Judgment D. P. Wadhawa, C. J. 1. This letters patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated April 27, 1995, whereby writ application of the respondents 4 to 39 was allowed, termination of their services set aside and a direction issued to the appellant to take them into service. It was, however, mentioned that the writ petitioners would not be entitled to any salary for the period from the date their services were terminated which was August 18, 1988, and till their reinstatement. Seven days, time was given to the appellant to take the writ petitioners into service. It would appear that the appellant filed a Special Leave petition in the Supreme Court of India against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge. On May 10, 1995 the Supreme Court extended the time granted by the High Court by ten days for taking the writ petitioners into service and it was observed that in the meantime the appellant might approach the High court by way of Letters Patent appeal and obtain suitable orders, if found due. The Special leave petition was not entertained since it was observed that the appellant had an alternate efficacious remedy. When this appeal came up for admission, it was directed that the reinstatement of the writ petitioners as ordered by the learned single Judge would remain stayed. 2. The respondents (writ petitioners) were appointed to various posts of assistants-cum-cashier, typists and peons by the appellant on August 1, 1988 after the processes of their appointments from the date of advertisement till their examination/interview were completed. As noted above, their services were terminated on August 18, 1988, ostensibly on the ground that they had been employed when there was a ban imposed by the Registrar, Co-operative societies, from making any appointment and further that the appointments had been made in a hurried and improper manner. The writ petitioners, however, were not told any reason why their appointments were being cancelled and they had just received letters telling them that their appointments made on august 1, 1988, were cancelled. The writ petitioners challenged these orders in this Court of the writ application and succeeded. 3. The writ petitioners, however, were not told any reason why their appointments were being cancelled and they had just received letters telling them that their appointments made on august 1, 1988, were cancelled. The writ petitioners challenged these orders in this Court of the writ application and succeeded. 3. Rule 33 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Rules, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) specifies that appointment of a paid employee in any society shall be subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Registrar by general or special order. Since a great deal depends upon this rule, it may be advantageous to quote the same in extenso : "33. Appointment of paid employees.- (1) The appointment of a paid employee in any registered society shall be subject to such conditions as to qualification, designation, scale of pay ana travelling allowances, furnishing of security, compulsory contribution to provident fund, grant of leave, salary, increment, transfer, punishment, suspension, removal or dismissal as may from time to time, be determined by the Registrar by general or special order. (2) A registered society aggrieved by any order of the Registrar under sub-rule (1) may within sixty days of the receipt of such order, prefer an appeal against the order to the State Government and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final. (3) Any appointment made here in-after in contravention of the conditions determined by the Registrar under sub-rule (1)shall be void as if no such appointment over existed and salary and other allowances paid, if any, to such persons shall be recoverable under Sec.40 of the Act. " 4. On May 4, 1988, the registrar, Co-operative Societies, in exercise of his power under rule 33 of the Rules addressed the following communication to the appellant. In fact, it was a general order imposing ban on appointments in all the Cooperative Societies, in exercise of his power under rule 33 of the Rules addressed the following communication to the appellant. In fact, it was a general order imposing ban on appointments in all the Co-operative societies in the State, English translation of which is as under : "from: Shri Ashok Kumar Choudhary registrar, Co-operative Societies, bihar, Patna. To, Managing Director/chief Executive Officer, all Apex Co-operative Institutions, managing Director/executive Officer, all Central Cooperative Institutions/bank. Sub: Ban on appointments in the Cooperative Institutions. To, Managing Director/chief Executive Officer, all Apex Co-operative Institutions, managing Director/executive Officer, all Central Cooperative Institutions/bank. Sub: Ban on appointments in the Cooperative Institutions. Sir, with reference to the above mentioned subject, I have to say that in a few co-operative Institutions. fixation has been made of the strength of posts and the procedure of appointment under rule 33 of the Bihar Co-operative Manual. In spite of this, Co-operative Institutions are making appointments without following the proper procedure on the daily wages basis and without following the prescribed laws. Complaints are coming from time to time in this regard. It is thus very clear that due to non-compliance of the rules of the appointments, improper persons are getting appointed as a consequence of which co-operative institutions have to face various hardships in the smooth running of those institutions and at the same time it results into unnecessary financial burden on them. In the above circumstances, after thorough discussion on it a ban on the appointment is made under Bihar Cooperative societies Manuals Rule No.33 on all Co-operative Institutions (Apex and central) with immediate effect till further order. Here it will be proper to make it clear that if appointments are made in violation of the said order then the Board of Directors, of that very Bank shall be surcharged for the additional financial burden arising out of these appointments. Yours faithfully, ashok Kumar Chaudhary registrar co-operative Societies Bihar, Patna memo No.51112/patna Dt.4th May, 1988. " 5. While this letter imposing ban had been received by the appellant, process for appointments to various posts under the appellant had already begun. On April 23, 1988, an advertisement was given by the appellant in a national daily inviting applications for appointment to the posts of assistant-cum-cashier, typists and peons. The last date for applications to be received by post was May 4, 1988. It will be seen that on this very date the order of the Registrar imposing ban on appointments had been received by the appellant. However, the appellant went on with the process of appointment. But in the meanwhile on July 12, 1988, the appellant received a show-cause notice from the Registrar as to why its managing Committee be not superseded. The appellant was to show cause by July 25, 1988. However, the appellant went on with the process of appointment. But in the meanwhile on July 12, 1988, the appellant received a show-cause notice from the Registrar as to why its managing Committee be not superseded. The appellant was to show cause by July 25, 1988. The ground for supersession mentioned was that since the loan had been advanced to the members of PACS under special rabi drive in the year 1987-88 and contribution towards premium towards insurance of already advanced loan was collected from the members of the PACS to whom the loan was advanced, but the amount of premium thus collected had not been deposited with the General Insurance Company in time with the result that the loanee farmers of those area failed to get the benefit of the Group Insurance Plan. It was mentioned that this fact reflected that the management of the appellant was deeply engrossed in corruption. A reply to the show cause was given. It is, however not necessary for us to go into the merit of the charge levelled except to note that by order dated August 11, 1988, the state Government in exercise of its power under section 41 (6) of the bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the act) superseded the Managing Committee of the appellant with immediate effect and appointed the collector, Madhepura, the Administrator and Joint registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kosi Division, saharsa, as the Additional Administrator for the management of the appellant for six months or till the constitution of the managing committees whichever was earlier. The Administrator was given powers of the Board of Directors of the appellant as conferred by its bye-Laws. A writ petition (C. W. J. C.6813 of 1988) was filed challenging the supersession, but it was not pursued and it was dismissed for non-prosecution on June 24, 1994. 6. After call letters were issued on July 11, 1988 to the candidates who had applied for various posts, written and oral tests were held on july 27, 1988. Thereafter a meeting of the managing Committee of the appellant took place on July 30, 1988, which approved the appointment of the writ petitioners and appointment letters were issued to them on August 1, 1988. The petitioners services were then terminated by the letter on August 18, 1988. They were in the posts of Assistant-cum-Cashier, Typists and peons. Thereafter a meeting of the managing Committee of the appellant took place on July 30, 1988, which approved the appointment of the writ petitioners and appointment letters were issued to them on August 1, 1988. The petitioners services were then terminated by the letter on August 18, 1988. They were in the posts of Assistant-cum-Cashier, Typists and peons. As a matter of fact when appointments were made on the posts of Assistant-cashier. Typists and peon their number respectively was 78, 11 and 18. It was stated before us that other persons similarly situated filed another writ petition (C. W. J. G. No.8810/1988) which was still pending at the admission stage. 7. A meeting of the Administrator (Collector, Madhepura)and the Additional Administrator (Joint Registrar) was held on August 18, 1988, after the Managing Committee of the appellant had been superseded. In the minutes recorded at that meeting it was mentioned that the appointments had been made in contravention of the letter dated May 4, 1988 of the Registrar, co-operative Societies, according to which there was a complete ban on appointments of the staff in all the cooperative institutions in the State and that the decision to make appointments was taken in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the bank held on July 20, 1988, and July 27, 1988, was fixed for examination and interviews of the candidates and that it was not practical to hold written test and oral test on a same date in respect of such large number of candidates and that the candidates, who were living at far off places could not have received the letters for holding of the written test and interview and that thus they were deprived of their right to appear for the same. For these reasons both administrator and the Addl. Administrator were convinced that the prescribed procedure of appointment under the rules and regulations was violated. The decision was therefore taken to cancel the appointments in public interest. 8. Mr. Narendra Prasad for the appellant raised two principal points to challenge the impugned judgment. He said the learned single Judge was wrong in holding that the letter dated May 4, 1988, imposed a ban only on appointment of daily wage workers and that ban did not apply to other posts. 8. Mr. Narendra Prasad for the appellant raised two principal points to challenge the impugned judgment. He said the learned single Judge was wrong in holding that the letter dated May 4, 1988, imposed a ban only on appointment of daily wage workers and that ban did not apply to other posts. He said it was contrary to the plain language of the letter and that the ban was applicable to all posts. The ban was imposed under Rule 33 and was a valid ban on all appointments and any appointment made in contravention thereof was void. And secondly, he said that assuming Rule 33 did not apply, the appointments in any case, were bad as process qf appointments was gone into with rather excessive hurry when the matter of supersession of the Managing Committee of appellant was pending with the Registrar Co-operative Societies which will show that the process of appointment was a sham affair. Mr. Prasad said that the decision to cancel the appointment was valid in the circumstances of the case and it was not necessary to issue any notice to the appointees for cancelling their appointments when a patent fraud was committed in the appointments. 9. In support of his submissions mr. Prasad referred to certain decisions which we may now notice as under: (1) Satish Kumar V/s. State of Bihar, 1989 P. L. J. R.567 (D. B.); (2)Teja Prasad V/s. State of Bihar, 1992 (2) P. L. J. R.568 (D. B.); (3) Krishna yadav V/s. State of Haryana, A. I. R.1994 S. C.2166. 10. In the case of Satish Kumar (supra) the writ application had been filed by the petitioners for quashing an order issued by the Administrator, magadh Central Co-operative Bank ltd. , Gaya, terminating the services of the petitioners on the ground that their appointments were made in contravention of the procedure prescribed by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar. The procedure had been prescribed by the Registrar by two communications dated february 2, 1980 and October 12, 1980. In this case reliance was also placed to Rule 33 to uphold the termination of service of the petitioners. The procedure had been prescribed by the Registrar by two communications dated february 2, 1980 and October 12, 1980. In this case reliance was also placed to Rule 33 to uphold the termination of service of the petitioners. By communication dated February 9, 1980, the Registrar had directed the honorary Secretary and Executive officers of different Co-operative societies to fix up the strength of the employees, qualifications and salary in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee which had been constituted by the State government. It had further directed that the appointments should be made keeping in view the financial condition of each Co-operative society. In the communication dated october 12, 1980, the Registrar impressed the secretary and the other executive Officers of different Cooperative Societies not to make appointments without proper creation of posts keeping in view the financial condition of the Societies and that before creation of posts the approval of the Registrar should be taken. The Court held that the conditions prescribed by the Registrar on appointments by such Societies could be so made and were within the powers of the Registrar conferred on him under Rule 33 and that any such direction was not beyond Rule 33 of the Rules. It was stated that when the Rule vests power in the registrar to prescribe conditions as to qualifications, designation, scale of pay, travelling allowance, grant of leave salary, increment, transfer, punishmetnt, suspension, removal or dismissal, then certainly the Registrar could also direct about creation of posts keeping in view the financial status of the Co-operative Society in question. 11. In the case of Teja Prasad (supra) the Court was considering the validity of notification dated february 9, 1989, issued under section 66-B (2)of the Act, Sec.66b is as under: "66-B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules and byelaws made thereunder, the State government may, from time to lime, by special or general order, determine the nature and number of posts to be created and the mode of recruitment of personnel by cooperative Societies and prescribe among other things- (1) the qualifications, age and experience: (2) the pay scale and other emoluments, (3) the method of recruitment; (4) the condition of service, and (5) the disciplinary procedure to be followed. (2) Any appointment made in contravention of the order of the State government under sub-section (1) shall be void as if no such appointment ever existed and salary and other allowances paid, if any, shall be recoverable under Sec.40. " 12. And the relevant part of the notification dated February 9, 1989, reads as follows: "in exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 66b of the Bihar Co-operative Societies act, 1935, the following mode and method of recruitments is prescribed for recmitment of personnels by the Co-operative Societies: (1) -There" shall be a Selection authority for the recruitments of all grades of the employees of all the State level Cooperative societies. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (i) The Selection Authority shall prepare a panel of personnels to be appointed in the different grades of the State level Co-operative societies: (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the State level co-operative societies or rules made therein, no appointment in any grade from outside the panel shall be valid. " 13. This Court held that the power existed under Sec.66-B with the State Government to issue notification dated February 9, 1989, aforesaid and any appointment in contravention thereto was invalid /and should be set aside without any show-cause notice to the affected candidates, In this case reference was also made to Satish Kumars case. 14. We do not find how these two judgments are applicable in the present case. They are clearly distinguishable. 15. In the case before us the registrar imposed complete ban on all the appointments by issuing the circular dated May 4, 1988, which of course was applicable to all the posts and not merely to daily wagers. A bare reading of the Rule 33 would show that it does not empower the registrar to put a complete ban on all the appointments. The Circular dated May 4, 1988 is of general nature and states that under Rule 33 some Cooperative Societies have fixed strength of posts and the procedure for the appointment but in spite of that some Co-operative societies make appointments on daily wage basis and without following the proper procedure and the prescribed rules. The Circular dated May 4, 1988 is of general nature and states that under Rule 33 some Cooperative Societies have fixed strength of posts and the procedure for the appointment but in spite of that some Co-operative societies make appointments on daily wage basis and without following the proper procedure and the prescribed rules. It is then mentioned that due to non-compliance of the Rules of appointments wrong persons are being appointed and as a result there to Coperative Societies are facing very hardship in their smooth running and that at the same time it results into an unnecessary financial burden on them. In these circumstances, it was stated that ban on appointments was made on all the posts under Rule 33 on all Cooperative Societies with immediate effect. Such circular would appear to be invalid as Rule 33 does not empower the Registrar to put a ban on the appointment particularly where strength of posts has been fixed and procedure also prescribed. We may refer to an earlier circular dated january 16, 1988, issued by the registrar Co-operative Societies prescribing certain qualifications for different posts, their sanctioned strength with scale of pay in the central Co-operative Banks as also procedure of appointment and promotion. It is nobodys case that appointments of the writ petitioners has been made outside the sanctioned strength or prescribed procedure was not followed. The argument was that the exercise of power by the outgoing Managing Committee in appointing the petitioners was a fraud on its powers which made all the appointments invalid. It is an admitted case that there was no pleading of fraud but fraud has to be pleaded and proved. It was contended by the writ petitioners that the vacancies of the posts were advertised and they were tested, interviewed and thereafter selection was made. Before passing the order terminating the services of the petitioner no inquiry was held. Only a presumption was sought to be raised that written test and interviews of so many candidates could not have been held on a single day but then we find that the Additional collector at the instance of the Administrator (i. e. The Collector)visited the place where test and interviews were being held. He did state in his report that at the time of his inspection on July 27, 1988, interviews of the candidates were being held. He did state in his report that at the time of his inspection on July 27, 1988, interviews of the candidates were being held. It was also not the case of the appellant that any candidate who had been selected to any post was in any way related to any of the members of the Managing Committee or that any extraneous consideration was exercised in the selection of the candidates. 16. In Krishan Yadav case the supreme Court cancelled the appointments of as many as 100 persons to the posts of Taxation inspectors in Excises and Taxation department of the State of Haryana. When various allegations had been made against the selection of the candidates the Supreme Court directed the C. B. I. to make investigation of the case and submit its report. After the report had been received it was found as to how there was concerted fraud to appoint the candidates. The Court noticed the parity and had held that the authority had played truant with the fate of many candidates. There were overwritings and interpolation in the selection list and that persons who did not attend the interview had been awarded marks. Forgery had been committed. There were several cases where the persons who took the viva voce had been declared absent in the final selection list, political influence had a free hand. In the circumstances, the Court set aside the entire selection. But we are afraid that is not a case here before us. Merely because a large number of candidates had been called for written test and then interviews held all in one single day would not lead invariably to a conclusion that there had been a fraud on the power vested with the Managing Committee. Here we are concerned with the cancellation of appointments and suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. We all know these days jobs are hard to, come by. There should at least exist sufficient material to hold that a fraud has been perpetrated though proof required may not be of that high standard as in a criminal case. Admittedly no inquiry had been held before terminating the services of the petitioners. This cannot be legal. It is an arbitrary exercise of power. 17. There should at least exist sufficient material to hold that a fraud has been perpetrated though proof required may not be of that high standard as in a criminal case. Admittedly no inquiry had been held before terminating the services of the petitioners. This cannot be legal. It is an arbitrary exercise of power. 17. In the circumstances, we, therefore, hold that the Registrar, co-operative Societies, Bihar, had no authority to put a complete ban on the appointments in the appellant under rule 33 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules and further that the appointments of the petitioners were validly made. We uphold the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ application though on a different ground. The writ petitioners shall be reinstated within 15 days from the date of this order though as directed by the learned single Judge they would not be entitled to any salary till the time of reinstatement. 18. This appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.2,000/-. Appeal dismissed.