Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 505 (KAR)

N. RAJE URS v. COMMON CADRE COMMITTEE

2001-07-04

M.P.CHINNAPPA

body2001
CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE admitted facts are that the Registrar of Co-operative societies by virtue of provisions contained under Section 128-A of the KCSA act has passed on order dated 31. 3. 1986 creating the common cadre consisting of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies in Mandya district and authorising the Mandya District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Federal Society to exercise the powers of appointment, transfer and disciplinary action in respect of the secretaries and framing regulations for the said purpose and to make contributions to meet the salary expenditures of the secretaries, etc. In pursuance of the said order, the 1st respondent has come into being and is the controlling authority the Secretaries of the BACC in Mandya District. The respondent/ Co-operative Societies are affiliated to mdco Bank, Mandya, which is the Federal Society. The society has borrowed various types of loans from the MDCO Bank Ltd. Even the society has availed loans from NABARD Schemes under the respondent society. The Government had contributed 51% share capital to the respondent society. Thus, there is an organic link between the Government and the NDCC bank and the respondent society. The respondent society in its meeting resolved to request the respondent to post personnel to manage the affairs of the society in the cadre of manager/secretary. The society forwarded the extract of resolution along with proposals, the copies of which are produced in the respective Writ petitions. One of the resolution filed as Annexure R-1 in WP 26910/00 was actually contested by the petitioner himself. Rule 17 of the KCS Rules stipulates that the person holding the post of Secretary shall be a graduate of a recognised university. The petitioners are not possessing the basic requisite qualification as required under Rule 17 of the KCS Rules for the post of secretary/manager. Consequently, the common cadre committee held the interviews for the post of secretaries/managers and selected according to the common cadre. It is an undisputed fact the post of Secretary or Manager are filled up by direct recruitment and by promotion by 50% in each category. There were 64 posts vacant for which applications were called for from the eligible candidates and after the interview, 32 persons who are eligible for promotions were promoted and 32 persons were selected by the common cadre committee and posted to different societies common under the common cadre authority. There were 64 posts vacant for which applications were called for from the eligible candidates and after the interview, 32 persons who are eligible for promotions were promoted and 32 persons were selected by the common cadre committee and posted to different societies common under the common cadre authority. The petitioners in all these petitions were not selected to the post of secretaries or managers. However, the society ignored the common cadre rules and appointed these petitioners as secretaries/managers in the respective societies. In view of the subsequent appointment made by the common cadre committee, they were made to continue to work in the same capacity which posts these petitioners were holding before they were promoted as secretaries/managers of the respective bank. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed these petitions. ( 2 ) SINCE common question of law is involved in these petitions, after hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners and the learned advocates appearing for the respondents, this order is passed. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocates have vehemently argued that the appointment of new secretaries or managers and directing the petitioners to hold the same posts which they were holding amounts to reversion or demotion which orders came to be passed without there being any enquiry. Therefore, the orders are illegal and are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) REPELLING this argument, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Common Cadre Authority was constituted and the validity was questioned before this Court in S. Shivarudrappa and another v. Member common cadre committee and M. D. , Bellary District-Central Co-operative bank Ltd. and others. 1988 (3) Kar LJ 597. wherein this Court has held. "a plain reading of Section 128-A at once shows that it has got sufficient guidelines. Firstly, the provision is applicable only to a special class of co-operative societies. Secondly, it is only applicable to such class of co-operative societies which are affiliated to one federal society. Thirdly, the Registrar, is required to consider that in the interest of co-operative movement framing of regulation covering certain specified categories of employees of such societies is necessary. The mere absence of a provision for not laying regulations named by the Registrar under section 128-A before Legislature is not a ground to strike down the provision of Section 128-A of the Act. The mere absence of a provision for not laying regulations named by the Registrar under section 128-A before Legislature is not a ground to strike down the provision of Section 128-A of the Act. " ( 5 ) SIMILARLY, in Sri P. L. Sannappa v. The Common Cadre Authority and another. 1989 (3) KLJ 277, the society reinstated the petitioner secretary who was dismissed from service on the charge of misappropriation which the subsequently made good and the society reinstated him to the post and sought approval from the Common Cadre Authority but the Common Cadre Authority did not approve the same. The said order was questioned before this Court by the petitioner. The High Court after considering the scope of Section 128-A and also the power of the Common Cadre Authority has held that power of the dismissal of an employee, appointment, re-appointment or reinstatement can be done only with the approval of the Common Cadre Authority. Recently this Court also considered a similar question in the unreported Judgment between Sri Jagan Mohan Ranganathaswamy and the Mandya District. Common Cadre Authority in WP No. 20410/92 dated 11. 11. 1997 and held that appointment, to the post of permanent Secretary can be done only the common Cadre Authority exercising its powers under Section 128-A of the act. In these petitions, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Common Cadre Authority has conducted interviews to select the secretaries or managers to be appointed to the respective societies affiliated to the DCC Bank. Mandya and one of the accountant in actual fact attended the interview but was not selected. Other persons who were working as secretaries of the respective societies were not even called for the interview as either they did not have sufficient qualification or that they did not attend for the interview. In actual fact, there were 64 vacancies, out of that 32 vacancies were filled up from direct recruitment and 32 posts were filled promotion. That was done only by the competent authority, i. e. the Common Cadre Authority. The appointments said to have been made by the societies either by way of promotions or by way of appointments were subject to the approval of the common Cadre Authority. That was done only by the competent authority, i. e. the Common Cadre Authority. The appointments said to have been made by the societies either by way of promotions or by way of appointments were subject to the approval of the common Cadre Authority. The Societies which were covered by the Common cadre Authority were not eligible to appoint their candidates without the approval of the Common Cadre Authority insofar as the secretaries or managers of the respective societies. In this case, admittedly, no approval was obtained nor were these petitioners eligible to be appointed as secretary. The petitioner in one case is only a 4th std. pass and another secretary was a graduate but were not eligible to be appointed and they were not even called for interview. Therefore, it cannot be construed as demotion or reversion without any enquiry, etc. That argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected. Even appointment of these petitioners were subsequent to the constitution of the Common Cadre Authority. Therefore. they ought not to have appointed these persons as secretaries or managers of the societies and those appointments itself would be illegal. The persons who are illegally appointed cannot claim that they should be changed, transferred or reversed only after holding enquiry, etc. They have discharged their duties, with full knowledge that they were not appointed by a competent authority but only by the committee members of the society who were incompetent to issue appointment orders without the approval of the Common Cadre authority. They were holding the posts only as a stop-gap arrangement notwithstanding the fact that the appointments were made on permanent basis by the Management of the Society in view of the fact that Common Cadre authority has not approved their appointment or that they were not appointed by the said authority. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions stand dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .