The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court said the vision of the State government had been scaled down by certain actions in cooperative societies.
Dismissing a batch of petitions that challenged cancellation of appointments of Aavin employees, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the State to take steps to form a centralised recruitment board for recruiting personnel for common cadre posts across all cooperative societies by amending the Act, Rules and the Special By-laws within three months.
Justice M. Dhandapani observed that till such a board was constituted, no person should be appointed by the cooperative society. The court observed that Tamil Nadu had created an effective mechanism that brought producer and consumer in close proximity. However, the vision, of late, had been scaled down by certain actions in cooperative societies, especially in appointments and management of funds.
A notification was issued in 2019, inviting applications for filling up various posts in the cooperative societies. Following a written test, the candidates were called for certificate verification and interview before a committee, and successful candidates were appointed.
However, in 2022 they were directed to appear for an inquiry. After the inquiry, the authorities passed an order cancelling their appointment on the ground that the appointments were made without following cadre strength and rules. Hence, the present batch of petitions were filed.
The court observed that it was the case of the authorities that the appointment orders were issued and the petitioners were made to join service just a day or two before the model code of conduct for elections came into force in the State. Till the new government came to power, no action was taken against the appointments. In fact, no complaint was also received against the appointments and the petitioners were allowed to continue in service for more than 22 months.
The authorities were expected to act in consonance with law and could not be a mere puppet at the hands of elected representatives. The executive could not dance to the tune of the political bosses even if there was pressure on them with regard to filling up the posts or terminating those appointed, the court observed.
In this case, the recruitment process was merely an eye-wash in which the petitioners had been the ultimate losers. However, the court could not come to the rescue of the petitioners to safeguard their interests in the posts, but only to the limited extent of safeguarding their seniority with the employment exchange, if their selection was on the basis of its list, the court observed.
