JUDGMENT : (Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.) The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.14797 of 2021 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/appellants herein was dismissed. 2. The petitioners had challenged the G.O.Rt.No.451, dated 16.07.2021, to the extent it appointed respondent No.7 herein as Chairperson of person in-charge committee (PIC) of the 6th respondent herein – Sri Bhogeswara Swamy Visala Sahakara Parapathi Society. The allegation was that the husband of respondent No.7 herein had committed grave illegalities and irregularities and was facing an inquiry under Sections 51 and 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) an earlier move to appoint him as Chairperson of the said PIC was resorted and it was only when such an attempt to get appointed failed that the husband of respondent No.7 succeeded in exerting political pressure and succeeded in getting his wife, who is alleged to be a housewife, appointed as Chairperson of the said PIC of respondent No.6 – Society. 3. The petitioners’ case is that the private respondent No.7 was only a housewife and did not have the requisite qualification to her credit as would justify her appointment as Chairperson of the three member Committee. 4. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the inquiry against the husband of private respondent No.7 was pending and had not resulted in any final orders and even otherwise, it was stated that the private respondent No.7 did not suffer any ineligibility either under the provisions of the Act of 1964 or the rules framed thereunder. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in fact two Surcharge Orders, dated 23.01.2017 and 22.05.2019, had been passed against the Management Committee of which the husband of private respondent No.7 was also a member and therefore, it was sought to be emphasized that once such a Surcharge Order has been passed, it would not be in the best interest of the Society to appoint the wife of such a tainted President of the erstwhile Management Committee as a Chairperson of the PIC. In any case, it was sought to be emphasized that the Government, as in the past, ought to have appointed only an official of the Government as a Chairperson of the PIC and not respondent No.7. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Admittedly, there are orders of Surcharge passed among others against the husband of private respondent no.7, who was the President of the erstwhile Management Committee of Sri Bhogeswara Swamy Visala Sahakara Parapathi Society. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the private respondent No.7 would in any way be disqualified for appointment as a part of PIC on that account. In our opinion, considering the provisions of Section 21A of the Act and Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, such a disqualification may not apply in the case of the said respondent. For purposes of reference, Section 21A(1)(a) of the Act envisages as under: 21A. Disqualification for membership of committee. - [(1)] No person shall be eligible for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the committee, if he- (a) is such near relative of such paid employee of the society or its financing bank as may be prescribed; 8. The husband of respondent No.7 was admittedly not a paid employee of the Society and therefore, the bar as contained under Section 21A(1)(a) of the Act would not apply in the present case. Rule 24(1)(a) is also framed on the same terms as Section 21A(1)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants could not persuade us as to how the private respondent No.7 did not satisfy any qualification criteria for being appointed as the member/Chairperson of the PIC. 9. Having heard the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view expressed by the learned single Judge. The Appeal is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.