- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have clearly stated that under Byelaw 8 of the Special Byelaws relating to the service conditions of employees of the petitioner-Society, the age of retirement of its employees is 58 years. However, the petitioner has made a request to the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Adoni Kurnool District to extend the services of Shri J. Basaiah, Secretary, Chief Executive Officer of the Society upto 31.5.2013. It is further stated that the age of superannuation of the employees is governed by the Byelaws which do not permit extension in the age of employees beyond the age of superannuation. It is also the case of the respondents that the provisions of G.O. Rt No. 990 of Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop.VI) Department dated 4.8.2007 are not applicable to the employees of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The aforesaid G.O. is applicable only to the District Cooperative Central Banks. The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society like the petitioner - Society are a separate class of Societies which cannot be equated to that of District Cooperative Central Banks in the state. The respondents have also denied the allegation that the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Adoni has allowed the similar resolutions and permitted the other PACS to continue or reappoint retired employees in such Societies, since neither anyone PACS has submitted proposals for continuation/reappointment of retired employee of concerned PACS nor the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies has given approval for the same.
(2.) A perusal of Byelaw No. 3 of the Special Byelaws shows that it provides for a procedure for appointment of employees, (i) by direct recruitment and (ii) by promotion. There is no provision for reappointment. In view of Section 116C of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 read with Rule 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 and Special Byelaw Nos. 3 and 8 of the petitioner Society, it has no power or authority to continue a retired employee in service. Therefore, disapproval of the resolution of the petitioner Society dated 24.4.2011 by the impugned order dated 11.5.2011 cannot be said to be either illegal or arbitrary. In view of the above, we see no merit in this special leave petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.;