DILIP SINGH Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order (telegram) dated 5.4.1991 (Annex. 29) may be quashed and the respondents may be directed not to terminate the services of the petitioners from the Bank.

(2.) ALL these petitioners were working as employees of the Railway Shramik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Bikaner. Their services were terminated by the telegram issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jaipur. Therefore, the petitioners have challenged this by filing this joint writ petition. It is submitted that in pursuance of the award given by the Labour Court, Bikaner dated 15.1.1990 that the strength of the staff in the Bank be increased looking to the work load of the Bank. An advertisement was issued in the news -paper dated 6.2.1991 inviting applications for the posts of L.D. Cs. and Class IV servants. The last date for submission of the application forms was 15.2.1991. The total posts of L.D. Cs. and Class IV servants were 14. In pursuance of this advertisement the respondent No. 2 issued interview call -letters dated 27.2.1991 and in pursuance of the interview calls the petitioners and other persons who applied for the respective posts appeared for selection to the posts applied for. In pursuance of the selection the appointment orders were issued on 18.3.1991 and the petitioners were asked to join their duties on 26.3.1991 and they accordingly joined their duties. Thereafter, on 5.4.1991 a telegram was issued to the Bank by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies cancelling the appointments, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 29. Therefore, the petitioners immediately rushed to this Court against this telegram by filing this joint writ petition. It is further submitted that though the termination orders have not been issued but their services are likely to be terminated in pursuance of the aforesaid telegram.

(3.) THIS fact was deliberately concealed by Shri Sukh Dev Bhati while filing the reply. It is further alleged that all the persons who were appointed on 18.3.1991 were close relatives of the Directors of the Bank. It is submitted that petitioner No. 2 Dharmendra Kumar was the real nephew of Anandraj, Director of the Bank. Petitioner No. 13 is the son of Director Shri Poonamchand and petitioner No. 6 Sanjay Kumar Patpatiya is the real brother of Director Shri Dilip Patpatiya. Similarly, petitioner No. 12 Panna Ram is the brother -in -law of Director Shri Heeralal Dagla. It is further submitted that the Job Analyst Shri Ranjit Singh Yadav also got managed to get his son appointed in the Bank. The petitioner No. 9 Devendra Kumar Yadav is the son of Shri Ranjit Singh Yadav. Therefore, it is submitted that all these facts were not deliberately brought to the notice of this Court by the Secretary as such it was prayed that the respondents may be permitted to withdraw that reply and the fresh reply filed on behalf the respondents No. 2 and 3 may be taken on record.