JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C. J.—This petition has been filed against a order passed by the Joint Registrar (Audit), Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on September 19, 1992 in appeal preferred by Smt. Latesh Behl, Accountant v. Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mandi. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Co-operative Society registered under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was employed as a Clerk on and with effect from March 4, 1974. Her appointment was approved by the District Co-operative Supplies Officer exercising powers of Registrar. One Bhup Singh was also appointed as a Clerk on and with effect from December 23, 1973 on daily wages basis and his appointment was approved by a resolution dated January 22, 1974 on regular basis. He was regularly appointed on April 3, 1974. Bhup Singh was thereafter promoted vide an order dated September 7, 1981 as Accountant cum Assistant Manager with effect from September 6, 1981 though he was not possessing essential educational qualifications and, therefore, was not eligible. It was also the contention of respondent No. 2 that Bhup Singh was junior to her and ignoring her legitimate claim, he could not have, been promoted before her. The action of the society of promoting Bhup Singh ignoring the claim of the applicant (respondent No. 2 herein) was illegal and contrary to law. She, therefore, made a representation dated May 13, 1988 to the Chairman of the petitioner Bank received on May 14, 1988, but nothing was done by him. She, therefore, filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Mandi under Section 93 of the Act read with Rule 22 of the Service Rules for the Employees of Mandi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. for seeking justice. 3. The Joint Registrar, before whom matter was placed for hearing, several objections were raised by the Society-present petitioner. It was contended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 93 of the Act, no appeal would lie as the appeal would be maintainable only against the orders specified in Section 93 of the Act and no such order was produced which could be made subject matter of appeal under the said provision. It was also contended that certain averments and allegations were made by the appellant against Bhup Singh. It was also contended that certain averments and allegations were made by the appellant against Bhup Singh. Bhup Singh was, therefore, necessary party and he ought to have been joined as respondent. Since he was not joined as respondent, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on that ground. On merits also, the action was sought to be defended by the Society and it was contended that the action taken by the petitioner was in accordance with law. 4. The appellate authority framed following issues : (i) Whether the Appellant (Smt. Latesh Behl) is senior to Sh. Bhup Singh as Clerk-cum-Cashier. (ii) Whether Shri Bhup Singh has been rightly promoted as Accountant/Assistant Manager as per services Rules of the bank vide resolution dated 6.9.1981. (iii) Whether Sh. Bhup Singh is a necessary party to this appeal, (iv) Whether the appeal is barred by delay and latches, (v) Relief. 5. The findings which were recorded on these issues are as under: (i) Smt. Latesh Behl is senior to Sh. Bhup Singh as Clerk-cum-Cashier. (ii) No. (iii) No. (iv) No. (v) The appeal succeeds and the appellant is entitled to the same pay scale status which has been granted from time to time to Sh. Bhup Singh, Accountant/Assistant Manager. 6. The appellate authority held that since initial appointment of the appellant as Clerk was on March 4, 1974, whereas, the appointment of Bhup Singh was on April 3, 1974, the appellant could be said to be senior to Bhup Singh. The appellate authority, hence, observed that "in view of her earlier joining of this post" that is, the post of Clerk, she became senior to Sh. Bhup Singh. 7. Regarding promotion of Bhup Singh also, the appellate authority observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Bhup Singh could not have promoted ignoring the right of the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances as also dealing with the action of the petitioner-society the appellate authority observed: “.....The appointment of Bhup Singh as Accountant/Assistant Manager is thus illegal, void-ab-initio as it has been done in violation of the services rules and that no approval of the Registrar Co-operative Societies has been obtained as statutory required under the services Rules of the Respondent Bank." 8. On joining of Bhup Singh as party respondent in appeal, the appellate authority in paragraph-3 observed that the appellant (respondent 2 herein ) had not made prayer for quashing and setting aside promotion of Bhup Singh. Her case simply was that action of the Society of promoting Bhup Singh ignoring the right of the Appellant was contrary to law and since the said action could not have been taken by the society, she was entitled to all the benefits which had been granted to Bhup Singh. The appellate authority, considering that aspect, negatived the objection of the society and held that since no relief against Bhup Singh was claimed and question of quashing and setting aside promotion of Bhup Singh was not raised, non joinder of Bhup Singh as party respondent did not affect the maintainability of appeal and Bhup Singh was not a necessary party. The appeal was accordingly allowed. In para 5, the following direction was issued : "In the conclusion the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to the same status & pay scales as allowed to Sh. Bhup Singh who happens to be junior to the Appellant from the same date from which it has been allowed to him from time to time. However, the appellant will retain her seniority in the feeder post after granting her revision of pay scale. The respondent bank is burdened with Rs. 500/- as costs of the appeal which will be paid to the appellant. The respondent Bank is further directed to implement this decision within two months failing which the appellant will be entitled for interest at the rate of 18% on the amount found to be due to the appellant in the light of the above order from the date it is due." 9. We have heard Sh. B.K. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. B.P. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 and Sh. L.C. Kapoor, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. 10. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the appeal was not maintainable. According to him when a statutory provision was made under Section 93 of the Act specifying the order in which an appeal would lie, the appellate authority ought to have considered the said provision in its proper perspective and ought to have held that appeal was not competent. 11. According to him when a statutory provision was made under Section 93 of the Act specifying the order in which an appeal would lie, the appellate authority ought to have considered the said provision in its proper perspective and ought to have held that appeal was not competent. 11. He, further, submitted that Bhup Singh was not only a proper but a necessary party to the so called appeal and when he was not joined, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on that ground. He also submitted that observations were made by the appellate authority relating to seniority and promotion of Bhup Singh and it was held that he was junior to respondent No. 2 and his promotion was illegal and void ab-initio and was made in violation of Service Rules. Such a finding could not have been arrived at in absence of Bhup Singh and without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. 12. Sh. B.P. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 and Mr. L.C. Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Our attention was invited in this connection to a decision in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra v. H.P. State Co-operative Bank and others [1993 (2) S.L.C. 243]. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, referred to a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Ajmer Singh v. Hamirpur District Co-op. Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. and others, [1995 (1) S.L.C. 395] wherein Chandresh Kumar Malhotra was distinguished. 14. On merits, it was submitted by Mr. Kapoor that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority had not committed any error of law and Bhup Singh was not necessary party as the prayer of respondent No. 2 herein was not to quash and set aside the action taken by the petitioner society promoting Bhup Singh but that a similar treatment ought to have been given to her. When the said relief was granted by allowing appeal, the view taken by the appellate authority cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. 15. In the facts and circumstances of case, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed. So far as the maintainability of petition is concerned, in our opinion, no wider observations are necessary. When the said relief was granted by allowing appeal, the view taken by the appellate authority cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. 15. In the facts and circumstances of case, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed. So far as the maintainability of petition is concerned, in our opinion, no wider observations are necessary. In the instant case, writ is not sought against a co-operative society, but the Co-operative Society has approached this court as petitioner assailing the order passed by the Joint Registrar (Audit), Co-operative Society purporting to exercise powers under Section 93 of the Act. Such a petition, therefore, is maintainable. 16. Even otherwise, prima facie, we are of the opinion that the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can always be exercised by this court when a statutory authority has taken some action under any Statute and a complaint is made that the exercise of power is not in accordance with law. 17. On merits, we are of the view that presence of Bhup Singh was necessary before the appellate authority particularly when the appellate authority has made some observations and recorded certain findings against him with regard to his seniority qua respondent No. 2, as also that the action of the petitioner-society promoting Bhup Singh was illegal, void ab-initio and against Services Rules. It is clear to us that no such findings could have been arrived at without issuing a notice, calling for explanation and affording opportunity of being heard to Bhup Singh. 18. On these grounds, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Joint Registrar (Audit) as Annexue PF is hereby quashed and set-aside directing the said authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. CMP No. 18 of 1993. 19. Interim relief granted on January 6, 1993 will continue till the disposal of the main matter by the appellate authority. In the facts and circumstances, parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Joint Registrar (Audit) on 24th July, 2000. A copy of the writ order be despatched to the Joint Registrar (Audit) for information and necessary action. 20. Since the matter is very old, the appellate authority will decide the same expeditiously preferably within three months from the date, the parties put in appearance before him. A copy of the writ order be despatched to the Joint Registrar (Audit) for information and necessary action. 20. Since the matter is very old, the appellate authority will decide the same expeditiously preferably within three months from the date, the parties put in appearance before him. Dasti copy on usual terms. Appeal allowed.