No Regularization of Illegal Appointments in Co-operative Societies: Madras High Court Affirms Supreme Court Precedents

Introduction

The case of R. Rathakrishnan Petitioner v. The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, Dindigul Circle, Dindigul adjudicated by the Madras High Court on October 11, 2007, marks a significant milestone in public employment law within the realm of Co-operative Societies in Tamil Nadu. This case primarily revolves around the legality of appointments made to Co-operative Societies without adhering to the mandatory recruitment procedures as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The petitioners, who were employees of various Co-operative Societies, challenged the show cause notices issued by the Deputy Registrar, asserting that their appointments were lawful and that the show cause notices were contrary to law.

Summary of the Judgment

The Madras High Court, in its comprehensive judgment, reinforced the Supreme Court's stance established in earlier cases, notably A. Umarani v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and L. Justine v. The Registrar of Co-op. Societies. The Court held that the State Government lacked the jurisdiction to regularize appointments made in violation of the statutory provisions governing Co-operative Societies. Specifically, Government Order Ms No. 86 dated March 12, 2001, which attempted to regularize such appointments, was declared a nullity. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that interim relief could not be granted to perpetuate the services of irregular appointees, thereby maintaining the sanctity of the rule of law and statutory mandates.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referred to and built upon several pivotal cases:

L. Justine v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2002): This case addressed the regularization of employees appointed without following due process. The Division Bench initially allowed for regularization based on Government directives, a stance later scrutinized by higher courts.
A. Umarani v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2004): The Supreme Court dismantled the legality of Government Order Ms No. 86, emphasizing that retrospective regularization contradicts statutory provisions and constitutional mandates.
State of HP v. Suresh Kumar Verma: Reinforced that illegality in appointments cannot be remedied through regularization under statutes like the Industrial Establishments Act or Industrial Disputes Act.
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006): The Supreme Court cautioned against using judicial powers under Article 226 to perpetuate illegal appointments, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional and statutory norms.
Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ranjodh Singh (2007): Affirmed that departmental instructions cannot override statutory rules, establishing that any appointment deviating from prescribed procedures is ultra vires.

These precedents collectively underscored the judiciary's unwavering commitment to the rule of law, statistical adherence, and constitutional fidelity, especially in the context of public employment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously dissected the statutory framework governing Co-operative Societies, particularly focusing on the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and its associated rules. Rule 149 delineates the conditions of service, explicitly mandating that appointments be made through Employment Exchange notifications, adherence to cadre strength, and fulfillment of educational and technical qualifications.

The State Government's efforts to regularize irregular appointments through Government Orders, notably Ms No. 86, were scrutinized under the lens of constitutional provisions, specifically:

Article 162 of the Constitution of India: Pertains to the executive power of the State, which must act within the bounds of legislative competence.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.

The Court reasoned that retroactive regularization undermines the statutory recruitment procedures, contravening principles of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. Furthermore, supporting the doctrine of legality, the Court posited that no amount of post hoc regularization could legitimize inherently illegal appointments.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's strict interpretation of statutory recruitment protocols within Co-operative Societies. By invalidating Government Orders that attempt to retroactively regularize appointments, the High Court ensures:

Adherence to prescribed recruitment procedures, thereby promoting transparency and meritocracy in public employment.
Discouragement of arbitrary hiring practices, safeguarding against favoritism and corruption.
Judicial restraint from overstepping into executive functions, maintaining a clear separation of powers.

Future cases will likely cite this judgment as a cornerstone in affirming that irregular or illegal appointments cannot be legitimized through subsequent administrative or judicial actions, thereby upholding the integrity of public employment systems.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Government Order Ms No. 86

This was an executive directive issued by the Tamil Nadu State Government aimed at regularizing the service of Co-operative Society employees who were appointed without following mandatory recruitment procedures, such as drawing candidates from the Employment Exchange.

Article 162 of the Constitution of India

Defines the executive power of the State, which must act in accordance with the Constitution and within the bounds of legislative authority.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose necessary, extending beyond fundamental rights to enforce other legal rights.

Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988

Establishes the conditions of service for paid officers and servants of Co-operative Societies, including stipulations on recruitment methods, cadre strength, and qualifications.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court's judgment in R. Rathakrishnan Petitioner v. The Deputy Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies serves as a robust affirmation of the supremacy of statutory and constitutional mandates over unilateral administrative actions concerning public employment. By upholding the principles set forth by the Supreme Court, the judgment ensures that irregular or illegal appointments cannot be retrospectively legitimized, thereby preserving the integrity and efficacy of the Co-operative Societies' recruitment processes.

This decision not only curtails the perpetuation of unlawful appointments but also reinforces the judiciary's role as a guardian of the rule of law, preventing executive overreach and ensuring accountability within public institutions. As a precedent, it will guide future litigations involving public employment irregularities, fortifying the legal framework that underpins equitable and merit-based recruitment.