RAMLAL Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOC M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners in this case are employees of District Co-operative Central Bank, Narsinghpur which is the registered Society under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. They were appointed to officiate on the posts of Junior Assistant pending regular selection and appointment to the said posts. The officiating appointment was made on 16-12-1980 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners claim in this petition the relief of their regular promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 representing the Bank have filed the return selt ing that Advertisement to fill by direct recruitment the posts of Junior Assistants was issued on 5-4-1983 (Annexure D-1). Pursuant to that Advertisement vide application (Annexure D-2), the petitioners prayed for regularization of their services on the post of Junior Assistant. According to the Bank, the post was to be filled up by the mode direct recruitment and through or process of selection. The petitioners were called for interview as disclosed from the list of candidates (Annexure D-4. which includes the names of the petitioners. The case of the Bank is that the petitioners were throughout making a demand that they be regularized and promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. They never expressed willingness to face the selection or appear in the interview. A rejoinder to the petition has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that they were never afforded any opportunity to appear in the interview held for selection to the posts of Junior Assistant.

(2.) We have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners as also for the Bank and find that there is no substance in this petition. Recruitment to the services in the Bank are regulated, at the relevant time by the rules known as M. P. District Co-operative Central Bank Employees Service Rules, which were framed under Section 55 (1) of the Act, Rule 24 of the said rule contained a schedule showing the prescribed mode of recruitment to various posts in the Bank and proportions in which they are to be filled by promotion or direct recruitment. It is not disputed that the petitioners were working in Class V post and the post to which appointment is claimed, i. e., of Junior Assistant is a post in Class IV. In the schedule appended to Rule 24 of the Rules Class IV Posts are to be filled 100 per cent by the mode of direct recruitment. The petitioner were only officiating on the posts of Junior Assistant pending regular appointment to the said post. The post were advertised on 6-4-1983 and mention of that advertisement has also been made in the application made by the petitioners on 9-4-1983 (Annexure D-2) seeking appointment. The petitioners did not express their willingness to face the selection but only requested for being regularised or promoted to the said post. The petitioners cannot be believed that they were not aware of the date of interview and that one of the petitioners on the date of interview, was sent out of station for the Bank work. In fact, if the petitioners were really eager to face the selection they could have requsted the Bank that they should be allowed to appear in the interview. From the contents of the application (Annexure D-2) made by the petitioners and the averments made in the main petition, it is clear that the petitioners never wanted to face selection for the posts but they were throughout claiming right of regularisation or promotion to the said post. As has been pointed out above, the prescribed mode of appointment to the post of Junior Assistant Class in IV is only by direct appointment. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted a relief of being promoted to the said posts. The petitioners cannot legitimately make any grievance that they were deprived of the opportunity to face the selection and interview for the posts. In our opinion, the petitioners had the knowledge of the advertisement i sused for recruitment for the post but they never availed the opportunity to compete for the posts alongwith other candidates.

(3.) The petition is, therefore, without any substance and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. Security amount deposited by the petitioners be refunded to them. Petition dismissed.