APHC010513842003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22204 of 2003 Bench Sr.No:- 36 [3506] D. Balaji Srinivasa Rao ...Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner For Cooperation and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: J SUDHEER Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): 1983/GP FOR COOPERATION, GP FOR AGRICULTURE CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 23th January 2026 The Court made the following order: The present writ petition is filed assailing the action of respondent Nos.1 & 2 in issuing direction to respondent No.3 Society to terminate the petitioner from the service, and the consequential action of respondent No.3 in issuing proceedings dated 30.06.2003, by which order of termination came to be passed, to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and consequentially to set aside the same. 2 2. Initially, the petitioner’s father, i.e., Sri Bangaraiah, was engaged with the respondent Bank as an Attender and he died in harness on 14.09.1998. Subsequently, the writ petitioner, being his son, made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said application came to be considered favourably, and accordingly, by way of resolution No.5 of the Board of Directors’ meeting dated 21.10.1998, the petitioner came to be appointed as an Attender in the vacancy that arose on account of the death of his father. Such appointment was made on daily-wage basis with remuneration at Rs.35/- per day. Subsequently, the said appointment came be regularized by way of resolution No.10, dated 22.06.1999. In pursuance to the said regularization, which was given effect from 22.06.1999, the petitioner’s salary came to be fixed at Rs.1200/- per month. 3. Surprisingly, thereafter, the person in-charge was informed to take action against those employees who were otherwise appointed after 1995, stating that such appointments were irregular and illegal. Based on the said proceedings, respondent No.3 straightaway issued proceedings dated 30.06.2003, removing the petitioner from service. Claiming such termination, without issuing prior notice, to be in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. There is no interim order, as such, in favour of the petitioner. 3 4. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Education. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the very order of termination, without issuing prior notice, is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice and at any rate, as the petitioner was appointed by duly passing resolution of the Board of Directors, respondent No.3 ought not to have unilaterally terminated the services of the petitioner. 6. However, learned Government Pleader for Education opposed the said submissions and would contend that the petitioner, instead of preferring the writ petition, ought to have resorted to the remedies otherwise available under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for brevity “Act, 1964”), in particular Section 76 & 77 thereof. 7. A perusal of impugned order dated 30.06.2003 goes to show that respondent No.3 has taken a decision to terminate the services of not only the writ petitioner but also other employees who otherwise joined in employment post 1995, treating such appointments to be irregular and illegal, as they were not appointed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, 1964 and bylaws framed therein. Further, even the said order 4 also refers to the interim order passed in W.P.No.7562 of 2003 for taking such decision. 8. Though there is some force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that termination without issuing any prior show-cause notice is bad in law, considering the fact that appointments so made not only that of the writ petitioner but also of other employees during the relevant point of time being illegal and irregular and that there is a remedy provided under Section 76 & 77 of the Act, 1964, besides bylaws of respondent No.3 Society, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 9. In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the writ petitioner is granted liberty to work out appropriate remedies, if he still desires to continue the cause. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 23.01.2026 ANS 5 376 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 22204 OF 2003 Date: 23.01.2026 ANS