JASVIR SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOC PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Elections to the Board of Directors (for short, 'the Committee') of the Bhatinda Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Bhatinda (hereinafter called' the Bank') were held on August 13, 1983. The newly elected members of the Committee held their first meeting on October 4, 1983 and co-opted some members as required under the Bye-law of the Bank. Thereafter, another meeting of the Committee was held on October 20, 1983 to elect the office bearers. Term of the Committee according to Section 26 (1-B) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Bye-law 32 of the Bank is three years. It could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioners that the period of three years as held in two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Kartar Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1989 PLJ 58 and The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and .Marketing Federation Limited Sector 17, Chandigarh v. The Additional Registrar (Industrial) Co-operative Societies, Punjab. Chandigarh and others. 1984 (2) SLR 217, was to commence from the date of election of the Committee. The date of election of the Committee in the instant case being August 13, 1983. its term expired on August 12, 1986.

(2.) In a meeting held on August 12, 1986, the Committee adopted the new starring pattern as a result of which some posts were created including five of junior clerks. The Managing Director of the Bank was authorised by the Committee to fill up those vacancies according to law. A copy of the proceedings of this meeting has been appended as Annexure P-11 with the writ petition. On August 26, 19P6, 12 persons were promoted as senior accountants and soon thereafter 11 junior clerks were promoted as senior clerks with the result that a total of 16 posts of junior clerks became vacant. An advertisement was issued in the press on August 31, 1986 inviting applications for 16 posts of junior clerks and for some other posts. The petitioners and many others filed their applications. After sorting out the applications, the Managing Director invited as many as 3700 candidates for interview. A selection committee was constituted in terms of the instructions issued by the Registrar, which had amongst others the Registrar's nominee, one representative of the Punjab State Co-operative Bank, Managing Director of the Bank, Chairman of the Bank, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhatinda and three elected Directors of the Bank. The interviews were held from October 4, 1986. The Registrar's nominee and that of the Punjab State Co-operative Bank did not participate in the selection process. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhatinda, as a member of the selection committee participated only on October 1, 1986 and thereafter absented himself. It is stated that since the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhatinda was interfering in the day to day working of the Bank, the then Managing Director filed a civil suit on September 12, 1986 in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda for a permanent injuncion seeking to restrain the Deputy Registrar from such interference. A temporary injunction was granted and the selections which were going on for recruitment to the posts of junior clerks were allowed to continue but the selection committee was directed not to declare the result. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar filed an application for the vacation of the exparte injunction which was dismissed on October 15, 1986 and the interim order as passed earlier was modified and the selection committee was allowed to declare the result which had been withheld. Accordingly, the result of the selection was declared on October 16, 1986 and the petitioners were selected as junior clerks and were issued letters of appointment. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners were not allowed to join duty in terms of the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar as per his letter dated October 6, 1986 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. To complete the narration of facts, it is relevant to point out thai on September 22, )986, the State Government appointed the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhatinda as the Managing Director of the Bank under Section 26 (2) of the Act and on September 25, 1986 he issued a notice to the previous Managing Director to the effect that the letter was not competent to convene meetings of the selection committee for the selection of candidates for the posts advertised earlier. Against this order of the Deputy Registrar, the then Managing Director of the Bank filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5252 of 3986 in this Court and the operation of this letter was stayed on September 29, 1986 with the result that the Managing Director of the Bank continued functioning. According to the Committee, its term had commenced w. e. f. October 20, 1 83 when office bearers were elected and the same was to expire on October 19, 1986. Accordingly, the civil suit filed by the Managing Director was then withdrawn on October 20, 1986 presumably because the term, according to committee, had come to an end. Similarly, the writ petition filed by the Managing Director was also not pressed and consequently the same was dismissed on .November 10, 1986. As already observed earlier, the petitioners who were selected as junior clerks but were not allowed to join because of the directions issued by the Deputy Registrar have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action as being without jurisdiction.

(3.) At this stage, let me dispose of a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the contesting respondents. It is contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the same is not maintainable against the Bank which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Act. 1 need not go into the merits of this objection as, admittedly, in the present petition it is the action of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhatinda who is a government functionary, which has been impugned and if he had no authority or jurisdiction, as contended by the petitioners, to issue the impugned directions, a writ can certainly be issued quashing the same. The preliminary objection is, thus, misconceived and stands repelled,