Judgment :- C.S. Rajan, J. These nine original petitions can be divided into two groups. O.P. Nos. 17386,17412,17441,17453 and 17457 of 1996 relate to the appointment of employees of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. This group can be conveniently called as Thrissur Cases'. O.P. Nos. 17313,17317,17338 and 17398 of 1996 relate to appointment of the employees in the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank which can be conveniently called as 'Kottayam cases'. Thrissur Cases: 2. The reference to the parties and the exhibits in these cases will he with reference to O.P. No. 17441 of 1996. The third respondent. Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') as per Ext. P1 notification dated. 9.11.1974 invited applications for the post of Clerk/ Cashier, Data Entry Officer and Peons. The petitioners applied pursuance to the above notification. After conducting a written test and interview a ranked list of 154 persons was prepared by the Bank. The Bank as per resolution dated 5.2.1995 resolved to make appointments to 116 vacancies. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed. 3. Certain persons including the fourth respondent, who were not successful in getting appointment, filed O.P. No. 3318 of 1995 before this Court challenging the appointments of the petitioners. This Court dismissed the above Original Petition on the ground that a writ petition was not maintainable against a Co-operative Society But this Court observed that the petitioners were free to make representations to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (second respondent). But the petitioners therein filed Writ Appeal No. 956 of 1995. The same is pending. 4. The petitioners therein also filed representations before the second respondent. One Mr. P.R. Ravichandran also filed a petition to the Minister for Co-operation. 5. Considering these representations the second respondent issued Ext. P-3 notice proposing to give a personal hearing on the allegations against the appointments made in the Bank. Ext. P-3 stated mat the Bank had violated the provisions contained in S.80(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) and R.187 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') and circular instructions of the second respondent in the matter of recruitment of employees. Ext. P-3 also instructed the Bank to serve the notices on the individuals concerned so as to enable them to take part in the personal hearing. Ext. P-3 also instructed the Bank to serve the notices on the individuals concerned so as to enable them to take part in the personal hearing. Accordingly, a personal hearing was granted to the representatives of the Bank and the employees who were appointed including petitioners. After hearing the arguments of the affected parties, the second respondent passed Ext. P-5 order by which the resolution of the bank, appointing the employees including the petitioners was rescinded. Ext. P-5 is under challenge in these Original Petitions. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar appearing for the petitioners ably assisted by Mr. T.R. Ramachandran Nair and strongly supported by Advocates M/s. K.R.B. Kaimal, M. Ramachandran and D. Somasundaram put forward two arguments in order to assail Ext. P-5 order passed by the second respondent: (1) S.80(4) provides for reservation of 10% of the posts only. No separate head of cut off marks could have been given for SC/ST candidates. No such procedure is contemplated. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction to rescind the resolution resulting in termination of all candidates appointed including SC/ST candidates. The principles of reservation made applicable to Government servants under Rr.14 to 17 of the K.S.& S.S.R. are not made applicable in Co-operative Societies: and (2) The interpretation given to R.187 of the Rules is absolutely wrong. The rule does not provide only reservation. None of the provisions of the Act envisages such a reservation in favour of the candidates from affiliated primary societies. Therefore, the complaint that 50% seats have not been reserved has no value. 7. S.80(4) of the Act reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1) or sub S.(2), ten per cent of the posts of employees of every society shall be reserved for appointment from persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where the method of appointment to such posts is by direct recruitment". A reading of the above provision will go to show that there is a reservation in favour of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The only question is whether the Bank is bound to recruit the candidates to the full quota of reservation as mentioned in the above provision. A reading of the above provision will go to show that there is a reservation in favour of a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The only question is whether the Bank is bound to recruit the candidates to the full quota of reservation as mentioned in the above provision. The explanation of the Bank in' O.P. No. 17386 of 1996 filed by the Bank itself is that in spite of the publication in news papers there were no sufficient hands forthcoming and those who appeared did not satisfy the minimum merit expected of them. It was further contended by the Bank that it was within its discretion to prescribe the cut off marks and for SC/ST hands a relaxation was neither warranted by the Rules or instructions. In order to fill up the balance of posts to make up the 10% reservation a fresh notification had been issued for finding out eligible hands from the above communities. 8. Ext. P-1 notified 85 probable vacancies. But actually 116 candidates were appointed. Therefore, there must be atleast 11/12 SC/ST candidates. The pleadings in O.P. No. 17412 of 1996 show that only five candidates from the above group were appointed. Thus, seven more candidates should have been appointed from SC/ST quota. 9. The principles of reservation were in vogue at least for four decades in this State. Recruitment are being made by various agencies including PSC applying the principles of communal reservation. For that matter, it is not necessary to have a specific provision either in the Act or in the Rules to follow the corresponding provision in K.S.& S.S.R. regarding communal reservation. It is also an accepted principle that candidates from the reservation communities are also entitled to be considered in the merit quota. For that purpose their quota should not be curtailed. Thus, it is obvious that while preparing the ranked list of candidates persons belonging to SC/ST community should have been included if they are available from among the candidates who applied for the post, appeared for the test and interview. I do not think the stand of the Bank that there was no sufficient SC/ST candidates who satisfied the minimum merit expected of them is quite correct. Moreover, what is the minimum merit expected of them has not been explained by the Bank. I do not think the stand of the Bank that there was no sufficient SC/ST candidates who satisfied the minimum merit expected of them is quite correct. Moreover, what is the minimum merit expected of them has not been explained by the Bank. Under these circumstances,1 have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that the Bank has not given full effect to the provisions contained in S.80(4) of the Act while appointing atleast 12 persons from SC/ST candidates when 116 vacancies were filled up. 10. Before going to the next point I shall also deal with one more contention of the Bank that it was within its discretion to prescribe cut off marks and for SC/ST hands a relaxation was neither warranted by the Rules or instructions. The pleadings in O.P.No. 17413/96 disclose the fact that as far as general candidates are concerned, the cut off marks in the written test was 52 whereas for candidates of primary societies, it was only 44. Out of the SC/ST candidates appeared for the written test,8 persons were successful to be called for interview. Only 5 persons were appoi nted by the Bank. These pleadings will go to show that the Bank has fixed a lower cut off marks as far as the Society candidates are concerned. At the same time, the stand of the Bank is that as far as the SC/ST candidates are concerned the Bank could not reduce the cut off marks. Out of 8 persons appeared for the interview only 5 were selected. In their case also, the Bank has no valid explanation to offer why three persons were not selected except to the vague statement that the candidates did not satisfy the expected merit. Therefore, I am of the view that the stand of the Bank with respect to the Scheduled Caste candidates is absolutely arbitrary. The attempt of the Bank to recruit more candidates from SC/ST group by way of special recruitment cannot cure the illegality in filling up the 116 posts ignoring the mandate of S.80(4) of the Act. 11. The next argument of the learned counsel is that R.187 of the Rules does not prescribe any ratio in favour of the Society candidates. R.187 reads as follows: "187. 11. The next argument of the learned counsel is that R.187 of the Rules does not prescribe any ratio in favour of the Society candidates. R.187 reads as follows: "187. Vacancies in Apex Society - Notwithstanding anything contained in R.186 for appointments to the 50% of the vacancies arising in the Apex Society or other Federal type society having other societies as its members experience in the societies which are members of the respective Apex Society or Federal type society, as the case may be, shall be a necessary additional qualification." The above rule makes a special provision regarding 50% of the vacancies arising in an Apex Society or other federal type of society having other societies as its members. As far as the above vacancies are concerned experience in the societies shall be an additional qualification. In this connection, it is advantageous to look into R.186 of the Rules which prescribes qualification for various posts in a Co-operative Society. The above qualifications do not prescribe any experience in a Co-operative Society. Therefore, the additional qualification of experience in a Co-operative Society has been prescribed in R.187 notwithstanding anything contained in R.186. Thus, 50% of the vacancies in an Apex Society must be filled up with persons with this additional qualifications. If that is the interpretation to be given to the above rule, it can only be a quota to the candidates who are working in the member Societies. 12. I had occasion to consider the scope of the above rule under a different circumstance in the ruling reported in Vijayan v. State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 980). fn the above ruling, it was observed as follows: "8. In the background of these submissions, this court has to see whether the 50% society quota has to be distributed among the recruits by applying 1:1 ratio between the general candidates and the society quota candidates. The normal method of appointment of the Bank is by direct recruitment from the open market. B ut certain concessions have been granted to the employees of the member Societies of an apex society for being appointed to the 50% of the vacancies arising in an apex society. Such candidates are given a weightage by way of making their experience a necessary additional qualification. The 50% reservation can definitely be reduced into a 1:1 ratio. B ut certain concessions have been granted to the employees of the member Societies of an apex society for being appointed to the 50% of the vacancies arising in an apex society. Such candidates are given a weightage by way of making their experience a necessary additional qualification. The 50% reservation can definitely be reduced into a 1:1 ratio. But, the rule does not postulate a ratio of 1:1 between the general candidates and the society quota candidates. The prescription of quota for appointments has always created a lot of case law by the disappointment and disgruntled officers, by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court on the quota and rota system. A quota system may be implemented in various forums. It can be applied vacancy wise, cadre wise, periodic wise etc. In this case, it is vacancy wise. Therefore, unless the rule specifically lays down that the vacancies must be filled up alternatively between a general candidate and a society quota candidate, it is not possible to lay down that R.187 mandates such as a methodology. When 20 persons were selected and appointed at a given point of time, it is enough if 10 society quota candidates are appointed. The society quota candidates cannot insist that they must be placed in the list either as 1,3,5 or 2,4,6 etc. No such interpretation is possible by a plain reading of R.187. It is enough that the Bank maintains 50% society quota at a given selection. No other rights or privileges can be claimed by the society quota candidates". 13. When 116 posts were filled up, atleast 58 posts should have been filled up from the Society candidates. There is no case for the Bank or for the other employees that 58 candidates were appointed from among the candidates serving in the primary Cooperative Society The pleadings in this case will go to show that only 29 candidates were appointed from the above group. 14. Now let us analyse the findings of the second respondent in Ext. P-5 in this background. In issue No.1 the second respondent has come to the conclusion that the Bank appointed staff in excess of the approved strength. In Ext. P-1 advertisement, probable number of vacancies are 85 and 10 in the case of Clerks and Peons respectively. In the resolution dated 5.2.1995, the Bank decided to appoint 114 candidates. P-5 in this background. In issue No.1 the second respondent has come to the conclusion that the Bank appointed staff in excess of the approved strength. In Ext. P-1 advertisement, probable number of vacancies are 85 and 10 in the case of Clerks and Peons respectively. In the resolution dated 5.2.1995, the Bank decided to appoint 114 candidates. But actually, 116 candidates were appointed. The finding on issue No.1 has been met by the Bank in O.P.No. 17386 of 1996 in ground F. There is absolutely no explanation for appointing more than 85 persons as Cashier-cum-Clerk and 10 peons as notified in Ext. P-1. No reference has been made to any of the orders passed by the officers of the Cooperative Department sanctioning any additional posts. Of course, the petitioners in O. P. No. 17412 of 1996 have got a case that additional posts were sanctioned and that appointments have been made only to the additional posts sanctioned. But in the absence of any pleadings like the above by the Bank I am not prepared to countenance the above argument. 15. The finding of the second respondent in issue No. 2 in Ext. P-5 is that the advertisement was not in accordance with the circular instruction of the Registrar of Co operative Societies. Circular No. 18/91 dated 7.6.1991 issued by the second respondent with regard to recruitment for appointment of employees in Co-operative institutions contains the following instruction : “4. The following procedure shall be strictly followed while making direct requirements for appointment of employees. (a) applications for the post shall be invited through Advertisement in leading dailies having wide circulation in the area. (b) Selection shall be made only after conducting written test and interview, allotting 100 marks for written test and 20 marks for interview. (c) The written test shall be conducted by an outside agency. (d) False numbers should be assigned to the answer scripts. (e) The conditions with regard to age-limit, qualifications, mode of appointment etc., as laid down in the rules framed under S.80 viz. Rr.183,186,187 of the KCS Rules shall be strictly followed. (f) Ten percent of the vacancies should be reserved for candidates belong to Scheduled castes/ tribes". A reading of Ext. (e) The conditions with regard to age-limit, qualifications, mode of appointment etc., as laid down in the rules framed under S.80 viz. Rr.183,186,187 of the KCS Rules shall be strictly followed. (f) Ten percent of the vacancies should be reserved for candidates belong to Scheduled castes/ tribes". A reading of Ext. P-1 will disclose that it did not contain anything about appointments to the 50% vacancies from among the candidates who are employees of the primary Co-operative Societies to which experience in the member society will be an additional qualification as enjoined under R.187 of the Rules. Since I have already held that R.187 envisages a reservation to 50% of the vacancies in favour of the candidates who were employees of the member societies, such a stipulation should have found a place in Ext. P-1 notification. 16. On issue No. 3, the finding of the second respondent was that there was violation of mandatory provisions contained in S.80(4) of the Act. In view of my finding earlier, on the above aspect, there cannot be any illegality in the above finding. The finding of the second respondent on issue No. 4 is also consistent with my finding on the interpretation of R.187 of the Rules. Kottayam Cases 17. In these cases, O.P.No. 17338 of 1996 has been taken as the main case. A counter affidavit also has been fi led on behalf of the second respondent. Ext. P-1 is the notification issued by the Bank inviting applications for 70 posts of Clerks/ Cashiers, one post of Steno-typist and one post of Telephone operator. One of the general conditions was as follows: "50% of the vacancies are reserved for employees of Primary Co-operative Societies affiliated to the Bank and 10% of the vacancies are reserved for SC/ST candidates". Therefore, the Bank and the petitioners who were selected cannot contend that there is no reservation in favour of the employees of the Primary Co-operative Societies and for SC/ST candidates under R.187 of the Rules and under S.80(4) of the Act. 18. Ext. P-2 is the show cause notice issued to the Board of Directors of the Kottayam Bank. Apart from the violation of R.187 and S.80(4) of the Act, the following items of irregularities also were enumerated in Ext. P2 notice. "3. The Bank has ultimately decided to consider the agenda item of appointment in other items. 18. Ext. P-2 is the show cause notice issued to the Board of Directors of the Kottayam Bank. Apart from the violation of R.187 and S.80(4) of the Act, the following items of irregularities also were enumerated in Ext. P2 notice. "3. The Bank has ultimately decided to consider the agenda item of appointment in other items. The appointment is an important policy matters of the same. The Bank ought to have given due notice to all Directors and to have taken decision in the regular items in the agenda to enlighten all the Directors. Hence, the action of the Bank are against the better interest of the Bank. 4. Bank basically failed to show the details in the minute book such as the number of application issued in each category, the number of vacancies received from the candidate, the number of applications rejected and valid etc. These are serious lapses on the part of the Bank. 5. It is seen that from the beginning to the completion of the recruitment process the President of the Bank was handling the entire matter. This is self explanatory in his note dated 6.5.95. It is pointed out mat the mark sheet of interview for each day was handed over to the President and he had consolidated and prepared the average of marks for each candidate. Certain serious irregularities/ corrections are noticed. This action is against the better interest of-the Bank. 6. The final rank list prepared and published by the Bank is illegal and arbitrarily violating S.80(4) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The marks awarded and the consolidated marks recorded are corrected and manipulated. Some of the candidates were given less marks and some others were given higher marks. Rank list is prepared based on this manipulated mark list. This is in utter disregard to the statute and circular instructions of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This is against the better interest of the Bank". The bank filed Ext. P-3 objection. The employees also filed Ext. P-4 objections. Thereafter, Ext. P-5 order has been passed by the first respondent. Since I have already held that S.80(4) of the Act and R.187 of the Rules stipulated a reservation in favour of SC/ST and in favour of members of the Primary Co-operative Societies, I fully endorse the findings of the first respondent in Ext. P-5 with regard to above aspects. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Since I have already held that S.80(4) of the Act and R.187 of the Rules stipulated a reservation in favour of SC/ST and in favour of members of the Primary Co-operative Societies, I fully endorse the findings of the first respondent in Ext. P-5 with regard to above aspects. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. T.P. Kelu Nambiar also agreed that the above two grounds are common in both Thrissur and Kottayam cases. It is also not disputed that the above quota mentioned in the above provisions was not filled up in full strength by the Kottayam Bank by filling up the vacancies. 19. With regard to the irregularities mentioned in items 3 to 6 in Ext. P-2 which have been quoted above the second respondent observed as follows: "7. The meeting of the Director Board of the Bank had considered the question of appointment as 'Other item'. The Bank ought to have given due notice to all Directors and to have taken decision as a regular item in the Agenda. The appointment of Clerks in a Bank is an important policy matter of the Bank. The action of the Bank in treating this matter in a casual manner is highly objectionable. It was not in the better interest of the Bank. 8. The omission of the Bank to show the details in the Minutes Book such as the number of application issued in each category, the number of applications received, the number of valid applications, the number of applications rejected, etc. These lapses on the part of the Bank have to be seriously viewed. This is also contrary to the better interest of the Bank. 9. It cannot be disputed that from the beginning to the completion of the recruitment process, the President of the Bank was handling the entire matter directly. The mark sheet of interview for each day was handed over to the President and he had consolidated and prepared the average of marks for each candidate. There are material irregularities and corrections in the mark sheets. 10. The final rank list prepared and published by the Bank is in utter disregard to the statutory provisions and directions issued by this Department. It is seen that the list of marks awarded and consolidated marks recorded are corrected and manipulated. Some of the candidates were given less marks and some others were given higher marks. 10. The final rank list prepared and published by the Bank is in utter disregard to the statutory provisions and directions issued by this Department. It is seen that the list of marks awarded and consolidated marks recorded are corrected and manipulated. Some of the candidates were given less marks and some others were given higher marks. The rank list was prepared on the basis of this manipulated mark lists. It is also seen that appointment were not strictly made as per the rank list. This is a serious matter which is not in the interest of the Bank. " 11.1 am convinced that the irregularities pointed outby the Enquiry Officer are absolutely correct. The appointments were made in utter disregard to S.80(4) of the Kerala Co-op. Societies Act, R.187 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Clause 34(1) of the B ye-laws of the Bank and this office circular instructions Nos. 28/86 and 18/91. 20. A strong objection was taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the Kottayam cases that the reliance placed by the first respondent in Ext. P-5 on the order of the Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Commission dated 16.10.1996 was illegal. According to the learned counsel, the above piece of evidence was not relied on in the show cause notice and therefore cannot be the basis for coming to the conclusion that there are glaring instances of tampering answer papers and mark lists. The above report of the Commission has been produced along with the counter affidavit as. Ext. R1 (a). I think that learned counsel for the petitioners is quite correct in objecting to the reliance of the above report by the first respondent in Ext. P-5. But I find considerable force in the argument of learned Advocate General that the above report is only one of the material s relied on by the first respondent. Paragraphs 7 to 11 of Ext. P5 quoted above would go to show that the first respondent's findings on the irregularities and malpractices can be sustained on grounds other than the report of the Commission. 21. One more argument advanced by Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners has also to be dealt with in this connection. This is with respect to applicability of R.187 to the recruitment to the Bank. 21. One more argument advanced by Mr. K. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners has also to be dealt with in this connection. This is with respect to applicability of R.187 to the recruitment to the Bank. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, R.187 applies only to the vacancies arising in an Apex Society or other federal type society. An'Apex Society' has been defined in R.29 of the Rules as follows: "(a) °apex society' means a society having the whole of the State as its area of operation and having as its members only other societies with similar objects and declared as such by the Registrar". Since Kottayam and Thrissur banks are having only the District as its area of operation, the above banks cannot be apex societies. What is meant by 'federal type of society' has not been defined in the Act. But learned Advocate General invited my attention to the definition of 'Central Society' which is as follows:i "(d) "central society' means a society having jurisdiction over one or more Revenue Districts but not the whole of the state as its area of operation, and having as its members only other societies and declared as such by the Registrar or the Government". If Thrissur and Kottayam Banks are having jurisdiction only to one Revenue District and not the whole State as its area of operation, it can be a central society. It is also an admitted fact that these banks do not have individual members and only other societies as its members. When R.187 refers to other federal type of society having other societies as its members, definitely these banks can be roped into the above classification, because these banks have only other societies as its members. Therefore, I do not think there is any merit in the above contention. 22. The first respondent was exercising its powers under R.176 of the Rules. R.176 reads as follows: . "176. Therefore, I do not think there is any merit in the above contention. 22. The first respondent was exercising its powers under R.176 of the Rules. R.176 reads as follows: . "176. Registrar's power to rescind resolution:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye laws of the registered society, it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or of the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act, rules, bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society". Thus, the Registrar can rescind a resolution on the following grounds: (1) if it is ultra vires of the objects of the society; (2) is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instruction issued by the Department; (3) is calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society; and (4) is contrary to the better interest of the society. Now the Registrar has come to the conclusion in the impugned order that the recruitment of the employees by the Banks is in contravention of the Act (S.80(4)), the Rules (R.187) and directions/ instructions (Circular No. 18/90). 23. Therefore, it is not possible for this court to come to the conclusion that the Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the decisions of the Bank. The Registrar is exercising the statutory function under the above rule. This Court can interfere with the above function of the Registrar if he exercises his jurisdiction either arbitrarily or with malafide intention. This court also can interfere if he has exceeded his jurisdiction. This Court also will be justified in intercepting the orders of the Registrar under R.176 of the Rules if there are no materials to invoke the above power. In these cases, the petitioners were unable to impress upon this Court that any of the above vitiating circumstances exists. 24. Before closing these cases, I must note that no argument was pressed before me with regard to any violation of principles of natural justice presumably because of the Division Bench ruling of this court in Purnshotiiaman v. Registrar and Ors. (1996(1) KLJ 531). 24. Before closing these cases, I must note that no argument was pressed before me with regard to any violation of principles of natural justice presumably because of the Division Bench ruling of this court in Purnshotiiaman v. Registrar and Ors. (1996(1) KLJ 531). There is also a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Darothi Clare Parreira v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1996 SC 2552). Therefore, the original petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly.