Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup, J. The petitioner is the delegate representing the Punnayoor Panchayat Kera Karshaka Sahakarana Sangom in the second respondent District Co-operative Bank. He is aggrieved by Ext. PI order passed by the first respondent nominating respondents 3 and 4 as the nominees to the Board of Directors of the second respondent bank under Section 31(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the act )-According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said nomination is bad in law as it is made against Ext. P2 norms. The prayer in this original petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. PI nomination and for a declaration that respondents 3 and 4 are not eligible to be appointed as nominees in the Board of Directors of the second respondent bank. 2. When the original petition came up for admission, Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 5 and notice by special messenger was ordered to respondents 2, 3 and 4. Endorsement on the file shows that service is complete and respondents 2 and 3 are represented by counsel. There is no representation for the 4th respondent. 3. Having heard counsel on both sides, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this court in the instant proceedings. The thrust of the petitioner's contention against the nominations of respondents 3 and 4 was that the nomination is hit by Ext. P2 norms issued by the first respondent. Ext. P2 is in the nature of a direction to the Deputy Registrars that while proposing the names for nomination, they should take particular care to see that the persons selected are not defaulters or those who were defeated in the election or whose nominations were rejected or those have been under material disqualification as per rules or bye-laws. Relying on Ext. P2 the petitioner would contend that both respondents 3 and 4 are disqualified to be nominated to the Board of Directors of the second respondent bank. According to the petitioner, the third respondent contested the election to the Board of Directors of the second respondent bank and his nomination was rejected on the ground that the primary society (first respondent) of which he is a member, was in default to the second respondent bank. In other words, the disqualification prescribed under Ext. According to the petitioner, the third respondent contested the election to the Board of Directors of the second respondent bank and his nomination was rejected on the ground that the primary society (first respondent) of which he is a member, was in default to the second respondent bank. In other words, the disqualification prescribed under Ext. P2 circular is squarely attracted to the third respondent, as his nomination for selection to the Board of Directors of the second respondent stands rejected. I do not think that the contention of the petitioner is well founded. A casual look at Ext. P2 will reveal that it is a circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Being a circular issued by the Registrar, it will not have the effect of fettering by the hands of the Government while making a statutory nomination under S.31(1) of the Act. S.31 of the Act does not state that persons to be nominated thereunder must be members of the society or must be qualified to be members of the society nor does it say that rejection of nomination paper can be taken as a ground for being nominated as a member of the society. The purpose of S.31 is to safeguard the interest of the Government which have either subscribed to the share capital or have in some way involved itself or have held itself responsible in regard to the affairs of the society. In such circumstances, obviously, Government must have representation in the committee or the Board of Directors. It is to safeguard the interests of the Government which have involved itself in the affairs of the society that power is given to the Government or a specified authority to make nominations. Power of the Government in such circumstances cannot in principle be limited to the right to nominate a member or a person qualified to be a member. What S.31 contemplates is nomination of "persons "as members of the committee and not nomination of "members" of the society as members of the committee. The position of a person who is nominated under S.31 is quite different. A person nominated under S.31 of the Act is to hold membership during the pleasure of the Government or the specified authority. He shall not take part in the discussion of any no confidence motion or vote on any such motion. The position of a person who is nominated under S.31 is quite different. A person nominated under S.31 of the Act is to hold membership during the pleasure of the Government or the specified authority. He shall not take part in the discussion of any no confidence motion or vote on any such motion. The provision regarding disqualification under R.44 of the Rules does not apply to a person to be nominated under S.31 of the Act. This again would strengthen the conclusion that nominees under S.31 are not required to be members of the society or even persons qualified to be such members. See in this connection the decision of this Court reported in 1985 KLT 125 (Somasundaram . Joint registrar). The result of the aforesaid discussion is that Government by virtue of the powers conferred under S.31 of the Act can nominate a person notwithstanding the fact that he stands disqualified by virtue of Ext. P2. That apart, it has to be noted that Ext. P2 is only a circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies which cannot override the express statutory power defeating the right of the Government to make nomination in public interest. 4. The objection as regards the 4th respondent is that he was a defeated candidate in the election conducted to the Board of Directors of the second respondent society on 18.2.1996. The reasoning adopted in the case of the 3rd respondent applies with equal force to the 4th respondent also and as such he is also not disqualified. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I find no merit in this original petition which is accordingly dismissed.