KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the employees of respondent No. 4. They were appointed Secretaries under Rule 9.3(1) (4), of the Haryana State Central Co-operative 'Banks' Staff Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). It is averred in the petition that on 17.5.1985 almost all the Directors including the so called Government nominee came present and took a decision to authorise the Managing Director of the Bank to make appointments under Rule 9.3 of the Rules. It appears that all the petitioners joined the service in the first week of June, 1985.

(2.) It is further averred that when another meeting of the Board of Director of the Bank was held on 27.7.1985, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal recorded a note of dissent, that he was not in favour of authorising the Managing Director of the Bank and the appointment made by him vide order dated 1.6.1985 were not in accordance with law. It, seems that this meeting of 27.7.1985 had been called to confirm the proceedings of the earlier meeting. As a note of dissent had been put by the Assistant Re istra, the matter was referred to the Government. On consideration of the matter, the Government accepted the note of dissent recorded by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies and a communication in, that, respect was sent to respondent No. 4 by the Registrar, copy which has been attached with the petition as Annexure P. 5. On receipt of this communication meeting of the Board of Directors was convened on 11.11.1985 in which a resolution was passed terminating the services of the petitioners who had been appointed by the Managing Directors on 1.6.1985. The petitioners are the Secretaries whose services have been terminated and they have challenged the legality of the orders, Annexures P.5, P.6 and P. 7 i.e. the communication sent by the Registrar and the subsequent proceedings taken by respondent No. 4, through this petition on the grounds stated in para 13 of the writ petition.

(3.) In obediance to the notice of motion issued, separate written statement have been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.