Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. This Original Petition is filed challenging Exts. P3 and P5 orders passed by the Government. Third respondent in the Original Petition is the Asamannur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. This Co-operative Bank invited applications for appointment to the post of Typist. Petitioner applied for the same. After undergoing a written test and interview, she was ranked first in the rank list. Bank issued orders to her to join with effect from 1.4.1986. But when she reported for duty, she was not admitted. This was on the basis that the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies had ordered that no appointment be made pending enquiries into certain complaints. 2. Petitioner approached the second respondent - Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Joint Registrar made certain orders. Petitioner approached this Court twice and finally the Joint Registrar passed the order directing the Bank to appoint the petitioner within 30 days and report compliance. This order is dated 24.6.1991. Against this order, Bank preferred appeal before the Government of Kerala. Appeal was disposed of by the Government under Ext. P3 order dated 14.5.1992. In Ext. P3 order, the Government rejected the contention of the Bank that it was not in a position to employ the petitioner. The following observations make the matter very clear: "There are no records to show that there were irregularities in the selection of the second respondent except a petition filed before the Assistant Registrar which is signed by six people. According to the sanctioned staff pattern of a class I credit society, there is a post of typist and it is available in the bank. If the bank wanted a change in the staff pattern, they should have obtained necessary sanction as provided for in the second proviso to R.188 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. The Bank has not obtained the sanction so far. On the whole the attitude of the Bank in having denied the appointment to the second respondent is not on bonafide and convincing grounds". But, the Government allowed the appeal on the ground that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to compel the Bank to appoint the petitioner. Against Ext. P3, petitioner filed review before the Government. By Ext. P5, the review was dismissed. Against that the present Original Petition is filed. 3. But, the Government allowed the appeal on the ground that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to compel the Bank to appoint the petitioner. Against Ext. P3, petitioner filed review before the Government. By Ext. P5, the review was dismissed. Against that the present Original Petition is filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the Bank. 4. The point in controversy is whether the Joint Registrar is entitled to give direction that the petitioner should be appointed or in the absence of complying with the direction, to face the consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that S.66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act gives ample power to the Joint Registrar to issue the order in question. S.66(1)(a) of the Act confers power on the Registrar to supervise or cause to be supervised by a person authorised by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf, the working of every society as frequently as he may consider necessary. Under S.66(5) the Registrar can direct the society to take such action as may be specified in the order within the time that may be mentioned in the order. 5. S.66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act came up for interpretation before this Court in Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala -1992 (1) KLT 381. This Court held that the appointment of the officers in a Co-operative society is a matter which comes within the purview of S.66 of the Act and the Registrar has the necessary power to supervise the same. In exercise of that power, for effectively supervising the working of the society, certainly he will be entitled to pass appropriate orders which are necessary in the circumstances of the case. Any authority on whom a jurisdiction is conferred has got all the power of doing all such acts which are essential and necessary to its proper execution. In that case the Joint Registrar issued an order staying the proceedings regarding selection. Any authority on whom a jurisdiction is conferred has got all the power of doing all such acts which are essential and necessary to its proper execution. In that case the Joint Registrar issued an order staying the proceedings regarding selection. The Division Bench relied on the following passage in Craies on Statute Law: "If a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, but omits to mention in terms some detail which is of great importance (if not actually essential) to the proper and effectual performance of the work which the statute has in contemplation, the Courts are at liberty to infer that the statute by implication empowers that detail to be carried out. Thus, in Cooksonv Lee(1854)23LJ.Ch.473,475,LordCranWorthL.C.,aprivateActvestedcertainlands in trustees for the purpose of enabling them to sell the lands for building purposes, but the Act contained no express power to expend any portion of the purchase moneys in setting out the lands or in making roads. In these circumstances, the court held that, having regard to the object of the Act, namely... such power ought to be implied. Thereafter, the Court held that the Registrar has got the necessary power to pass such ancillary or interlocutory orders to effectively exercise the power conferred under S.66 of the Act. The matter was again considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Aji v. State of Kerala. Pareed Pillay, ag. Chief Justice (As he then was) speaking for the Full Bench held as follows: "It is not possible to hold that Registrar's power is limited to the supervision of the financial dealings of the society. R.176 clothes the Registrar with the power to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or of the committee of any society, if appears to him that such resolution is ultravires 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 position is abundantly clear that the Registrar is not a mere passive spectator against an erring society. Registrar is vested with adequate power to rescind resolutions whenever situations demand. Thus, the position is abundantly clear that the Registrar is not a mere passive spectator against an erring society. Registrar is vested with adequate power to rescind resolutions whenever situations demand. Contention that Registrar's power is limited only to supervise the financial dealings of the society is not tenable". 6. Here is a case where the third respondent invited applications for appointment to the post of Typist. Petitioner appeared for the written test and the interview and she was ranked first and she was issued the appointment order. Subsequently, because of an order from the Assistant Registrar staying the selection, appointment was not given effect to. But later the Assistant Registrar withdrew the stay. But in spite of that the society refused to appoint the petitioner. As I have stated earlier, the Government in the appeal found the reasons given by the Bank for the non-appointment of the petitioner are flimsy and baseless. In such circumstances, the Registrar is not helpless in compelling the society to act according to law. According to me, the Joint Registrar was perfectly correct in directing the society to appoint the petitioner, failing which the Society was to face the consciences, as envisaged under the Act. 7. In the above view of the matter, I allow the Original Petition and quash Exts. P3 and P5. Joint Registrar will issue necessary directions to the Society allowing the petitioner to join the service of the third respondent. In case the third respondent refused to allow the petitioner to join the service of the third respondent, within a period of 30 days from today, the Joint Registrar or any other officer competent can invoke action against the Society including action under S.32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.