RAJNEESH KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Petitioners Rajneesh Kumar, Smt. Sunita and Smt. Uma Joshi have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "a. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 9-12-2002 passed by Re spondent No. 1 and the conse quential orders dated 11-12-2002 passed by Respondent No. 2. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the Respondents to grant all consequential service benefits including arrears of sal ary and seniority to the Petition ers. C. To issue any other suitable writ, ' order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. D. To award the cost of the writ pe tition in favour of the Petitioners. "

(2.) THE petitioners, in substance, are challenging the order dated 09-12-2002 (Annexure No. 12), whereby their ap pointments were cancelled and the con sequential orders dated 11-12-2002 (Annexures Nos. 13,14 and 15) relieving them from their duties.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit of re spondent No. 1, it is stated that permis sion from this respondent was obtained without disclosing that the petitioners were appointed against the Rules, Regu lations and Government Orders regard ing appointments in the Cooperative Banks and without following the pre scribed procedure. The Registrar has jus tified his order (Annexure No. 12), whereby petitioners' appointments were cancelled on the ground that as soon as it came to his notice that the Manage ment Committee of the District Coop erative Bank appointed the petitioners against the Rules and Government Or ders and without advertising the vacancies in daily news papers and inviting applications from other aspirants, the petitioners could not have been allowed to continue in service. The relevant aver ments are contained in paras 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit, which read as follows : "10. That in reply to the contents of para nos. 10 and 11 of the petition it is submitted that though the permis sion to appointment the employees was given by the respondent but the permission is always granted as per Rules and granting the permission does not mean that the Bank would made appointment violating the Rules and moreover the committee of management keeping, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in dark regard ing the mode of appointment of the petitioners took approval to regular ize the petitioners. That when the re spondent came to know about the mode of appointment of the petition ers he issued a notice to District Co operative Bank, Haridwar to cancel the appointment of the employees. 12. That in reply to the contents of para no. 14 of the writ petition it is stated that it is wrong to state that Board of Directors is the final author ity in the Bank to take policy deci sion and also to make appointments. IN this regard, it is submitted that the respondent has given approval to the District Cooperative Bank, Haridwar for appointing three class III employ ees on ad hoc basis. Further, it is stated that the Management of Dis trict Cooperative Bank flouted laid down norms and guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court for appoint ment which were widely circulated by U. P Cooperative INstitutional Board by its order no. C-6-37 dated 14-08-97, copy whereof is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE NO. CA1 to this counter affidavit by which the appointment in all the banking cadres must be made through advertisement in a daily newspaper. Despite the knowledge of the aforementioned order the commit tee of management flouted the laid down Rules and accordingly when the respondent came to know about the wrong procedure adopted by the com mittee of management he at once cancelled the appointment of employ ees through its order 673/vibhe/ 2002 dated 9-12-2002. The copy of said order is annexed as ANNEXURE NO. 12 to this petition. "