JUDGMENT : Order of disqualification of the petitioner from the Managing Committee of the second respondent Bank is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Managing Committee of the second respondent Society. He is working as a Collection Agent of the Apex Bank - Malappuram District Co-operative Bank. The third respondent filed a complaint alleging that, the petitioner is disqualified to be a member of the Managing Committee of the second respondent Bank. To the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P2 reply. After consideration of the objections, first respondent passed Ext.P3 order of disqualification finding that, since the petitioner is working as a Collection Agent in the Apex Society, he is disqualified from being a member of the Managing Committee. 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. C.S. Sheeja, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. Rule 44(1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules reads thus:- “44. Disqualification of membership of committee.—(1) No member of the society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the society under S.28 if he:- xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (f) is a paid employee of the society or of any other society.” 5. Under the Rule, a member is disqualified to be a member of the Managing Committee if he is a paid employee of the Society or of any other Society. The petitioner is a Collection Agent of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank. Whether a Collection Agent would fall within the ambit of the said sub-rule is the question. 6. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the term “employee” means, a person employed in a post in the approved staff pattern of the Society and not a person employed on a contract basis. Drawing my attention to Ext.P4 staff pattern of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank the learned Senior Counsel points out that, Collection Agent does not find a place therein. Therefore, a Collection Agent could not be considered as an “employee of the society” within the purview of Rule 44(1)(j), is the contention. Drawing my attention to Ext.P4 staff pattern of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank the learned Senior Counsel points out that, Collection Agent does not find a place therein. Therefore, a Collection Agent could not be considered as an “employee of the society” within the purview of Rule 44(1)(j), is the contention. Smt. C.S. Sheeja, the learned Senior Government Pleader would on the other hand submit that, the words “paid employee” occurring in the sub-rule has to be understood in the background of the object for which the said prohibition is incorporated viz, personal interests should not intervene with the interests of the Society. 7. According to me, the prefix “paid” occurring in the sub-rule, before the word “employee”, has much significance. Ordinarily, employee of a Society would mean, a person working in a post under the approved staff pattern of the Society. Salary is attached to all such posts. In other words, employees working in the posts in the approved staff pattern are paid employees. If the employees in the staff pattern alone were intended to be disqualified under the sub-rule, it would have been sufficient to mention, “is an employee of the Society or of any other Society.” When the word “paid” is used immediately prior to the word “employee”, it widens the subjects included under the term “employee” by bringing in other classes of employees also who are paid remuneration from the Society, though the posts in which they work are not in the approved staff pattern. In other words, the employees working in the posts under the approved staff pattern as well as other contractual employees who receive payment from the Society, fall within the scope of the term “paid employee”. If only employees in the posts in the staff pattern were intended, the word “paid” was not necessary in the provision. While construing a provision for disqualification for, conflict between 'duty' and 'interest', an unduly narrow or restricted construction should not be adopted. [See Zelia M. Xavier Fernandes E. Gonsalves v. Joana Rodrigues and others (2012) 3 SCC 188 ]. The Apex Court referred to the general principle of conflict between duty and interest. The principle is that, where there could be conflict of 'duty' and 'interest', a narrow interpretation is not to be adopted on the terms 'duty' and 'interest', and its interplay. The Apex Court referred to the general principle of conflict between duty and interest. The principle is that, where there could be conflict of 'duty' and 'interest', a narrow interpretation is not to be adopted on the terms 'duty' and 'interest', and its interplay. The purpose behind the sub-rule is that, duty and interests should not negotiate. The interpretation of the sub-rule as afore, is only in furtherance of the purpose of the rule and in tune with the law laid by the Apex Court in Zelia's case above. 8. A Collection Agent receives remuneration in the form of commission from the Society. In addition to the same, the proceedings dated 20.10.2015 of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-R1(a) indicates that, monthly wages of Rs.2,500/- is being paid to Collection Agents who do business of more than Rs.1 lakh per month. Therefore, though the post of Collection Agent is not included in the approved staff pattern, they also fall within the scope of the terms “paid employee” which comes under Rule 44(1)(f) of the Rules. The finding of the 1st respondent in the said regard is upheld. 9. That apart, Rule 44(1)(j) disqualifies a member of the Society to be elected or appointed as an member of the Managing Committee if he is disqualified under the bye-laws of the Society. The sub-rule reads thus:- “(j) is disqualified under any other provisions in the bye-laws of the society.” 10. The relevant pages of the bye-laws of the second respondent Society has been produced along with the writ petition as Ext.P7. Clause 8(e)(3) of the bye-laws reads thus:- 11. The said clause in the bye-law stipulates that a member of the Society will lose his membership if he becomes employed in the Bank or its financing bank, for salary or remuneration. Since a Collection Agent is paid remuneration as mentioned supra, though not under the term “salary”, the said prohibition/disqualification is attracted. The finding of the first respondent in the said regard is also liable to be upheld and I do so. 12. Relying on first proviso to Rule 44(1)(f), the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, permission in terms thereof has been granted by the first respondent to the petitioner to contest to the Managing Committee and therefore, the disqualification alleged does not operate. 12. Relying on first proviso to Rule 44(1)(f), the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, permission in terms thereof has been granted by the first respondent to the petitioner to contest to the Managing Committee and therefore, the disqualification alleged does not operate. The proviso relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel reads thus:- “Provided that the Registrar may by general or special order exempt any society or any person from the operation of this clause for such period to be specified by him in the order of exemption.” 13. In terms of the proviso, the Registrar can grant exemption to a paid employee from the applicability of the disqualification provided under Rule 44(1)(f). The petitioner seeks to take shelter under Ext.P5 to contend that exemption has been granted to him by the first respondent, thereunder. The content and purport of Ext.P5 needs to be looked into to find out whether it is an order of exemption granted to the petitioner by the Registrar in terms of the said proviso. On a reading of Ext.P5, I am afraid that Ext.P5 cannot be understood to be an order by the Registrar/ Joint Registrar in terms of the proviso, for reasons more than one-(a) Ext.P5 is in the letter head of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank, (b) It is an extract of the decision of the part-time administrator who incidentally is the Joint Registrar, (c) Ext.P5 is stated to be the true copy of the decision No.6 dated 26.11.2018 of the Part-time Administrator, (d) Grant of no objection to the petitioner to contest in election is an item in the agenda and it was decided to grant no objection, (e) Ext.P5 is signed by the Part-time Administrator/Joint Registrar as well as by the General Manager of the Malappuram District Co-operative Bank. Ext.P5 cannot be understood to be an order of exemption granted to the petitioner by the Registrar from the operation of the Rule 44(1)(f). Therefore, the contention based on Ext.P5 also fails. The order of the Joint Registrar warrants no interference. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.