Judgment : Since a common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Order. 2. These writ petitioners have been filed praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Na.Ka. 1056 of 2009 Po.Vithi-1 dated 24. 2009, quash the order passed by the second respondent dated 30.4.2009 and direct the respondents from deploying the petitioners from the posts of Clerk and Accountant to the post of Salesmen. 3. According to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Clerk and Accountant in the second respondent Society through Employment Exchange on 9. 1996 in the sanctioned permanent posts and their services were regularized with effect from 4. 1997 and 24. 1997 respectively. While that being so, the first respondent passed the impugned orders stating that the post of the petitioners has been treated as surplus, and therefore, they were deployed and transferred to the post of Salesmen in Serukudi Primary Agriculture Co-operative bank. Pursuant to the impugned order, the second respondent passed the relieving orders on 30.4.2009. The above orders have been challenged on the ground that they are arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and the same have been passed against the Guidelines of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the second respondent Bank is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) and in respect of the Primary Agricultural Bank, the Registrar of Societies had delegated his powers viz., discharge of functions and duties to the first respondent and as such, the first respondent is the competent authority having jurisdiction in respect of the impugned order passed by him. The second respondent has passed the consequential order pursuant to the Order of the first respondent dated 24. 2009. 5. As per the Circular in R.C. 83470 of 2006 SF 3 Circ.No.16/08, dated 16. 2008, in Sub-clause (iii), it has been specifically stated that the deputation of an employee of a Society to another Society on deputation shall as far as possible be posted to work in the same category of post, the incumbent is holding at the time of deputation. Therefore, it is not mandatory that the deputation of an employee of a Society to another Society shall be in the same category. Therefore, it is not mandatory that the deputation of an employee of a Society to another Society shall be in the same category. Further, as per the guideline, there may be situation where a person drawing a higher salary in a higher post may have to be deputed for a post carrying lower salary in another society instead of enviable position of the parent society and in such a case, the employee has to accept the lower salary. Likewise, in the case on hand, because of the enviable position of the second respondent Bank, they have been deputed to another Society in the category of salesmen. But, there is no reduction of salary and the petitioners can get the salary in deputed Bank what they got in the second respondent Bank. Because of the interim stay granted, the second respondent is unable to disburse the salary to all the employees, and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material documents annexed in the typed set of papers. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in his foremost contention submits that in Clause (iii) of the Guidelines, it has been specifically stated that “Except in the case of deputation of an employee to fill up the vacancy in fair price shops, the deputation of an employee of a Society to another Society shall, as far as possible, be posted to work in the same category of post, the incumbent is holding at the time of deputation and not to higher category of post carrying higher scale of pay and the work place as far as possible shall be within the same or adjoining Revenue District.” He would further submit that initially the petitioner has been posted as a Clerk and now, he has been posted as a salesman which is not an equivalent post. 8. In similar circumstances, the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 2021 to 2023 of 2009 have challenged the order of deputation made in Na.Ka.No.9249/2008/Tho. Vae, dated 2. 2009 and a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition. As against the same, the Society preferred writ appeals in W.A.Nos. 510 and 511 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 111. 2009 dismissed the same. 9. Vae, dated 2. 2009 and a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition. As against the same, the Society preferred writ appeals in W.A.Nos. 510 and 511 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 111. 2009 dismissed the same. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that a Committee has to be constituted for the purpose of deputation of an employee and the Committee shall consist of Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar concerned Deputy Registrars and Special Officers or both lending and borrowing societies will be constituted to approve the requests for deputation. The Committee meeting will be convened every month by Personal Officer to Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar concerned and except with the administrative approval of the Registrar, if it is an Apex Society, or the Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar of the Region concerned for all other societies. In the instant case, without constituting a Committee, the first respondent has passed the impugned orders of deputation. 10. Thirdly, he would contend that initially the Petitioners have been appointed as Clerk and Account and now they have been posted as Salesmen, which is not an equivalent post, and therefore, there is loss of status. 11. The above said contention has been controverted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, as there is no loss of status or emoluments and the salary as they had in the post of Clerk has been protected in the post where they have been transferred as Salesmen. Relying on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD) Nos. 510 and 511 of 2009, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the first respondent is the competent authority to pass such an order, as he is having jurisdiction and power to make an order in the case of necessity and considering the prevailing circumstances. He would also submit that because of the enviable position of the second respondent society, the petitioners have been deputed to another society in the category of salesmen and there is no reduction of salary and the petitioners can get the salary in a deputed bank. 12. He would also submit that because of the enviable position of the second respondent society, the petitioners have been deputed to another society in the category of salesmen and there is no reduction of salary and the petitioners can get the salary in a deputed bank. 12. I have carefully considered the above submissions made on either side and perused the material documents available on record and the relevant guidelines contained in the Circular of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 13. The circumspection facts would reveal that the petitioners were initially appointed as Clerk and Accountant in the second respondent through employment exchange in the sanctioned permanent posts and their services were regularized with effect from 4. 1997 and 24. 1997 respectively, and thereafter, they continued in the same position. While that being so, the first respondent passed the impugned orders stating that the post of the petitioners has been treated as surplus, and therefore, they have been deployed and transferred to the post of Salesmen. 114. In furtherance of implementation of Sub-rule 2-A of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 was amended and guidelines have been framed with regard to the transfer of an employee from one society to another society and in the circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Society in circular No. 16 of 2008, dated 16. 2008, it is specifically stated as follows: “Except in the case of deputation of an employee to fill up the vacancy in fair price shops, the deputation of an employee of a society to another society shall, as far as possible, be posted to work in the same category of post the incumbent is holding at the time of deputation and not to higher at the time of deputation and not to higher category of post carrying higher scale of pay and the work place as possible shall be within the same or adjoining revenue district. No society shall ordinarily depute to another society without written request from the management of the borrowing society. Further, no deputation shall be made unless there is surplus staff in the relevant category of the post. No society shall ordinarily depute to another society without written request from the management of the borrowing society. Further, no deputation shall be made unless there is surplus staff in the relevant category of the post. Similarly, no society shall ordinarily take the services of the employee of another society on deputation, unless there is a vacancy in the relevant category of post as per the approved cadre strength and there is absolute necessity to fill up the vacancy on deputation basis. No appointment either by direct recruitment of promotion shall be made by a society to fill up the post which falls vacant consequent on the deputation of the employee and it shall remain vacant. No deputation shall be made by any society except with the administrative approval of the Registrar, if it is an Apex Society, or the Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar of the Region Concerned for all other societies. A Committee consists of Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar concerned Deputy Registrars and Special Officers or both lending and borrowing societies will be constituted to approve the requests for deputation. The Committee meeting will be convened every month by Personal Officer to Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar concerned.” 15. A perusal of the above circular, it is crystal clear that it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent, before making deputation, to constitute a committee as contemplated under the Circular, which is in furtherance of Rule 149(2-A) as amended, and therefore, the respondents, while making the Order of deputation, have to constitute a Committee and ten have to proceed further. 16. In the instant case, while analyzing the impugned proceedings, it appears that the first respondent has not followed the circular as contemplated, and therefore, the Order of deputation made by the first respondent in the impugned proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. 17. As regards the deputation of the petitioners as Salesmen, which is a loss of status, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the petitioners were appointed as Clerk and Accountant and now posted as Salesmen. A specific averment has been made in paragraph 6 of the counter that there is no reduction of salary and the petitioners can get the salary in deputed bank, what they got in the second respondent bank. A specific averment has been made in paragraph 6 of the counter that there is no reduction of salary and the petitioners can get the salary in deputed bank, what they got in the second respondent bank. It is also a consistent plea of the learned Special Government Pleader that there is no loss of emoluments and also status to the petitioners. Therefore, the question of reduction will come salary. In this case, the respondents have come out with a specific averment that there is no reduction of salary and the position of the petitioners could be protected in the transferred place. 18. Lastly, the contention of the petitioners is that they should be deputed to another society, shall, as far as possible, be posted to work in the same category of post, the incumbent is holding at the time of deputation, to which, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the enviable position prevailing in the respondent bank has been stated so, as it warrants to depute the employees to another society in the given situation and the circumstances. 19. Be that as it may, the said contention of the learned Special Government Pleader cannot be accepted, for the reason, this can be looked into by a Committee, if there is a need for such an exigency and with the administrative approval of the Registrar or the Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar concerned with consultation of both lending and borrowing societies to get approval for deputation and if such an appropriate Committee is constituted and if that Committee can be taken note of the administrative exigency, the need for deputation, enviable position of the parent society, the equivalent status and the transfer of the employee on deputation to an equivalent post. 20. For the foregoing reasons and upon perusal of the entire material documents, it is seen that the impugned proceedings, without proper constitution of a Committee, cannot be sustained, and therefore, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside the writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration by constituting an appropriate Committee as contemplated in the Circular of the Registrar dated 16. 2008 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 2008 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.