BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02/03/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.(MD).No.2465 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010
S.Maripandian ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
College Road, Chennai.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co.op. Societies,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Thenkasi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Special Officer,
TNSPL-150, Mettupatti Primary Agri.
Co.op. Society,
Sivagiri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the order passed by the fourth respondent by his order dated
23.09.2008, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider
the petitioner for the post of salesman.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.M.O.Thevan Kumar
^For Respondents ... Mr.V.Rajasekaran,
Special Government Pleader
*******
:ORDER
**********
Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on
behalf of the respondents. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The Writ Petition is not maintainable, in view of the larger
Bench judgment of this Court in K.Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal – 636 001 and another reported in
2006 (4) CTC 689. Admittedly, in the impugned order of the fourth respondent,
the petitioner’s claim for re-employment as a Salesman, as per the bye-law
149(1) of the respondent Co-operative Societies, came to be rejected on the
ground that originally when the petitioner was appointed, it was on the basis of
the daily wages. It is also stated in the impugned order that the petitioner has
not served continuously for a period of 480 days. The writ petition is not
maintainable for reasons which are more than one. First of all, as stated above,
the service of the petitioner is governed by the bye-laws framed for the Co-
operative Societies under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and,
therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
3. Secondly, even assuming otherwise the fact as to whether the
petitioner has continuously worked as a Salesman for 480 days requires factual
appreciation of evidence, which cannot be done by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by exchange of affidavits.
4. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
as against the impugned order, the petitioner has already preferred a revision
under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act on 05.02.2010 and
if a direction is issued to the second respondent to decide the same, the
petitioner will be satisfied.
6. Considering the above said request made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, while dismissing the writ petition, the second respondent,
to whom the petitioner is stated to have made the revision on 05.02.2010 against
the impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 23.09.2008, is directed to
consider such revision, if the same is pending before him and pass appropriate
orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and in
any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also
dismissed. No costs.
SML
To
1.The Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
College Road, Chennai.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co.op. Societies,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Thenkasi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Special Officer,
TNSPL-150, Mettupatti Primary Agri.
Co.op. Society,
Sivagiri Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.