1991 sent by the first respondent to the second respondent is only a direction given by him to the second respondent to conceal appointments given to the petitioners. Admittedly till now, there is no cancellation of the appointment by the second respondent. Hence, there is no cause of action for the petitioners as such.
3. My contention as drawn to the judgment of this Court in S. Viswanathon v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Credit Societies and Ors. . A single Judge of this Court has taken the view that a writ petition cannot be maintained against the direction issued by the Deputy Registrar on similar facts. The learned Judge has held that if and when the appointments of the petitioners therein were terminated, they may have other remedies available to them a*nd they cannot approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution before any such orders are passed. The learned Judge has also taken the view that no cause of action had arisen to the petitioners before him. The ruling will be on all fours in this case and I respectfully follow and adopt the reasoning therein.
4. The direction is issued only to the second respondent and the second respondent has not challenged the direction in any manner. If the direction is complied with and the appointments given to the petitioners are cancelled, there will be time enough for the petitioners to work out their rights, if any, under appropriate provisions of law. As regards the second respondent, any action taken by the second respondent cannot be questioned by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Thirubuvanani Silk Handloom Weavers etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 1 L.W. 145 (F.B.), holding that no writ will lie against a cooperative society.
5. In the circumstances, the present writ petition has to be dismissed straightway. However, it is also necessary to point out that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that there is no Rule requiring the fixation of cadre strength and appointment of committee before staff members are appointed to the society. Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act empowers the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to issue directions in the public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation of co-operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the Government or to secure the proper management of the business of any class of registered societies generally, or for preventing the affairs of any registered society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, or of the depositors or the creditors (hereof. Such directions can be given by the Registrar either in general or in particular with regard to any particular society. The said directions shall be complied with by the concerned society or the officials. Exercising his powers under the said section, the Registrar of Societies has issued directions even as early as on 23.8.1990 in R.C. No. 163079/90UB-2.Thespccificdirection given therein is that the concerned officials shall ensure that the cadre strength in respect of cooperative societies etc., is fixed or revised only by the Joint Registrar of Societies and not by the Circle Deputy Registrar etc. Thus, the direction is unambiguous and without fixation of cadre strength by the Joint Registrar, no appointment can be made by the society. The said fact is well known to the second respondent society and the same has been acknowledged by the second respondent society in their communications to the first respondent. In their letter dated 13.2.1991, the second respondent has informed the first respondent that even daily rated employees will be appointed only after approval from the Joint Registrar. As a matter of fact, the second respondent sought permission to the first respondent only for appointing daily rated employees numbering about 30 in different classes for a temporary period of three months. But, that permission was not granted even though there was a recommendation by the first respondent to the Joint Registrar to grant permission. Even before such permission was granted and before the cadre strength was fixed, the second respondent has given appointment to the petitioners herein.
6. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to go into the contentions of the respondents that the appointments are not made in a proper manner and the whole affair is malicious and fraudulent. I am not going into that question as I am deciding this writ petition on the two questions of law addressed to me by counsel for the petitioners.
7. The other contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that Rule 149 of the rules does not require the appointment of a committee for making appointments of members of the staff of the society is erroneous. Rule 150 of the Rules provides for recruitment bureaus for the State constituted under Section 74 of the Act. Clause 5 of the said Rule provides that the Recruitment Bureau for a revenue district shall recruit the paid officers or servants to the posts in central and primary societies, the minimum in the time-scale of pay of which is not less than three hundred and fifty rupees. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners are appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 850 and above. Hence, under Rule 155 of the Rules, the appointments could not have been made excepting through Recruitment Bureau. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that unless notification is issued by the Government under Section 74 of the Act, there is no question of the Recruitment Bureau functioning; No doubt, my attention is not drawn to any notification by the Government under Section 74 of the Act. But, the directions issued by the Registrar are certainly in force and in violation of such directions, no appointments could have been made by the Co-operative Society.
8. In those circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of the appointments given to them by the second respondent and maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.