ROMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 2753 of 1975, C.W.P. No. 2885 of 1975 and C.W.P. No. 2884 of 1975. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy, the facts of C.W.P. No. 2753 of 1975 are given in detail.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Hissar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Hissar, on 14th of March, 1973 on ad hoc basis after he had been selected by the Administrative Committee of the said Bank. According to the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner (vide Annexure P/2) his appointment was provisional and subject to the relaxation of the condition of 2nd Division Matriculate by the Registrar. The Bank wrote to the Registrar, recommending relaxation of the condition regarding qualification on 26th of February, 1974 (vide Annexure P/4). As the relaxation was not agreed to, the service of the petitioner was terminated by the Board of Directors of the Bank in their meeting held on 6th May, 1975, and the same was conveyed to the petitioner by a letter from the Manager of the Bank on 13th of May, 1975 (Annexure P/3). In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged this decision of the Board of Directors, terminating his services. In the prayer made in the writ petition, decision of the Registrar refusing to give relaxation has also been challenged.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arya Vidya Sabha, Kashi and another v. Kishan Kumar Srivastva and another, 1976 AIR(SC) 1073, the writ petition is not maintainable against any decision of the Cooperative Society as such a Society is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, there is no option but to uphold the impugned order. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner was taken by the Board of Directors because the latter had no option in view of the fact that the Registrar refused to give accord to relaxation of educational qualification. This fact cannot make any material difference so far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned. The employees of the Cooperative Societies (in the present case the Bank) are to be appointed by the Societies, however, subject to the rules, and the decision to terminate the services of their employees also is to be taken by the society concerned. The Society as employer is bound to follow the rules. The mere fact that the Registrar, under the rules, had been given the power to make relaxation of certain conditions of employment does not bring about any material difference in the powers of the employer. Besides, even on merits, there is not much substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the Registrar in refusing to give relaxation in the case of the petitioner was arbitrary and discriminatory because the Registrar had given relaxation is at the most a concession which may be exercised by the Registrar in some appropriate cases. If this concession is refused to the petitioner, he cannot claim the same as a matter of right.