NANURAM YADAV Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 1.8.1997 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 1 and order dated 27.10,1997 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated and further to declare Rule 61 of the Staff Service Rules (for short 'the Rules') of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit (for short 'the Bank') as unconstitutional being unconscionable, arbitrary and unreasonable thereby inviting the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to place any reliance on the report submitted by the Lokayukta dated 28.1.1997, the same being untenable and unsustainable and to affirm the order dated 4.2.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the M.P. State Co- operative Tribunal as justified to the extent it has set aside the order dated 21.7.1994 passed by the Additional Registrar for adjudication as the same was neither the warrant nor the imperative and as a natural corollary, to issue appropriate writ to the respondent No. 3 Bank to allow the petitioners to continue in their posts till they are validly terminated. The requisite facts:

(2.) THE respondent No. 3 Bank is duly registered and incorporated under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners were working on the posts of Clerk-cum-Typist which is a class V post in the administrative set up of the Bank. They had at various points of time applied for the posts of Clerk-cum-Typist. The Commissioner Co-operative-cum- Registrar Co-operative Societies, Madhya Pradesh had sanctioned 60 posts of Clerk-cum-Typist respectively on 11.11.1994 and 29.6.1994. As pleaded, the petitioners were duly selected under Rule 3 (a) (v) of the Staff Service Rules, 1976 Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit as Clerk-cum-Typist against the aforesaid sanctioned vacant posts on ad hoc basis for a period of six months vide order dated 31.1.1995 as contained in Annexure P-5. On 2.7.1995, after expiry of six months, as envisaged under Rule 22 (a), the petitioners were required to appear in the written examination so that they could be appointed for a period of one year as Probationers. The petitioners took the written examination on the said date and became successful. The petitioners were required by the Bank to face interview on 20th July, 1995 by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee recommended the names of the petitioners for appointment on regular basis. An order passed in respect of one Nanuram Yadav has been brought on record as Annexure P-6. On 29.7.1995, the petitioners were asked by the respondent Bank to furnish service- cum- security bond for a period of three years with a deposit of Rs.5,000/- security in the form of FDR's. The said condition was complied with by the petitioners.

(3.) IT is evincible, as set forth, the Co-operative Workers' Federation filed a complaint before the Lokayukta about the illegal appointments which was taken cognizance of by the Lokayukta who proceeded to investigate into the matter. It is contended that the said authority usurped jurisdiction and proceeded to conduct an enquiry without issuing notice to the petitioners and eventually submitted a report incorporating certain findings which had no base and no foundation, but the said report motivated the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to issue the letter dated 1.8.1997 requiring the Managing Director of the Bank to terminate the services of the petitioners under the Staff Service Rules. The Managing Director of the Bank did not apply his mind to the facts situation as well as to the status earned by the petitioners and passed the order of termination in an extremely capricious manner.