The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) has that Section 80BB of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which provides for the constitution of a Recruitment Committee for appointments in Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Unions, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The special classification of these unions is justified by an intelligible differentia arising from their unique role in the national ‘Operation Flood’ program.
The Court clarified that the Government is empowered under Section 80(8) of the 1969 Act to frame uniform service and conduct rules for classes of co-operative societies ‘by order’, a power that is distinct and independent from the general rule-making power under Section 109 of the 1969 Act. Therefore, rules and orders issued under Section 80(8), such as those establishing the Recruitment Committee and its procedures, are valid without being published in the Official Gazette.
Therefore, the Court refused to interfere with the actions taken by the Dairy Development Department (respondents) in forming the Recruitment Committees and proceeding with the selection process for appointments in the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers’ Union.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the introduction of Section 80BB and the related government actions were rooted in the ‘Operation Flood-II’ project, a national initiative by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) to make India a leading milk producer. Page 24 An agreement between the Government of Kerala, the Indian Dairy Corporation (IDC), and other bodies necessitated amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to facilitate the project’s implementation.
The Bench noted that this context places Dairy/Milk Co-operatives on a different footing from other co-operative societies, providing an ‘intelligible differentia’ that justifies the differential treatment under the law and defeats the challenge based on Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bench also distinguished between the government’s power to make rules under Section 109, which requires gazette notification, and the power under Section 80(8) of the 1969 Act, which allows the government to frame uniform service rules ‘by order’ without such a publication requirement.
The Bench further observed that the formation of the Recruitment Committee was not a unilateral imposition by the State but was a decision that emanated from the Apex Society and was unanimously adopted by the general bodies of the regional unions, including the petitioners.
Briefly, the petitioners, comprising Primary Dairy Societies and individuals, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 80BB of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and a series of Government Orders related to the recruitment of employees in the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Milk Producers’ Union Ltd. The petitioners contended that the constitution of a Recruitment Committee by the Government, as mandated by Section 80BB, and the introduction of specific reservation and weightage norms, intruded into the autonomy of the co-operative societies.
They argued that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, approved by G.O. (MS) No.1/2021/DD dated 19.01.2021, were invalid as they were not notified in the Official Gazette as required by Section 109 of the 1969 Act. The challenge also extended to the delegation of the selection process to an external agency, the Kerala State Productivity Council, and the grant of weightage to dairy farmers and their dependents, which the petitioners claimed was unsupported by statute and made the posts heritable in nature.
The respondents, including the State of Kerala and the Milk Producers’ Union, countered that the petitioners lacked locus standi, the legislative enactment was competent, and the changes were made through a consultative process with the full support of the unions to ensure fairness and transparency.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, along with Advocates N. Anand, Nisha George, Rajesh O.N., Ameer Salim, and Sadiq Nazar, for the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Renjith Tampan, along with Advocates Latha Anand, V.M. Krishnakumar, S. Vishnu, and Jaffar Khan, for the Respondent
