RAMDAS CHOURASIA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWENTY-ONE out of fifty-seven respondents in the writ petition have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed on 26-4-1985 in Misc. Petition No. 305/78 by learned Single Judge of this Court. (Reported in 1986 MPLJ 347)

(2.) BIKAL Bihari Soni, Vijay Kumar Pathak and Mandla Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sangh, Mandla, filed a writ petition challenging the selection of respondents 5 to 57 in the writ petition to the posts of Managers for Tribal Service Co-operative Societies at village level made by the appellant No. 21 in pursuance of instructions issued on 25-2-1978 (Annexure R-2) by Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh. Bikal Bihari Soni was initially joined as respondent No. 1 in this Letters Patent Appeal but his name was struck out. Similarly the names of respondents 7 to 39 in this Letters Patent Appeal were also struck out, though they were parties to the writ petition as respondents. It appears that their names were struck out either because their whereabouts were not known for purposes of service of notice of appeal or because they had given up their employment with the Tribal Service Co-operative Societies (in short "service Societies") affiliated with the Kendriya Bank, Mandla, the appellant No. 21. Bikal Bihari Soni and Vijay Kumar Pathak were also applicants for the post advertised as per advertisement dated 19-3-1978 (Annexure-F), but were not called for interview as they did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for the posts advertised. Respondents 5 to 57 in the writ petition were also applicants for the said posts. They were selected and appointed by Kendriya Bank, Mandla, the appellant No. 21. Being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the respondents 5 to 57 in the writ petition, Bikal Bihari Soni, Vijay Kumar Pathak and Mandla Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sangh filed the said writ petition, challenging the selection and appointment of the respondents 5 to 57 on the ground that they were in violation of the Recruitment Rules. The petition was allowed by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by 21 respondents out of 57 respondents in the writ petition.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellants and for that of the State, we are of the view that the impugned order made by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law. The selection and appointment of the respondents 5 to 57 in the writ petition for the post of Managers were challenged on the ground that they were not in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, known as M. P. Co-operative Central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules which came into force on 1-4-1977. According to the writ petitioners, Rules 10, 22 (iv) and 23 (iii) of the Recruitment Rules are violated. These rules are as follows : Rule 10: