JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, C. J — By both these writ petitions the order Annexure A which is passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies prescribing conditions of service of co-operative societies under Rule 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1971 has been challenged. By this order the Registrar has prescribed as under: "No employee/officer can take part in politics or in any political demonstration or stand for election as a member of the Municipal Committee/Corporation, District Board, Village Panchayat, Zila Parishad or any legislative body. Those who are already members of the above institutions shall cease to hold such office. This order shall come into force immediately." The above order was passed on 20th June, 1979. Thereafter, on 12th July, 1979 the Registrar issued addendum whereby it was clarified that the word "officer" shall mean a paid employee of cooperative institution. Then on 13th August, 1979 the Registrar issued the following order : "In supersession of this office order of even number dated 12th July, 1979 and in partial modification of this Office Order of even number dated 20th June, 1979, the world "office" occurring in second aid third paragraphs of the order dated 20th June, 1979 shall stand deleted. The word "employee" occurring in the same paras shall mean paid/honorary employee appointed by the society". 2. The contention of the petitioners of both the petitions, who are the secretaries of different societies and are also holding office in different Gram Panchayats, is that the above order passed by the Registrar is illegal inasmuch the Registrar has no powers to prescribe such a condition of service. It was also contended that power given to the Registrar by Rule No. 56 (1) as regards the prescription of the condition of service of the employees of the society are very wide and unchannelised by any guiding principles, and therefore also the impugned order should be struck down. 3. The learned Advocate General has appeared and taken notice. He has rightly and fairly conceded that the last portion of the above quoted order dated 20th June, 1970 which says that those who are already members of the institutions mentioned in the order shall cease to hold such office cannot be justified because Registrar, Co-operative Society has no powers to determine the membership of the employees of the co-operative society in other elected institutions. We find that this concession made by the learned Advocate General is quite correct and, therefore, we hold that the following sentence occurring in the order of the Registrar dated 20th June, 1979 should be struck down: "Those who are aheady members of the above institution shall cease to hold such office". It is accordingly struck down as it is invalid. 4. So far a the rest of the provisions contained in the above order is concerned, we find that these provisions could be made by the Registrar under the powers which he has obtained under sub-rule (1) of Rule 56 which is in the following terms: "Notwithstanding contained in the bye-laws of a society, no Co-operative Society shall appoint any person its paid officer or employee in any category of service unless he possesses the qualifications and furnishes the security, if so specified by the Registrar from time to time for such category of service in the society, or for the class of societies to which it belongs. The conditions of service of the employees of the societies shall be specified by the Registrar." The last sentence of the above sub-rule clearly specifies that the conditions of service of the employees of the co-operative societies shall be specified by the Registrar. The Registrar by the impugned order has said that it would be one of the conditions of service of an employee of a co-operative society that lie should not take part in politics or political demonstrations or election in different elected bodies. It was contended that Rule 56 daes not stipulate the powers of the Registrar to prescribe conditions of service because the main purpose of the rule is only to empower the Registrar to have some over-all supervision over the employees of the societies. We find ourselves unable to accept this contention in view of the very specific provision empowering the Registrar to prescribe the conditions of service of the employees of the society in a very plain and unambiguous language. The State Government could have framed such a rule under section 10^ of the Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, under these rules the State Government could have empowered the Registrar to prescribe conditions of service for the employees of the society. The impugned order is nothing but such a condition of service. 5. The State Government could have framed such a rule under section 10^ of the Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, under these rules the State Government could have empowered the Registrar to prescribe conditions of service for the employees of the society. The impugned order is nothing but such a condition of service. 5. It was contneded that even if it is believed that Registrar could have been empowered to prescribe conditions of service of the employees of the societies, the powers are unguided with the result that their exercise would be arbitrary. We find no substance even in this contention because it is apparent that the power to prescribe conditions of service is to be exercised with reference to the working of the co-operative societies. Co-operative societies are expected to work purely on well-recognised economic principles with an aim to foster co-operation at the grass roots in the economic field. Therefore, when condition of service for an employee of such society is to be prescribed it should be so prescribed that the above stated main aim of every co-operative society is furthered. This is the obvious guide-line which would provide sufficient guidance to the Registrar in framing the rules regarding conditions of service of the employees. 6. We find that the present impugned rule found at Annexure A falls clearly within the ambit of this guideline. If the employees of the co-operative societies are allowed to indulge in politics then obviously all the attendant evils of politics would be inducted in a field wherein co-operation is to be fostered. Politics would necessarily bring quarries instead of co-operation, which would obviously destroy the very basic fabric of co-operative .societies. Therefore, the rule that the employees of Co-operative Societies should not indulge in politics is the rule which implements and furthers the wholesome objectives which guided the Legislature in framing the Co-operative Societies Act. 7. Under the circumstances, we find no substance in both these writ petitions which are disposed of in accordance with the observations made above.