SHIV LAL SOLANKI Vs. JALORE CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions identical question arises for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by one single Judgment. For the convenience sake facts of one case are given. The petitioner Shiv Lal Solanki, applied for the post of Clerk/Cashier in pursuance of advertisement issued by the Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalore, (here in after referred as the respondent Bank). It is alleged that the petitioner was interviewed and he was selected for the post of Clerk/Cashier. Thereafter Executive Committee of the respondent Bank approved appointment of the petitioner and issued order Exbt. 1 dated 28th December, 1981. Thereafter a seniority List was also assigned vide order dated 13th October, 1983 (Annexure -A). It is alleged that on 14th August, 1982 petitioner's services were also terminated vide Annexure -2, but on very day the Chairman of the Bank cancelled the termination order and restored the petitioner back to his post. Since then he continued on the post till this impugned order was passed. It is alleged that a communication dated 29th May, 1985 was received from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, respondent No. 2 by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank purporting to have been issued under Sub -section (7) of Section 70 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act (here in after referred as the Act) after holding enquiry wherein it is found that the appointment of petitioner and other persons similarly situated was irregular and therefore the: services of the such irregular appointeess should be terminated. In pursuance of the order dated 29th May, 1985 order dated 4th July, 1985 has been issued whereby a notice has been given to the petitioner informing the petitioner that after expiry of one month period his services will be deemed to have been terminated as his appointment on the post was irregular. Aggrieved against this the petitioner made representation to the respondent No. 2. However the petitioner has also filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid notice.

(2.) THE respondent Bank has filed reply and taken the position that appointments of all these persons was in violation of the procedure laid down by the respondent No. 2, therefore the appointments of these persons was void ab initio and petitioner cannot avail benefit therefrom. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966(here in after referred as the Rules) Under Rule 41a power has been given to the Registrar to lay down the procedure for recruitment in all over the Banks in Rajasthan. A detailed procedure is contained in Annexure R/6. According to the procedure laid down by the Registrar a selection shall be made by a committee consisting of 4 members and the minimum quorum for transacting the business has been provided as three. The members of the Committee are as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent Bank Mr. Bhoot has raised preliminary objection that since the petitioner wants to invoke Section 25F of the Act of 1947, he should be asked to approach the Industrial Tribunal under the Act of 1947 and in this connection he has cited the case of Bhanwar Lal v. RSRTC and Ors. 1984 RLR 619.