JUDGMENT : BASANT BALAJI, J. 1. W.P. (C) Nos. 16943 of 2023 and 26590 of 2023 are filed by one and the same person. In W.P. (C) No. 16943 of 2023 the petitioner seeks a direction to the 3rd respondent Bank to appoint the petitioner to the vacancies notified as per Ext.P1 on the basis of Ext.P5 rank list and Ext.P7 advice memo. W.P. (C) No. 26590 of 2023 is filed to quash Ext.Nos.P10 and P11 and to direct the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the vacancies notified in Ext.P1 notification. W.P. (C) No. 38375 of 2023 is also filed to quash Ext.Nos.P10 and P11 and to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy pursuant to Ext.P5 rank list. 2. W.P. (C) No. 26590 of 2023 is taken as a leading case and the brief facts are narrated below: The petitioner is the 1st rank holder to the post of Junior Clerk in the 3rd respondent bank. On the basis of Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner was called for a written examination. The written examination was conducted on 14.11.2021 and Ext.P3 short list was published by the 2nd respondent. While so, the 4th respondent committee of the 3rd respondent bank was superseded and an administrative committee was appointed as per Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short ‘the Societies Act’). The administrative committee, who assumed office, on receipt of Ext.P3 list from the 2nd respondent, conducted the interview and Ext.P5 rank list was brought into force. Thereafter, Ext.P7 advice memo was issued to the petitioner to join the 3rd respondent Bank as Junior Clerk (General). 3. In the meanwhile, a candidate who secured 13th rank in the rank list approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 14096 of 2022 for a direction restraining the administrative committee from effecting appointments pursuant to the interview and for a declaration that the Administrative committee has no power or authority in law to make appointments of junior clerk/cashier to the 3rd respondent. By judgment dated 28.9.2022, a learned single Judge of this court directed the administrative committee not to make any substantive appointment in the service of 3rd respondent society. However, liberty was given to make temporary appointments till such time the managing committee comes to office to ensure that there is no administrative break down. 4. By judgment dated 28.9.2022, a learned single Judge of this court directed the administrative committee not to make any substantive appointment in the service of 3rd respondent society. However, liberty was given to make temporary appointments till such time the managing committee comes to office to ensure that there is no administrative break down. 4. The 4th respondent approached this court through W.P. (C) No. 3897 of 2022 challenging the super-session of the managing committee and by Ext.P9 judgment, this court quashed the order of super-session reserving the right to proceed from the stage of Section 32(1) Notice and the elected committee was directed to assume the office forthwith. The 4th respondent committee assumed the office on the basis of Ext.P9 and thereafter, decided to cancel Ext.P5 rank list. The managing committee also reported 5 new vacancies to the 2nd respondent for initiating recruitment process. It is challenging the cancellation of the rank list and the decision to initiate recruitment process for 5 vacancies, this Writ Petition is filed. 5. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The very maintainability of the Writ Petition was challenged stating that the appointment as Junior Clerk in the 3rd respondent bank is essentially a dispute arising in connection with employment of the society as defined under section 69(2)(d) of Societies Act and the remedy is to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court and not to invoke the extra jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent is a Primary Credit Co-operative society and is vested in the 4th respondent committee which was elected to the office on 21.7.2019. The committee resolved to make appointments to 6 vacancies of Junior Clerks through direct recruitment. Ext.P1 notification was issued and the 2nd respondent conducted a written test in terms of notification. After evaluation of answer scripts, a short list of the candidates who became successful in the examination was drawn. The 4th respondent committee was superseded by the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.1.2022 and the administrative committee comprising of the 3 officers of the Co-operative Department, was appointed to manage the affairs of the bank temporarily till an elected committee assumes the office. Challenging the super-session, W.P. (C) Nos. 3897 and 3937 of 2022 were filed. The 4th respondent committee was superseded by the order of the 1st respondent dated 24.1.2022 and the administrative committee comprising of the 3 officers of the Co-operative Department, was appointed to manage the affairs of the bank temporarily till an elected committee assumes the office. Challenging the super-session, W.P. (C) Nos. 3897 and 3937 of 2022 were filed. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the administrative committee conducted interview. There was widespread allegation regarding the interview conducted by administrative committee. 7. Further submission in the affidavit was that one candidate who figured in the eligibility list, approached this court through W.P. (C) No. 14096 of 2022 assailing the selection process conducted by Administrative Committee. A counter affidavit was filed in that case, by the Administrative Committee contending that they were competent to complete and proceed with Ext.P1 notification as there was a statutory obligation in terms of Rule 182(4)(v) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Societies Rules’). The challenge against super-session was held in favour of the petitioner and this court set aside the super-session and restored the 4th respondent committee back to office on 21.12.2022. After assuming office, numerous complaints were received regarding the conduct of the interview by the administrative committee. There were allegations of corruption, favouritism and nepotism in grating the marks in the interview. A sub committee was constituted to enquire into allegations raised. On the basis of the report of the committee, the 4th respondent came into a definite conclusion that the interview was vitiated and therefore, decided to cancel the rank list and go for fresh appointments. On these grounds, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 8. Heard Shri Sarath M.S. for the petitioners, Sri. N. Raghuraj for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Government Pleader for the 1st respondent. 9. The question that arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether the administrative committee appointed by the Registrar under Section 32 or 33 of the Societies Act has the power to conduct the interview on the basis of the short list issued by the 2nd respondent, draw up a rank list and to issue advice memos. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Administrative committee which comes into office on super-session has every power of the Managing Committee. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Administrative committee which comes into office on super-session has every power of the Managing Committee. On receipt of the short list from the Board, the Administrative Committee, who is in office has a statutory obligation under Rule 182(4)(v) of the Societies Rules to conduct interview within 2 months from the date of receipt of the list from the Examination Board. The administrative committee has only acted in tune with the statutory provisions. 10. Rule 182 of the Society Rules reads as follows: “182. Classification under Section 80(1): (1) For the purpose of sub-section (1) of S.80, the societies in the State shall be classified as shown in Appendix III: Provided that the Government may on their own motion or otherwise, after consultation with the Registrar, revise such classification once in every three years. Provided further that while reckoning the financial position for the purpose of classification of Societies, position of 12 month’s average of the year, each month’s position based on the last day of the month, shall be considered. Provided also that the application for permission to re-classify the District Co-operative Bank/Primary Agricultural Credit Societies/Farmers Service Co-operative Banks/Employees Co-operative Societies, Housing, Labour Contract Societies/Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banks/Urban Co-operative Banks/Other Credit Societies, from the existing class to the next higher class, shall be accompanied by a chalan receipt for the remittance of fees calculated at the rate of rupees two thousand and in the case of other co-operative societies, chalan receipt of rupees five hundred shall suffice: Provided also that such amount shall not be refunded to the applicant bank irrespective of the fact that whether classification is granted or not. (2) The Committee shall be the authority competent to appoint employees in a Co-operative Society. (3) In respect of societies covered by sub-section (3A) of Section 80 of the Act, the committee shall appoint the employees from the select list of candidates furnished by the Kerala Public Service Commission. (4) In respect of recruitment to societies covered by Section 80B of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed: (i) The Society shall report the vacancy to the Co-operative Service Examination Board and the applications for appointment shall be invited by the Co-operative Service Examination Board, by notification in two vernacular dailies, having wide circulation in the area. (4) In respect of recruitment to societies covered by Section 80B of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed: (i) The Society shall report the vacancy to the Co-operative Service Examination Board and the applications for appointment shall be invited by the Co-operative Service Examination Board, by notification in two vernacular dailies, having wide circulation in the area. The notification shall include the details of number of vacancies, qualifications required for the post, age and reservation, if any, the mode of application, method of appointment and other required details. The Co-operative Service Examination Board may collect application fee along with the application at the rate fixed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time. The Examination Board shall process the applications and prepare the list of candidates to be called for the written test. One copy of the prepared list shall be published in the notice Board of the Examination Board and one copy shall be sent to the society for publication in its notice board. The society shall publish it in the notice board and copies thereof in the branch offices of the society. The arrangements for the written test shall be made by the Examination Board. (ii) The Examination Board shall conduct the written examination of the candidates and furnish a list of eligible candidates to be interviewed to the committee of the society within a period of three months from the date of requisition by the society. The list so furnished shall not contain the mark secured by the candidates. (iii) The maximum marks for written examination shall be 80 and those who secure 40% of the marks shall only be eligible to be included in the list for interview. Provided that in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, those who secure 30% of marks and above shall be included in the list. Provided further that the total number of candidates to be called for interview shall be ten times the number of posts advertised to be filled up in each category. If there are more candidates who secured not less than forty per cent marks in the written examination and if the candidate who secured forty per cent or above marks are less than ten times as above all of the candidates shall be called for interview. (iv) The maximum marks for interview shall be 15. If there are more candidates who secured not less than forty per cent marks in the written examination and if the candidate who secured forty per cent or above marks are less than ten times as above all of the candidates shall be called for interview. (iv) The maximum marks for interview shall be 15. Provided that the minimum marks for interview shall be 3. (iv-A) Candidates of home district shall be awarded 5 marks over and above the marks for interview as grace marks. (v) On receipt of the list from the Examination Board, the committee shall conduct interview of the candidates within two months from the date of such receipt] and return the list to the Examination Board noting the marks secured by each candidates, in the interview within a period of two weeks. (vi) On receipt of the list from the society, the Examination Board shall note down the marks secured by each of the candidate in written examination and return consolidated list with the total marks obtained by each candidate. This shall be done within a period of one week. (vii) On the basis of the consolidated list so received from the Examination Board, the committee shall prepare the rank list of candidates and publish the same in the notice board of the society within a period of twenty days from the date of receipt of such consolidated mark list. The society shall send one copy of the rank list so published to the Examination Board also. The Board shall examine the correctness of such rank list and report to the Registrar, the irregularities, if any. The list shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of publication of the same by the society. (viii) All appointments to the vacancies shall be made by the committee from the select list so published within one month from the date of such publication and shall be reported to the Examination Board.” 11. The administrative committee has only completed the process of selection after the Board has conducted the examination and short list was published. It is also argued that the managing committee has initially taken a decision to issue notification and conduct of the examination. Therefore, the administrative committee has only taken it forwarded and finalised. The administrative committee has only completed the process of selection after the Board has conducted the examination and short list was published. It is also argued that the managing committee has initially taken a decision to issue notification and conduct of the examination. Therefore, the administrative committee has only taken it forwarded and finalised. There is no corruption, favouritism or nepotism in the conduct of the interview as it is done by 3 officers of the Co operative Department who has nothing to do with the candidates. It was therefore, argued that Ext.Nos.P10 and P11 have to be quashed and direction be issued to appoint persons from the rank list in the notified vacancies. 12. The counsel relied a judgment of this court in Indrasenan vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), 2009 (KHC) 322, in which it was held that when an Administrator or Administrative Committee is in office, it does not preclude those public authorities to act in terms of Rule 198(6) of the Societies Rules, if the situation calls for such action. If a delinquent is placed under suspension beyond a period of 6 months, it is bound and duty of whoever is in power to ensure that proper sanction is obtained in terms of the law. Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this court in Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies vs. Thiruvalla East Cooperative Bank, 2009 (3) KHC 239 and contended that whether the time limit fixed for conducting the interview by the Managing Committee is directory or mandatory, it was held that it was only directory but the interview has to be conducted within a reasonable period. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the apex court in Akalakunnam Village Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Binu N. 2014 KHC 4521 as well as Mathew Kutty Mathew vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 2016 KHC 2939. 13. The counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 Bank, Shri. N. Raghuraj argued that the appointment of Junior Clerk is essentially a dispute arising in connection with employment in a society and therefore, the proper forum is the Co-operative Arbitration Court under section 70A of the Societies Act and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable before this court. 13. The counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 Bank, Shri. N. Raghuraj argued that the appointment of Junior Clerk is essentially a dispute arising in connection with employment in a society and therefore, the proper forum is the Co-operative Arbitration Court under section 70A of the Societies Act and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable before this court. The 2nd argument is that the Administrative Committee who came into office due to super-session of the committee, has a very limited power and it is stop gap arrangement to do the day to day affairs of the society and to conduct an election to bring a new managing committee in the office. No policy decisions can be taken by the Administrative Committee. Appointments of any staff is to be done by the Managing Committee and not by the Administrative Committee. 14. He further argued that going by the definition of ‘the Committee’ the Managing committee is the only authority under the Act and Rules to complete the section process of any staff. The interview conducted by the administrative committee is not valid in law as held by various decisions of this court as well as the apex court. Section 2(e) of the Act reads as follows: “Committee’ means the governing body of a co-operative society by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted.” Rule 182(2) of the Societies Rules reads as follows: (2) The committee shall be the authority competent to appoint employees in a Co-operative society.” 15. Rule 182(2)(viii) directs that all appointments to the vacancies shall be made by the committee from the list published. So, it is the Managing Committee which is under statutory obligation to appoint any employment on the basis of selected list. It is a mandate that on receipt of the list of Examination Board, the committee shall conduct an interview and reports the list to the Examination Board. The word ‘committee’ used in Rule 182(2) of the Rules can only be the Managing Committee and not the Administrative Committee, as the definition clause clearly states so. 16. A reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the Societies Act would make this little more clear. Section 32 of the Societies Act deals with super-session of committee. The word ‘committee’ used in Rule 182(2) of the Rules can only be the Managing Committee and not the Administrative Committee, as the definition clause clearly states so. 16. A reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the Societies Act would make this little more clear. Section 32 of the Societies Act deals with super-session of committee. It states that if the Registrar after enquiry is satisfied that the committee of a society (a) makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it, or, (b) wilfully obeys or fails to comply with lawful order or direction, or (c) makes any payment contrary to the Act or Rules or bye laws or causes any loss or damage to the society, by breach of trust of wilful negligence, or (d), misappropriates or destroys or tampers with the records or causes the destruction of records to form misconduct or malpractice, he may after giving committee an opportunity to state his objection, if any, by order in writing, remove the committee and appoint in its place, one administrator or administrative committee consisting of not more than three individuals, one among them as convenor, who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding 6 months. 17. Section 33 also deals with the situation where the terms of an office of the committee has expired and a new committee has not been constituted or (i) a new committee cannot be constituted before the expiry of the term of the existing committee or (ii) there is a stalemate in the constitution or functions of the committee or (ii) that a new committee is prevented from entering upon the office, on the date on which the term of office of the existing committee expires, the Registrar may appoint one administrator or an administrative committee consisting of not more than 3 individuals to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding 6 months. 18. Article 243ZL of the Constitution of India deals with Super-Session and Suspension of board and interim management. Article 243ZL(2) directs the administrator appointed to manage the affairs of the committee in case of super-session of the board and shall arrange for conduct of the election within the time prescribed under clause (1) and to hand over the management to the Electoral board. 19. Article 243ZL(2) directs the administrator appointed to manage the affairs of the committee in case of super-session of the board and shall arrange for conduct of the election within the time prescribed under clause (1) and to hand over the management to the Electoral board. 19. A combined reading of the above mentioned Sections, Rules and Article would definitely lead to a conclusion that the Administrative Committee appointed by the Registrar is only a body competent to do the day to day affairs of the society and not to take any policy decision including enrolment of members or appointments to be made in the society. 20. In this connection, the counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 relied on a judgment of this court in Raghavan Nair vs. Joint Registrar of C-operative Societies, 1998 (2) KLT 1068 , in which in paragraph No. 10, it was held thus: “10. As already mentioned, the power to effect appointment in a co-operative society is vested in the general body. When it constitutes an elected body, the same is vested in the elected body, which owe its existence to the general body. Administrator or administrators is or are only expected to manage the affairs of the society and to exercise the functions of the committee and not expected to exercise ‘powers’ of the elected committee. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Full Bench is squarely applicable to the case of appointment as well during the tenure of the administrator or administrators or committee. Therefore, since Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no power to effect appointment, administrator or administrators appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot exercise the power which even the appointing authority does not possess. Therefore, if an administrator or administrators effects regular appointment in a society that appointment will be without jurisdiction, ultra-vires and void.” 21. Reliance was also placed by him on a judgment of this Court in Rajan N. vs. State of Kerala, 2016 (2) KHC 805 . Paragraph No. 13 to 19 read as follows: “13. Indeed, the factual controversy falls in a narrow compass. The singular issue to be decided is whether the Administrative Committee has the power to appoint employees on a permanent basis, especially, in regular vacancies. 14. Paragraph No. 13 to 19 read as follows: “13. Indeed, the factual controversy falls in a narrow compass. The singular issue to be decided is whether the Administrative Committee has the power to appoint employees on a permanent basis, especially, in regular vacancies. 14. The Courts have consistently held that an Administrative Committee cannot take policy decisions for it comes in the interim before a regular Managing Committee could take charge. By extending the said proposition, the Courts have also held that appointing employees on a permanent basis amounts to a policy decision; ipso facto, it cannot be done by an Administrative Committee. 15. Nevertheless, the Courts have recognised the felt need of having the staff for the purpose of smooth administration. As an ameliorative measure, the Courts have also observed that an Administrative Committee can as well go for temporary appointments. 16. In Raghavan Nair (supra), a learned Single Judge has held that the power to effect appointment in a Co-operative Society is vested in the general body. When it constitutes an elected body, the same is vested in the elected body, which owe its existence to the general body. An administrator or an administrative committee is only expected to manage the affairs of the society and exercise the functions of the committee; it is not expected to exercise the ‘powers’ of an elected committee. 17. Raghavan Nair (supra) proceeded on the analogy that the Registrar of Co operative Societies has no power to effect appointments. By the same reckoning, the administrator or the administrative committee appointed by him cannot exercise the said power. The conclusion is that if an administrator effects a regular appointment in a society, that appointment shall be without jurisdiction, ultra-vires and void. 18. Raghavan Nair is however not oblivious to the practical problems that might arise if there were to be any absolute proposition interdicting all types of appointment. It has thus acknowledged that there may be situations where due to dearth of staff society may experience difficulties even to manage day - today affairs. In such situations, it may be possible for an administrator or administrative committee to appoint employees on a temporary basis with prior permission of the Registrar. 19. The emphatic observation in Raghavan Nair is that such appointments will cease to have effect once the administrator or the administrative committee vacates office. In such situations, it may be possible for an administrator or administrative committee to appoint employees on a temporary basis with prior permission of the Registrar. 19. The emphatic observation in Raghavan Nair is that such appointments will cease to have effect once the administrator or the administrative committee vacates office. In other words their continuance will be till regular recruitment takes place.” 22. In District Industries Centre vs. Kaithari Neithu Sahakarana Sangam, 1999 KHC 35, also it was held that the administrator will be in charge of day to day affairs and the management of the society and shall not take any policy decision of income huge expenditure. He shall not make any appointment to the post till new committee takes charge. 23. Coming to the facts of this case, it can be seen that though the decision to publish the fresh notification was initiated by the managing committee and the test was conducted by the board, the selection could not take forward by the managing committee as it was superseded and administrative committee was appointed. The administrative committee placing reliance on Rule 182(4)(v) of the Societies Rules, had conducted the interview and published the rank list and issued advice memos. As discussed earlier, the administrative committee does not have power to conduct the interview and to publish the rank list. It is the managing committee alone, is the competent authority under Rule 182(2) of the Societies Rules to make appointments in respect of the employees in the co operative Society. Therefore, the decision of the managing committee after coming back to office to cancel the rank list is legally valid. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the cancellation of the rank list as well as the decision to issue fresh notification by the present managing committee is legal and in order. Therefore, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed.