BIKAL BIHARI SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners No. 1 and 2 were the candidates for selection for appointment as Manager pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure 'F') and were not found qualified for the purpose. They feel aggriev, ed by the selection and appointment of respondents 5 to 57 as Managers and challenge the legality thereof in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner No. 3 claims to be a registered Trade Union representing the employees of respondent No. 3 and challenges the process of selection and appointment of Managers including respondents 3 to 57 in its representative capacity.

(2.) Facts of the case are within a very narrow campus and are as under : Respondent No. 3 is a Central Co-operative Bank registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and employs several persons for purposes of its business. The terms and conditions of its employees are governed by statutory Rules framed by the respondent Registrar under Section 55 (1) of the Act. The Rules are known as the M. P. Co-operative Central Bank Employees Services Rules, 1977 and were brought into force on 1-4-1977. The membership of the respondent-Bank consists of individuals as also registered primary co-operative societies at village level. The Managers under reference are tbe persons appointed to manage the affairs of these primary societies. These primary societies are separately registered under the Act and have their own Managing Committee to look after their work. The respondent-Bank advances loan to these societies who on their turn distribute the amounts to their individual members. Since most of these societies in so far as Mandi District is concerned deal with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in backward areas. They are known as 'Adimjati Sewa Sahkari Samiti. Since these Societies are affiliated to the respondent-Bank, respondent-Bank has been directed by the respondent-Registrar to select and appoint Managers for them and see that their financial interest are completely safeguarded in this manner. The employees working for these primary societies draw their salary from a "pool fund", as maintained by the respondent-Bank and created by annual contributions made to it by each member Society, the respondent-Bank and the State Government. It is not disputed that in case the Managers are also held to be the employees of the respondent-Bank their appointment would also be governed by the Rules. The case of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, however, is that these Managers, though appointed by the respondent-Bank, are really the employees of the Individual Co-operative Societies and hence the Rules do not apply to their selection and appointment. From the return filed by the respondents State Government it appears that the question of recruitment of Managers for Adhim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samities was considered by the Cabinet SubCommittee for Tribal Sub-Plan in its meeting dated 13-8-1976 when it was decided that recruitment and training of Managers of these Societies should be controlled and co-ordinated by the respondent-Registrar. It appears that another State level committee considered the question of qualification of Managers and Managing Directors to ba appointed in these Societies in its meeting dated 10-10-1976 and not only their pay scale but also their qualification, experience and mode of recruitment also fixed. A perusal of the minutes of this meeting (Annexure R-3) does not however indicate that this committee considered the matter in the context of the provisions of the Act or the Rules.

(3.) It further appears that in pursuance to the decision taken in the meeting dated 10-10-1976, an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of persons against these posts was issued by the M.P. State Co-operative Central Bank, (Annexure R-4) and appointments were made against the post of Managers. It is the case of the respondent-State that inspite of the aforesaid recruitment by the M. P. State Co-operative Bank, some posts of Managers remained vacant and hence the respondent-Registrar issued instructions to yarious Banks on 25-2-1978 (Annexure R-2) to fill those vacancies by issuing advertisement and making selection in accordance with instructions contained therein. These instructions are said to have been issued under Section 55 (1) of the Act, and were binding upon the respondent-Bank. In pursuance to these instructions, the respondent-Bank selected and appointed respondents 5 to 57. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 also applied for these appointments but they were found ineligible to be called for interview, as according to the respondents, they do not fulfil the requisite 7 years service experience requirement on 1-11-1976.