Judgment : The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J.: 1. Theabove writ appeal has been directed against the Order in W.P.No.16833 of 1998. 2. Thebrief facts necessary for the purpose of dealing with this appeal can be stated as under: The appellant was working as Secretary of the Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited and he retired on attaining the age superanuation on 37. 1998. The Registrar of Cooperative Housing Society namely the second respondent herein issued proceedings in Na.Ka.No.11534 of 1998/E4 dated 29. 1998 reappointing the appellant for a year. The first respondent herein as writ petitioner challenged the validity of the said order on the ground that the same is violative of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. In short the contention of the first respondent/writ petitioner is that the appellant is not eligible to be appointed in the same post namely as Secretary and the order is totally without jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is allowed by the learned single Judge of this Court by an Order dated 22. 1999. Along with the present writ appeal the appellant has also filed C.M.P.No.3453 of 1999 praying this Court to stay the operation of the said order and in fact stay was granted by an order dated 3. 1999 for a period of eight weeks and thereafter by a subsequent Order dated 4. 1999 the interim stay already granted was extended until further orders. It is gathered that taking note of the fact that the order of the learned single Judge has been stayed, the second respondent namely the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies has again reappointed the appellant for a period of one year obviously for the period from 24th September, 1999 to 23rd September, 2000. 3. The short question that arises for determination is as to whether the second respondent namely the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies is vested with powers to reappoint a person namely an Officer, in this case a Secretary, on his attaining the age of superanuation. 4. 3. The short question that arises for determination is as to whether the second respondent namely the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies is vested with powers to reappoint a person namely an Officer, in this case a Secretary, on his attaining the age of superanuation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the various provisions in the Act namely Secs.73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983; Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, special bylaws relating to the service conditions of the employees of the Kancheepuram Housing Society Limited and Rule 45 of the Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Services Rules and contended that the reappointment of the appellant as Secretary of the Society in question is perfectly valid and it cannot be said the order as came to be passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies without jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent inter alia contended that the Act does not vest with a power or authority with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to make such reappointment and that being so the Rules and the By-laws which are framed only to implement the provisions of the Act cannot over-step or go beyond the Act or in other words the contention is that even though there is a by-law to the effect that the Board of management of the society shall have the power to continue an employee beyond the age of 58 years in special cases with the prior permission of the Registrar provided no such extension shall be given for more than one year at a time and more than five years in aggregate. In the absence of any power having been conferred under the Act the second respondent namely the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot assume that the special by-laws confers power on him and pass orders of this nature namely reappointing a person in the society, in this case the Secretary. 6. Let us now proceed to examine the various provisions in the Act and Rules. Sec.73 deals with the appointment of paid officers and servants of Registered Societies and their conditions of service. 6. Let us now proceed to examine the various provisions in the Act and Rules. Sec.73 deals with the appointment of paid officers and servants of Registered Societies and their conditions of service. This section is to the effect that subject to the provisions of Secs.74 to 77 and subject to the rules made in this behalf, the Registrar of Societies may appoint such paid officers and servants as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. Sec.74 deals with Constitution of Bureaus at the State and District levels for the recruitment of such categories of paid officers and servants for employment, and it is made clear that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any of the posts in respect of which common cadre of service has been stated under Sec.75. Sec.75 deals with constitution of common cadre of service. Sec.76 deals with suspension of paid officers or servant of society, while Sec.77 deals with removal of paid officer or servant of Society. .7. A careful examination of the above sections namely Secs.73 to 77 would show that those sections deal with appointments of Paid officers and servants as are necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. Those provisions deal with and refer to only the fresh appointments and there is nothing to indicate that would apply or include reappointments as well. 8. The next relevant provision that may have to be examined is Sec.181 of the Act. This section deals with power of Registrar to give directions in the public interest. The section is to the effect that where the Registrar is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation of Co-operative production etc., or to secure the proper management of the business of any class of Registered Societies generally or for preventing the affairs of any registered society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or of the depositors etc., if it is necessary to issue directions to any class of Registered Societies generally or to any Registered Societies he may by order issue directions to them. 9. 9. On behalf of the appellant a contention is raised that inasmuch as the Registrar is given wide powers to issue all necessary directions that he may deem fit and necessary for the proper management of business of the Society, the Registrar is well within his powers to pass the impugned proceedings. 10. This contention cannot be accepted because any direction that may be issued by the Registrar under Sec.181 of the Act can be only with reference to the other provisions of the Act and the powers conferred on him by the Act, as otherwise if the contention of the appellants that the Registrar has got wide powers is accepted, then there won’t be limit or control then the Registrar can issue any order as he likes ignoring all other provisions of the Act. 11. The attentionof this Court is drawn next to Rule 149 of the Rules. Rule 149 deals with conditions of service of paid officers and Servants of Societies. The Rule is to the effect that every society shall taking into account its nature of business etc., with the prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, adopt a special by-law covering the service conditions of its employees. As to what the special by-law can prescribe the rule set out inter alia eight guidelines. .12. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a plea that Rule 149(1) is only illustrative and not exhaustive, and when this rule is read with Sec.181 of the Act, it could be clearly seen that the Registrar certainly has power to pass the proceedings of the nature now in question. Under Sec.180 the Government has got power to make rules and such rules are framed only to carry out the provisions of the Act. The Act has been framed to amend and consolidate the law relating to and to make proper provision for the organization, the management and supervision of Co-operative Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu. The statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that the present Act has been enacted to bring in a comprehensive legislative to repeal and re-enact the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. No where in this Comprehensive Act the reappointment of the retired Officers has been dealt with and in fact no such appointment has been contemplated under the Act. No where in this Comprehensive Act the reappointment of the retired Officers has been dealt with and in fact no such appointment has been contemplated under the Act. If it is said that Rule 149 confers power on the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to pass the proceedings like the one that has been impugned in this matter, then it would amount to the conferring of the power on the Registrar by the Rules when the same is absent under the Act. 13. In fact Rule 149(2) is to the effect that no appointment by direct recruitment to any post shall be made except by calling for a list of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange and also by giving due publicity. Again, it is stated that where the employment exchange issues Non-Availability Certificate, the Society shall invite applications by giving advertisement in more than one daily newspapers, out of which one should be in Regional language having wide circulation throughout the State. In fact in Rule 149 (2) there is a proviso clause which is in the nature of extension. If the Rule 149 (2) is to be followed in the case of reappointment, then certainly there will be some indication to that effect in the proviso clause Rule 149(2). 14. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to Rule 149 (3) which is to the effect that in matters of reservation for appointments and age for appointments and retirement, the Rule applicable to the Government Servants shall be followed, and then the learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Rule 45 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules which deals with re-appointment of pensioners and contended that the Registrar has got power to issue the impugned proceedings. 15. Again, this submission of the appellant cannot be accepted because the Rule 149 (3) makes it clear that the rules applicable to the Government servants to be applied or adopted only with reference to any matters of reservation of appointments; age for appointment and retirement. It does not speak of reappointment of an officer after attaining the age of superanuation. 16. Thus it could be seen that neither in the Act nor under the Rules the Registrar has been empowered to exercise the power namely to reappoint an Officer who had already retired on attaining the age of superanuation and that too to appoint directly. It does not speak of reappointment of an officer after attaining the age of superanuation. 16. Thus it could be seen that neither in the Act nor under the Rules the Registrar has been empowered to exercise the power namely to reappoint an Officer who had already retired on attaining the age of superanuation and that too to appoint directly. In these circumstances, it would be futile to contend that the Registrar has got power and authority to pass the order impugned before this Court. 117. As already pointed out that there is no provision for reappointing an Officer who had already retired on attaining the age of superanuation with the prior approval of the Registrar. Inasmuch as such by-law is contrary to the powers of the Registrar conferred under the Act, it is not valid and enforceable in law. In this view of the matter the impugned proceedings issued by the Registrar are beyond his authority and jurisdiction. 118. In this context, reference to the following decisions can be made: (a) Co-operative Central Bank Limited and others etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others etc. Co-operative Central Bank Limited and others etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others etc. Co-operative Central Bank Limited and others etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others etc. , A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 245 where the Apex Court ruled “The bye-laws that can be framed by a society under the Act are similar in nature to the Articles of Association of a company incorporated under the Companies Act and such Articles of Association have never been held to have the force of law. In a number of cases, conditions of service for industries are laid down by Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and it has been held that, though such Standing Orders are binding between the employers and the employees of the industry governed by these Standing Orders, they do not have such force of law as to be binding on Industrial Tribunal adjudicating an industrial dispute. .(b) Rathnakumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu , (1997)I MLJ. .(b) Rathnakumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu , (1997)I MLJ. 464 wherein the Supreme Court ruled: “Point No.2: While dealing with Point No.1, we have already referred as to what extent the bylaw No.5 (ii) goes counter to the provisions contained in Secs.23(1)(h), 23(2)(g) and 26(1)(c) and also 23 (4) of the Act and Rule 51-A of the Rules. It cannot be disputed that the by-laws are to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Any by-law which contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot at all be registered and it cannot also be enforced. In fact, in Cooperative Central Bank Limited and others etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others etc. Co-operative Central Bank Limited and others etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others etc. Co-operative Central Bank Limited and others etc. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others etc., A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 245 it has been held that by-laws of a Co-operative Society framed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act cannot be held to be law or to have the force of law. It has also further been held that if a statute gives power to a Government or other authority to make rules, the rules so framed have the force of statute and are to be deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute and that principle, however, does not apply to bye-laws of the nature that a Co-operative Society is empowered by the Act to make. The bye-laws that are contemplated by the Act can be merely those which govern the internal management, business or administration of a society. They are of the nature of the Articles of Association of a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and they may be building between the persons affected by them, but they do not have the force of a statute.” 19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant apprehends that the authorities may take steps to recover the salary received by him for the past 2 years and he may be asked to vacate the office immediately. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant apprehends that the authorities may take steps to recover the salary received by him for the past 2 years and he may be asked to vacate the office immediately. In view of the fact that the re-appointment of the appellant was not on his request or on any misrepresentation made by him we are inclined to give the following direction placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and others, (1995)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 18. The authorities shall not proceed to recover the salaries paid to the appellant and further the appellant shall be permitted to complete his tenure (i.e.) till 29. 2000. 20. There are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.3453 and 4372 of 1999 are also dismissed.