GUMMADI TATAYYA CHOWDARY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Guntur District Co-operative Motor Transport Society for Ex-servicemen, Ltd. , Guntur, retrenching the post of a manager, dated 4 October 1951. The abovesaid society was started to promote the economic interests of the members of the society and to find suitable and profitable employment for them by running motor transport service. The first board of directors was nominated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under by-law 19 (c) of the by-law of the society. These directors appointed the petitioner as the manager on 30 December 1948 and he joined service on 6 January 1949. As the cost of running the society was mounting up, the board of directors decided to abolish some posts including that of the manager, as recommended by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in his Memorandum No. 6964 of 1950/b-1, dated 3 February 1951. The matter was examined at some length by one of the directors, who submitted his report to the board of directors. The board thought that the posts mentioned in the counter-affidavit should be abolished resulting in an economy of Rs. 611-8-0 per month. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an arbitration suit under S. 51 (1) (c) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act before the Deputy Registrar requesting that the resolution of the society, dated 3 October 1951, dispensing with his services be declared illegal and void and to direct the society to reinstate him. After an enquiry into the matter and after examining a number of witnesses, the Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that the resolution of the board of directors could not in any way be attacked and dismissed the suit. Though S. 57 of the Madras Co-operative Societies the petitioner filed a revision petition to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (sic), the petitioner filed a revision petition to the Government on 30 July 1954, long after the time for preferring a revision against the order, dated 20 November 1953 had expired. The Government rejected the petition and confirmed the decision of the Deputy Registrar. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed this petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that his post should not have been abolished, that the board could as well have thought of abolishing some other post, that the directors had no jurisdiction at all to terminate his services and that the action of the directors is opposed to by-laws of the society. Apart from the question of jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with a matter of this kind under Art. 226 of the constitution, there are absolutely no merits in this petition. It is futile to contend that the board of directors which appointed the petitioner, has no jurisdiction to terminate his services. It is surely within the competence of the authority which appoints a person to terminate his services. It should also be remembered that this measure was taken only in the interest of the society and in order to effect economy in the running of the concern. It is unnecessary for us to go into the other allegations in the counter-affidavit which show that the petitioner was unsuited to hold the post.

(2.) THIS matter received the close attention of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies who, after examining the witnesses who could throw any light on the matter and other material, finally reached the decision that there was neither any illegality nor any injustice done to the petitioner. The question whether it is the post of the manager or the accountant or anything else that should be abolished is a matter for the department concerned to decide and it is not for this Court to substitute its judgment in regard to the matter.

(3.) THERE is another weighty reason why this petition should be rejected. Assuming that there is any force in the contention that any by-laws have been contravened, those by-laws cannot be said to have the same force as the statutory rules, the violation of which can furnish a ground for moving this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution. These by-laws are made for the convenient running of a society and any alleged infringement of any of them cannot furnish a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution. Quite apart from that the petitioner was removed as far back as 4 October 1951 and the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies dismissing his suit was passed in 1953. As already observed, this is not a fit case in which the jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the constitution will be exercised. We do not wish to say anything further in the matter except to observe that the petition is a frivolous one. The petition is dismissed with cost. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 100.