Judgment Siri Jagan, J. 1. "The 2nd respondent in W.P (C) No.13901/2009 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent in this writ appeal which is a cooperative society, seeking the following reliefs. "Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P4, P7 and P12 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. Declare that bank can make appointment to the post of 3 Peons and one Salesman as per Ext.P11 notification. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2. The writ petition came to be filed in the circumstances mentioned in the judgment of the learned Single Judge which the relevant portion which we shall quote, since it contains all the facts necessary for disposal of this appeal. The same reads thus: "Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. By Ext.P1 issued on 24/2/2007, applications were invited by the Bank to fill up the vacancies of peons, specifying 10/3/2007 as the last date for receipt of applications. Proceedings pursuant to the notification was stayed by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P2 order dated 7/3/2007, presumably acting upon a complaint made by a member. WP (C) No.8302/07 was filed by the Bank against Ext.P2 order and the case was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the 1st respondent to pass final orders in the matter. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order was passed by the 1st respondent on 5/6/2007. In Ext.P4, Ext.P2 order was sustained. 2. Reasons stated are that following the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.27912/03 by order dated 24/5/2003, the Society was reclassified as a Class III Bank. It is stated that on such reclassification, as against the permissible strength of one attender, there were three attenders and therefore there is excess staff. It is also held that one Assistant Secretary and two Head Clerk/Accountant are in excess. It is also stated that the Bank had suffered an accumulated loss of Rs.82,65,147/-. 3. This order was again challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.19744/07, resulting in Ext.P5 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. Accordingly, appeal was filed before the Government and by Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C) No.30403/08 filed by the petitioner, the appeal was directed to be disposed of on an expeditious basis. 3. This order was again challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.19744/07, resulting in Ext.P5 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. Accordingly, appeal was filed before the Government and by Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C) No.30403/08 filed by the petitioner, the appeal was directed to be disposed of on an expeditious basis. Accordingly, Ext.P7 appellate order was passed by the Government, the operative portion of which reads as under: The Government have examined the matter in detail and the Appeal Petition is disposed of with direction that the Anicadu Service Co-operative Bank shall comply with the directions of the Joint Registrar regarding its reclassifications and thereafter the bank is at liberty to proceed with the recruitment of staff if necessary complying all the rules and regulations of the recruitment. The Appeal petition is disposed of accordingly. Thus Ext.P7 order requires the petitioner Bank to comply with the directions in Ext.P4 and to proceed with the recruitment in compliance with the Rules and Regulations. 4. Petitioner submits that as per Exts.P8, P9 and P10, on reclassification, all employees were redeployed in the manner as it suits a Class III society and steps for recovery of the excess pay has been initiated. Among the three attenders, retaining one, two were deployed as peons and that a Chief Accountant/Assistant Secretary was reverted as Branch Manager w.e.f. 1/11/06 and two Head Clerks were reverted as Senior Clerks w.e.f. 1/11/2006. It is also stated that salary consequent to Exts.P9 and P10 referred to above has also been refixed. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that directions in Ext.P4 has been complied with as directed in Ext.P7. 5. Once that was completed, petitioner issued Ext.P11 notification dated 17/4/2009 inviting applications to fill up three posts of peons and one post of Salesman specifying 5/5/2009 as the last date for receipt of the applications. As on the previous occasion, when Ext.P1 was issued, this time also, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P12 staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11, referring to a compliant made by the 2nd respondent herein and also a report of the Assistant Registrar dated 5/5/2009. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed seeking to challenge Ext.P12 and for orders enabling the society to proceed further with Ext.P11 vacancy notification. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed seeking to challenge Ext.P12 and for orders enabling the society to proceed further with Ext.P11 vacancy notification. The contention raised is that the society having complied with the directions of the Government in Ext.P7, which order has become final, it is entitled to go ahead with the recruitment to the vacant posts." 3. The appellant herein, who is a member of the Society, contended before the learned Single Judge that no appointments could have been made by the Society, which has been re-classified from Class-I society to a Class-III society without getting prior approval of the re- classification from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. According to him the society never obtained prior approval for re-classification as well as the fixation of staff pattern in accordance with the re-classification which was mandatory under law. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the appellant herein. The learned Single judge held that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. V. Government of Kerala ( 2000 (3) KLT 389 ) for appointing as per the staff pattern fixed in Appendix-III and the rules according to the type and class to which the society belongs, no approval of the Registrar is necessary. The appellant raised a contention that the decision in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case does not hold the field in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Subha B. Nair and others V. State of Kerala ( AIR 2008 SC 2760 ). But the learned Single judge held that, that decision was rendered in the light of a subsequent amendment to appendix III to the Act, wherein Note IV was added which stipulates that classification made by the Societies should be got certified and approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before being implemented and therefore at the relevant time the law in force was that laid down in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra). In that view the learned Single Judge upheld the action of the society in taking steps to make recruitment to the vacant posts of peons in the society. That judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal. In that view the learned Single Judge upheld the action of the society in taking steps to make recruitment to the vacant posts of peons in the society. That judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal. The counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the second proviso to Rule 188 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, it was mandatory for a society to get prior approval from the Registrar regarding staff pattern when the society is re-classified. It is submitted that this position has been upheld in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) also wherein it has been held that it is mandatory to get prior approval when there is a change in the classification of the society. Further the counsel for the appellant would argue that, in any event, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Subha B. Nair's case (supra) no reclassification can be implemented without obtaining prior approval from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Society would contend that the law prevailing at the relevant time was that no prior approval was necessary for either re-classification or for making appointments to posts which arise in accordance with the staff pattern on re- classification of the society. According to him, that is exactly what a Division Bench of this Court has held in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra). He submits that in Subha B. Nair's case (supra), the Supreme Court specifically referred to Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) and rendered the decision only because of the subsequent amendment to Appendix-III adding Note 4 making prior approval of the Registrar mandatory for implementing classification. Therefore, according to the counsel for the 1st respondent the law which was in force at the relevant time was as laid down by this court in Elampal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.'s case which only has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. Therefore the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argues in support of the decision of the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard Special Government Pleader for Co-operative Societies also. Therefore the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argues in support of the decision of the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard Special Government Pleader for Co-operative Societies also. He would refer us to the report of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 10-08- 2010, which has been produced in this writ appeal along with a memo filed by the Special Government Pleader, as also an earlier statement filed in the writ appeal by the Joint Registrar dated 14-10-2009. According to him, the Society is entitled to the posts of peons for which applications were invited and subsequently appointments were made. 6. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. First of all we are not in agreement with the counsel for the appellant that the second proviso to Rule 188 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules provides that in every case of change of classification approval from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is mandatory. Rule 188 reads thus: "188. Staff Pattern:- Every society shall adopt the staff pattern indicated in Appendix III to these rules, according to the type and class to which it belongs: Provided that where any society cannot adopt such staff pattern due to its financial position, the members of the committee may work in an honorary capacity in lieu of appointing any paid employee: Provided further that where any society is in need of any change in the pattern of staff including the scale of pay under special circumstances the same may be made by the society with the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies." We are of opinion that the second proviso applies only when a society under special circumstances peculiar to that society, wants a change in the pattern of staff including scale of pay as provided in Appendix-III and not when the society is re-classified from one class to another. In fact that is exactly what the Division Bench of this court held in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case. Paragraph 7 of that judgment is reads thus: "We have already held that no prior approval is necessary for appointment of staff as per staff pattern and scale of pay mentioned in Appendix-III depending upon the classification and type of society in view of S.80 and R.188. Paragraph 7 of that judgment is reads thus: "We have already held that no prior approval is necessary for appointment of staff as per staff pattern and scale of pay mentioned in Appendix-III depending upon the classification and type of society in view of S.80 and R.188. Question of approval arises only when society need a change in the pattern as laid down in Appendix III depending upon special circumstances and not otherwise. Therefore we agree with the views expressed in the judgment reported in 1984 KLT 971 (supra) and not with the decision in 1992 (2) KLT 77 (supra) with regard to the prior approval of appointment and hold that no prior approval from the Registrar is necessary for appointment of staff unless such a condition is mentioned specifically in respect of any classes of society in Appendix III." 7. Of course the learned counsel appearing of the appellant relies on the very same paragraph to contend that, that paragraph would hold that in case of change of classification prior approval is mandatory. As we have already said we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We are of opinion that paragraph 7 of the judgment in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case is perfectly in tune with the second proviso to Rule 188. That Rule does not provide for prior approval in all cases of re-classification of societies. That applies only to cases where a particular society, because of the special circumstances peculiar to that society, wants to change the pattern of staff including the scale of pay, from what has been stipulated in Appendix-III. Therefore we do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellant that since the 1st respondent Society was re-classified from class-I society to class-III society, the appointments to the post of peon could not have been made without obtaining prior approval for the re-classification itself from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 8. As far as the reliance by the counsel for the appellant on the decision in Subha B. Nair's case, we are of opinion that, that decision is in the light of the subsequent amendment to appendix-III adding Note-4. In fact we find that the Supreme Court referred to Elampal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd.'s case and then went on to say that in view of Note-4 prior approval is mandatory. In fact we find that the Supreme Court referred to Elampal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd.'s case and then went on to say that in view of Note-4 prior approval is mandatory. Admittedly Note-4 was introduced in the appendix on 22-03-2004 subsequent to the re-classification of society on 24-05-2003. As such the decision in Subha B. Nair's case (supra) which is based on Note 4 added in 2004, cannot be pressed into service for application to the facts of this case where the re-classification was in 2003. We are of opinion that what is applicable is the decision in Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) which specifically holds that for appointing staff as per the staff pattern fixed in Appendix III and the Rules according to the type and class to which the society belongs, no approval of the Registrar is necessary. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellant in this writ appeal. Consequently the writ appeal is dismissed.