Appointment Of Near Relative Of An Officer In A Co-Operative Society, Violates Rules: Madras High Court

A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a writ petition in the case of S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors. has held that a near relative of an officer of a co-operative society cannot be appointed to any post in the service of such society.

Background of Facts

S. Keerthana (Petitioner) had applied to the post of Manager pursuant to a call issued by The General Manager (Respondent No. 3) on 13.11.2020. After successfully clearing the skill examination test, she appeared for the interview and certificate verification after which the Petitioner was selected and appointed on 13.01.2021. After allegations of illegality/irregularity in the recruitment process, The Deputy Registrar (Respondent No. 4) was appointed as Enquiry Officer who under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act conducted an investigation and submitted his report alleging various illegalities/irregularities in the recruitment process on 30.11.2021. Based on the report, Respondent No. 3 passed a consequential order cancelling the appointment order of The Petitioner on 06.01.2023. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.

It was contended by the Petitioner, inter alia, that she was not given an adequate opportunity in the enquiry proceedings. Further, the enquiry report was not furnished to her and that the impugned order has not specifically mentioned the relative who is working in said Union attracting disqualification. It was further contended that before issuing the impugned order, the petitioner had not been put on notice or any enquiry had been conducted which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner should have been issued with a charge memo and a proper enquiry should have been conducted before passing the impugned order, especially when the impugned orders are stigmatic in nature.

On the other hand, the Respondent contended that pursuant to the notification for the post of Manager, the post was deleted from the cadre strength by proceedings of Respondent No. 1. Without cancelling the recruitment process, the Petitioner had been permitted to appear for the examination and the authorities proceeded to appoint the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner's father was working as an Assistant Manager in the same co-operative union during the recruitment process. As per Rule 149(5) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, a near relative of an employee cannot be appointed. It was further contended that the Petitioner had not yet completed her probation period and that the order of termination was not stigmatic in nature. Hence, issuing a show cause notice or conducting an enquiry prior to the issuance of cancellation of order was not required.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that although there was a vacancy for the post of Manager on the date of the notification, the said post was deleted from the cadre strength and as such the Petitioner should not have been permitted to appear in the examination and an order of appointment should not have been issued to a non-existing vacancy. Further, the court observed that the Petitioner's father was working as an Assistant Manager in the same Co-operative Union at the same time of the recruitment process which is a clear violation of Rule 149(5) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules which states that “No person who is a near relative as specified in rule 63, of a member of the board or an officer of a society shall be appointed to any post in the service of such society.”

Further, Rule 63 highlights the near relations of a paid employee for purposes of disqualification for membership of the board which include “(1) Spouse (wife or husband); (2) Father (including step-father) …”

Therefore, the court observed that remitting the matter to the authorities on the ground of not providing opportunity to the Petitioner would be an empty formality.

With the aforementioned observations, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 149

Case No. W.P. (MD). No. 10177/2023

Counsels for the Applicant: Mr. K.S. Viswanath

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Veera. Kathiravan, Mr. J. Devasenan

Click Here To Read/Download Order