RAM AVTAR AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioners applied for the posts of Cashiers in the Mohindergarh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Mohindergarh, respondent No. 3. An advertisement for the posts of Cashiers was made by the respondent bank. In the said advertisement the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Cashier were mentioned, which are as follows :

(2.) The petitioners admittedly did not have one year's experience at the relevant time, but inspite of this the Administrator of the respondent-Bank vide resolution No. 2 dated 30th December, 1971 copy of which is Annexure R-I with the return appointed the petitioners against the posts of Cashier. It is also clear that an order relaxing the qualification of one year's experience was also not passed by the Administrator while making the appointments. As is clear from paragraph 4 of the return filed on behalf of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on a complaint having been received by him that certain appointments made by the Administrator of the respondent-Bank were not in accordance with law, he went into the matter and set aside the appointment of the petitioners. The petitioners though on probation, were given one month's notice and their services were terminated.

(3.) It is also not disputed that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in pursuance of the powers vested in him under Rules 28 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Rules, had prescribed the qualifications for the post of Cashier as 'atleast Matric Second Division or Graduate'. It has been contended by Mr. Gian Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners fulfilled these qualifications which were prescribed by the Registrar and since one year's experience qualification was not prescribed by the Registrar, therefore, they were qualified to be appointed. There is no merit in this contention. Admittedly, when the posts were advertised, qualification of one year's experience was also mentioned as one of the qualifications. The candidates who were otherwise qualified but had no experience of one year's service, therefore, could not apply as they were considered not to be qualified for the post. The Registrar on having received the complaints against the appointments, went into the matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not fulfil the qualification as were advertised. In a situation like this if other qualified persons are debarred from being considered in view of the advertisement mentioning the qualification which is sought to be relaxed in the case of candidates selected, provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India shall stand contravened. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Shri Kuldip Chand v. The Union of India and others,1970 SLR 406 took a similar view. In the present case the Registrar had received the complaints as is mentioned in the return and that it was in pursuance the complaints that he set aside the selection of the petitioners.