BIRJESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT CANE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these special appeals have been filed by the appellants against the identical judgements of the learned Single Judge, whereby their writ petitions have been dismissed. The main judgment was given by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1450 of 1992, Brijesh Kumar v. The District Cane Officer, Bijnor and others, which has given rise to Special Appeal No. 828 of 1993. Following the main judgment, writ petitions filed by other appellants have also been dismissed. As the main judgment has been challenged in Special Appeal No. 828 of 1993, we have made this appeal as the leading case with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) AS the Co-operative Cane Development Union, Naglna, district Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as the society) was not able to prepare its. account books and registers in time, the District Cane Officer/ASsistant Registrar, Bijnor, vide order dated 30-9-1986, passed under Rule 365 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) posted the appellant in the society in the pay scale of seasonal clerk for getting the account books and registers written up according to the requirements of Secretary of the society. By letter dated 20-6-1988 appellant along with others, who were also posted under Rule 365,, were informed by the Secretary of the society that, their services are no longer required. Appellant has filed a writ petition against the above order dated 20-6-1988, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 5-11-1993, against which this appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, however, has placed reliance on two decisions of two learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19665 of 1989 Rohltashwa Singh v. District Cane Officer and others, decided on 25-9-1991 and writ petition No. NIL of 11993 Yashwant Singh v. District Cane Officer and others, decided on 7-10-1993. In the case of Rohitashwa Singh (Supra) the learned Single Judge has held that as the petitioner therein was appointed as seasonal clerk by the District Cane Officer under Rule 365 his services could not have been terminated by the Secretary of the society who was not his appointing authority. Another learned Single Judge in the case Yashwant Singh (supra) has taken the similar view. These decisions are based on the assumption that appointment to the post of seasonal clerk can be made under Rule 365 by the District Cane Officer/Assistant Registrar. This assumption is unwarranted, because Rule 365 does not contemplate any appointment to any post. It only authorises the Registrar to depute any person for doing a particular work. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh and another v. District Cane Officer, Bijnor and others (Writ petition No. 23303 of 1988) decided on 3-1-1989, while dismissing the writ petition filed against the order of termination of service of the petitioner therein who was appointed under Rule 365, has laid down as under :