Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 697 (KAR)

PRESIDENT (ACTING) v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2002-11-15

body2002
( 1 ) THE first petitioner who is claiming to be the President of Karnataka State Coir Co-operative Federation LTD. , (in short the Federation) and petitioners 2 to 4 its Directors have filed these writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders at Annexure-A dated 19. 7. 2002 passed by the 5th respondent, Annexure-B, dated 15. 7. 1998 by the second respondent, Annexure-C dated 3. 8. 1998 by third respondent Annexure-D dated 22. 12. 1999 by third respondent and order at Annexure-E dated 2. 7. 2000 by the 10th respondent respectively. Further, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to fill up the post of Managing Director of the Federation from the cadre of Asst. Director of Industries and Commerce department as per sanctioned cadre strength, urging various legal contentions. ( 2 ) CERTAIN relevant facts are stated hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the parties. The cadre strength of the Federation was sanctioned by the Government vide Government orders Annexure-F, H, J, K and L respectively, 103 posts including its chief Executive officer. Further, as per sanctioned cadre strength, the post of Secretary before amendment to Clause 2 (N) of the Bye-laws in the cadre of Asst. Director of Industries and Commerce Department was eligible to be appointed on deputation. From the year 1999-2000 the post of Secretary in the Federation is re-designated as Managing Director (Chief Executive Officer ). The Chief Executive Officer can be appointed by the state Government in exercise of its power under the provisions of Sec. 29-G of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, 1959 (in short the Act ). The major share capital of the State Government is involved in the Federation and it has retained its power in appointing chief Executive Officer on deputation from second respondent Department. When the Government appoints to the above post it has to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (in short the Rules) and also Section 128-A of the Act. ( 3 ) AS per Rule 17 of the said Rules, appointment of Chief Executive Officer of, the Federation has to be made subject to budget allotment sanctioned by its General Body from time to time by obtaining prior approval of the Government before disbursing salary. ( 3 ) AS per Rule 17 of the said Rules, appointment of Chief Executive Officer of, the Federation has to be made subject to budget allotment sanctioned by its General Body from time to time by obtaining prior approval of the Government before disbursing salary. In the case of deputation, the Government cannot directly post the deputed person to the post of Federation. It has to lend the services of an officer to the Dept. of Co-operation and in turn, the Department of Co-operation after verifying the cadre strength of either a Society, Federation or Bank, has to give posting orders to it. In the cadre strength of the Federation, the approved cadre to the post of chief Executive is Asst. Director. It is the case of the petitioners that, without verifying the cadre strength, the second respondent has appointed 6th respondent to the Federation on deputation without lending his services to the Department of Co-operation as per order Annexure-B whereas the approved cadre strength of the Federation to the chief Executive officer post is in the cadre of the Asst. Director of the second respondent Department. It is their further case that, the Federation can allow to draw a maximum salary of Rs. 5,000/- to the post of Chief Executive officer i. e. salary of the Asst. Director which is the sanctioned post in the Federation, where as, 6th respondent is drawing salary of Rs. 20,150/- per month and other perks which is more than Rs. 40,000/- per month than the cadre of Asst. Director. Such a huge salary cannot be given by the Federation to the second respondent as the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws do not permit it to do so. ( 4 ) FURTHER it is alleged that Respondents 7 and 8 were appointed as Industrial Promotional officers and 9th respondent as Manager (Project) in the Federation which are not sanctioned posts ass per its Cadre strength approved by the Department of Co-operation. Therefore, it is alleged by the petitioners that, respondents 7 to 9 are illegally drawing salary and allowances more than Rs. 21,07,500/- and more than Rs. 10 lakhs as vehicle allowances and Rs. Therefore, it is alleged by the petitioners that, respondents 7 to 9 are illegally drawing salary and allowances more than Rs. 21,07,500/- and more than Rs. 10 lakhs as vehicle allowances and Rs. 2 lakhs as telephone bills, which will have unnecessary financial liability upon the Federation and it is not legally permissible for it to spend such huge sums on the above officers towards salaries and other perks by it. ( 5 ) AT paragraph-7 of the Joint petition, petitioners have alleged regarding financial deposits made by the 6th respondent and mis-appropriation of funds since January 2002 by obtaining OD facility of Rs. 1. 5 lakhs from the KSIC Bank are referred to in the petition which facts are not adverted to in this order as they are not necessary for considering the rival legal contentions and prayers sought for by the petitioners in these petitions. ( 6 ) THE ground of attack of the impugned orders in these petitions is that, the deputation of Respondents 6 to 9 made by respondents 2, 3 and 5 is contrary to Rule 17 of the Rules and therefore the impugned orders produced at Annexure B to E to this petition are without authority of law and jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioners have urged that the same are liable to be quashed. Further it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the 5th respondent has failed to consider Rule 17 (1) of the Rules in passing the impugned orders as the State Government cannot depute its officers to another Department directly without there being any sanctioned posts and without allocation of budget allotment of funds and sanction of the same for its expenditures by either the first respondent or fourth respondent on the salaries and other perks. In the instant case, the State Government represented by its Industries and Commerce Department has given posting order of the 6th respondent as Chief Executive Officer to the co-operative Department without verifying the fact as to whether the post in question to which he is deputed and posted is sanctioned or not in the federation thereby it has been put to great financial losses. Therefore, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned orders. The counsel for the petitioners has filed additional documents by filing I. A. II in support of their case. Therefore, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned orders. The counsel for the petitioners has filed additional documents by filing I. A. II in support of their case. ( 7 ) 6th respondent has filed statement of counter inter-alia traversing the petitions averments contending that, petitions are liable to be dismissed as there is no merit in the case. Further he had sought to justify the impugned deputation order and stated that the appropriate orders are passed which are impugned in these petitions. Further contended that he first petitioner who is the Vide president of the Federation claimed that he is an acting President sworn to the false verifying affidavit and therefore it is stated that he is liable to be prosecuted for offence of per jury and further stated as one Mr. B. L. Prasanna Kumar is the President of the Federation. Further contended that, bye-law clause 2 (n) of the Federation, the post of chief Executive officer is the Managing Director of the Federation is suitably amended under the provisions of the KCS Act and Rules. The said bye-law stipulates that the Managing Director has to be taken on deputation to the Federation from the Department of Industries and Commerce from the cadre not below the rank of a Joint Director. Further Clause 2 (n) of the Bye-law provides for appointment of Managing Director and clause 2 (o) of the bye-laws provides for appointment of the secretary to the Federation. The Secretary is subordinate to the Managing Director in the hierarchy of the Federation. The budgetary outlay for the disbursement of the salary and other perks to the officers/employees of the Federation is resolved by the Federations Board and it is preceded by the decision of the General Body. ( 8 ) AFFIDAVIT is filed by the second petitioner Sri D. Channaiah the Director of the Karnataka state Coir Co-operative Federation Ltd. , on 20. 8. 2002 stating that one Sri S. M. Patil who is the vice president of the Federation had obtained his signature on blank vakalath stating that it is required for challenging the election of the president of the Federation and believing him, he had signed on Vakalath. Further he has stated that, said S. M. Patil is not the President (but the Acting President ). Further he has stated that, said S. M. Patil is not the President (but the Acting President ). Sri B. L. Prasanna Kumar is the President of the Federation and there is no President (Acting) in the Federation. Sri S. M. Patil has obtained his signature on blank vakalath and filed the above writ petition and therefore requested this Court to delete his name from the array of petitioner from the cause title of these petitions. This version of the second petitioner cannot be believed by this court at this stage as the second petitioner being the Director of the Federation cannot be believed that he had signed to the blank vakalath for the reasons stated in the affidavit as the same is an after thought, and the version given by him in his affidavit is unnatural and impermissible. Therefore the affidavit filed by him is rejected. ( 9 ) IT is specifically contended by the 6th respondent that his appointment is as per the provisions of Section 29-Government of the Act read with Clause 2 (n) of Bye-laws of the Federation. The allegation of the petitioner that he is appointed without verifying the approved cadre strength of the Federation is denied. All other allegations made in these petitions regarding drawing of salary and other perks etc. , are also denied as incorrect. Further it is stated that, while sanctioning financial assistance to the Federation for the implementation of integrated Coir Development Project, the National Co-operative Development Corporation laid a condition that the Federation must restructure and upgrade the post of the Managing director to the rank of the Joint Director and to constitute a cell for the purpose of over seeing the implementation of the said project and the same was agreed to by the Federation. Accordingly, respondents 7 and 8 were appointed as Indl. Promotional Officer and R9 as Manager (Technical) and these three posts are sanctioned posts in the Federation and further stated that their salary and conditions of services are as per law only. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for 6th respondent Mr. Ashok B. Hinchigeri contended that, 5th respondent is competent person to pass Transfer orders as he is empowered with the power of Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the provisions of KCS Act and therefore the same is in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act read with Karnataka Govt. Ashok B. Hinchigeri contended that, 5th respondent is competent person to pass Transfer orders as he is empowered with the power of Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the provisions of KCS Act and therefore the same is in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act read with Karnataka Govt. (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1977 (in short the KG (AB) Rules, 1977) and also Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 (in short the KG (TB) Rules, 1977 (in short the KG (TB) Rules, 1977 ). Therefore, the 6th respondents counsel has contended that, petitions are not maintainable and none of the reliefs can be granted by this court in these petitions. ( 10 ) THE learned Govt. Pleader Smt. Shobha Patil appearing for Respondents 1 to 5 has sought to justify the impugned orders placing reliance upon the file secured by her from the Government and also placing reliance upon the provision of Sec. 29-G of the Act and rules and also the byelaws of the Federation. She places strong reliance upon the notification dated 21. 11. 2001 issued by the State Government wherein the Addl. Director of Industries and Commerce and Ex-Officio member, is also made as the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in terms of the definition of Registrar and he is entrusted with powers and also other category of the Officers entered at paragraphs 1 to 14 and Tables referred to in the said notification. The powers of Registrar of Co-operative Societies are under the act and Rules specified in corresponding entries in Column III in respect of Co-operative societies specified in Col. 2 thereof. Further, the learned Government pleader has placed strong reliance upon the order passed by the then Chief Minister of State of Karnataka and Minister for Industries and Commerce Department for having approved the deputation of posts of Respondents 6 to 9 the Federation. Therefore, she would contend that there is no illegality in their deputation to the Federation, hence the posting orders which are impugned in these Writ Petitions cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its discretionary power. Therefore, she has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. Therefore, she would contend that there is no illegality in their deputation to the Federation, hence the posting orders which are impugned in these Writ Petitions cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its discretionary power. Therefore, she has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. ( 11 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following two questions would arise for consideration and answer the same by this court: (a) Whether the posts of respondent 6 to 9 are approved by granting approval to the Cadre Strength of the Federation in exercise of its power under Rule 17 of the Rules?; (b) Whether the impugned orders passed by the second respondent are in conformity with Sec. 29 (G) of the KCS Act, 1959? ( 12 ) TO answer the said questions, it would be necessary for this Court to extract the relevant clause 2 (n) of the Bye-laws of the Federation regarding Managing Director as defined under original rules, bye-laws and amended bye-law: ( 13 ) THE learned counsel Mr. K. Prasad Hegde for the petitioners has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the first respondent-Government for having approved nearly 100 posts including Group-D employees in exercise of its power under Rule-17 of the Rules is an undisputed fact as the same is clear from Government Orders at Annexures-F to L. As could be seen from the said orders, originally, the post of Managing Director of the Federation was named as Secretary. As per Recruitment Rules, to fill-up the said post from deputation from Industries and Commerce Department not below the rank of a Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce Department, which post has been re-designated as Managing director as per the amendment to the relevant clause of the Bye-law during the year 1999-2000. The post of Managing Director is (the Chief Executive Officer) of the Federation. ( 14 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the said post is not approved in the cadre strength of the Federation by the first respondent as required under Rule-17 of the Rules. This fact is established from the letter written by the 5th respondent to the learned Government Pleader which is placed on record. To verify this aspect, on 13. 11. 2002 the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the necessary documents if any, in this regard. This fact is established from the letter written by the 5th respondent to the learned Government Pleader which is placed on record. To verify this aspect, on 13. 11. 2002 the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the necessary documents if any, in this regard. Despite granting opportunity to the Government Pleader to produce the documents, the respondents have not produced the same to substantiate their case, but on the other hand the above letter was produced by the learned Government Pleader. The Government Orders at Annexures F to L produced by the petitioners regarding the approval of cadre strength of the Federation which would clearly disclose the fact that the posts of the respondents 6 to 9 are not approved by the State Government as required under Rule 17 of the Rules. Neither the 5th respondent nor the contesting respondents have produced documents documents to show that the posts in which respondents 6 to 9 have been posted and working in the Federation are approved by the State Government as required under Rule-17 of the Rules. Therefore, the approved posts in the Federation has to be filled up by it and the first respondent, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the KCS Act, Rules and the mode of Recruitment provided in the Government Orders of sanctioning posts of the Federation. ( 15 ) RESPONDENTS 6 to 9 have not produced any document with reference to provisions of the KCS Act and Rules to show that posts in which they are working on deputation are approved posts to the cadre strength of the Federation to be filled up by the first respondent. Therefore, this court has to answer the first point in favour of the petitioners holding that, the posts of respondents 6 to 9 which are filled up on deputation from the second respondent Department as per the amended bye-law clause No. 2 (n) of the bye-laws of the Federation and the post of respondent No. 6 is filled up on Deputation by the second respondent on lent service basis. No doubt, the Federation bye-law with regard to designation of Managing Director is defined stating that the Managing Directors post shall be filled up on deputation from the Industries and Commerce Department of an Officer who is having the designation of a Joint Director in the second respondent Department. No doubt, the Federation bye-law with regard to designation of Managing Director is defined stating that the Managing Directors post shall be filled up on deputation from the Industries and Commerce Department of an Officer who is having the designation of a Joint Director in the second respondent Department. That by itself does not confer any right upon either first respondent or the second respondent to exercise that power under Rule 17 of the Rules to fill up the posts on deputation in exercise of its power under sec. 29-G of the Act unless the post is approved in the cadre Strength of the Federation by the first respondent Government as required under Rule 17 of the Rules. Therefore, having regard to the undisputed facts referred to supra and the documents of the Government Orders produced by the petitioners vide Annexures F to L and the letter submitted by the learned Govt. Pleader dated Nil along with memo dated 15. 11. 2002 would clearly go to show that 6th respondents post is not at all approved to the cadre strength of the Federation as required under Rule 17 so also no material documents or Government Orders are produced by the respondents to show that respondents 7 to 9 posts are also approved to the cadre Strength of the Federation and therefore those posts have been filled up on deputation of the Officers of the second respondent Department on lent service basis. For the reasons stated Supra, the first question framed by this Court is required to be answered in favour of the petitioners. Answer To Point No-2: ( 16 ) THE learned counsel appearing for petitioners had seriously questioned the action of second respondent in filling up the posts of respondents 6 to 9 in the Federation in exercise of its power under Sec. 29-G of the Act on the ground that they are not approved posts to the cadre strength of the Federation. Having recorded a finding on the first point for the reasons stated above in favour of petitioners holding that, posts in question to which they are posted are not approved posts as required under Rule-17 of the Rules to the cadre Strength of the Federation, exercise of power by the second respondent under Sec. 29-G of the Act to fill up the posts on deputation is not legal and valid in law as either the second respondent or the first respondent would get the power under Sec. 29-G to fill up the post of either Chief Executive Officer of the Federation and the other posts which are not approved to the Cadre Strength of the Federation in exercise of their power. The provision under section 29-G of the KCS act speaks of the appointment of Chief Executive Officer of a co-operative society where the majority of shares are held by the Government, since the Government has got major shares in the Federation the Government or the Registrar are having power under the above provision of the section to appoint or remove the Chief Execution officer. In respect of the posts of respondents 7 to 9, neither the learned Government Pleader nor their counsel are able to show that said posts are sanctioned posts in the cadre strength of the Federation. The posting of the 6th respondent has been made on deputation from the second respondent which order is signed by the concerned Minister and the Chief Minister in exercise of their power either under the Recruitment Rules or under the provisions of the Act is also not tenable in law for the reason that the cadre of Joint Director to the post of Chief Executive Officer in the Federation is not approved by the State Government. Notwithstanding the finding recorded on the first point in favour of the petitioners, this court has examined competence of the second respondent in appointing the 6th respondent as Chief Executive Officer of the Federation with reference to Sec. 29-G (1) of the Act. In respect of Federation where the state Government has got majority of its shares, either Government or Registrar shall have the power to appoint or remove the Chief Executive Officer of the Federation. The Registrar is defined under Sec. 2 (a) of the KCS Act. In respect of Federation where the state Government has got majority of its shares, either Government or Registrar shall have the power to appoint or remove the Chief Executive Officer of the Federation. The Registrar is defined under Sec. 2 (a) of the KCS Act. The State Government under clause (1) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 29-G of the Act is referable to the first respondent for the reason that he Federation is registered under the provisions of Act and Rules. His Excellency Governor of Karnataka in exercise of its power under Article 166 framed the KG (AB) Rules, 1977 and KG (TB) Rules, 1977 for allocation work of each Department and to carry on with its day to day business Transaction in the respective Department by framing the Rules conferring power upon the Government and its secretaries of the respective Departments to which allocation of Business is entrusted under the KG (AB) Rules. ( 17 ) IT is an undisputed fact that under the said Rules, the Department of Co-operation is allocated its business under schedule IV-A, Entry No. III to the first respondent (All types of Co-operative Societies including Indl. Co-operation ). Therefore, that entry must be considered for the purpose of construing as to whether the Government referred to under Section 29-G of the KCS Act is referable to co-operative Department the first respondent or the Department of Industries and Commerce second respondent for the purpose of appointing Chief Executive Officer of the Federation namely the 6th respondent herein. ( 18 ) THE submission of learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 5 and sri Ashok B. Hinchigeri, Adv. appearing for 6th respondent have placed strong reliance upon the provisions of Sec. 29-G of the Act and the definition of the Registrar as defined under Section 2 (a) of the KCS Act and they would submit that it includes Additional Director of Department of Industries and Commerce the fifth respondent herein and therefore they have got the power to exercise their power under Sec. 29-G of the KCS Act for appointing the sixth respondent as the Chief Executive Officer of the Federation. This submission of the learned counsel for the above respondents he cannot be accepted by this court as the same is in contravention of KG (AB) Rules, 1977 and hence, submission made by them in this regard has to be rejected. This submission of the learned counsel for the above respondents he cannot be accepted by this court as the same is in contravention of KG (AB) Rules, 1977 and hence, submission made by them in this regard has to be rejected. Further reliance placed upon the Notification No. CMW 69 LLM 2001 dated 21. 11. 2001 in support of the submission made by them contending that the fifth respondent is empowered to appoint the 6th respondent to the post of Chief Executive Officer of the Federation as he is also the Registrar as referred to in the provisions of Section 29g also cannot be accepted for the reason stated supra. ( 19 ) THE above said point is answered with reference to the rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties after examining the statutory provision under Sec. 29-G of the Act read with KG (AB) Rules and also after considering the Deputation, Transfer and Posting orders produced by the petitioners at Annexure-B to E. The second respondent Government has passed the order dated 15. 7. 1998 transferring 6th respondent from its Department and posted him to the Federation as Managing Director on deputation in exercise of its power under sec. 29-G of the KCS Act is carefully examined by this court since the Federation has he got majority of the shares of the Government and the salary and other conditions of service of the Chief Executive of the Federation in the case of official of State Government has to be approved by the State Government. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, the Government is referable to in the aforesaid provision of the Act shall be understood with reference to the KG (AB) Rules as the first respondent is independent Department allocated with its duties and powers which rules are framed by his Excellency Governor of Karnataka under Article 166 of the Constitution of India for allocation of work to the co-operative Dept. i. e. its duties, the business transaction Rules also are framed conferring powers upon the Minister, Secretary and other Authorities depend upon the nature of functions, powers and duties to transact the business of the department under the KG (TB)Rules, 1977. i. e. its duties, the business transaction Rules also are framed conferring powers upon the Minister, Secretary and other Authorities depend upon the nature of functions, powers and duties to transact the business of the department under the KG (TB)Rules, 1977. ( 21 ) ON a bare perusal of Annexure-B, it is noticed that the order has been passed in the name of Governor of Karnataka signed by the under secretary to the second respondent, Industries and commerce Department. Therefore, this court has to record a finding with reference to the said document that appointment of 6th respondent is not passed by the Government represented by the Co-operative Department in terms of Sec. 29 (G) read with KG (TB) Rules. Therefore, the posting order issued to him by the 2nd respondent-Department is without authority of law for the reason that the first respondent department represented by its political executive has not passed the Government order, appointing him as Managing Director on Deputation from the second respondent as required under the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to supra. Therefore, the appointment of 6th respondent is liable to be quashed as the same is opposed to law. ( 22 ) THE appointment of 7th respondent is on the basis of order dated 19. 6. 1998 passed by the 5th respondent which order has been communicated by the 5th respondent vide his order dated 3. 8. 1998 appointing him as the Industrial Promotion officer in the Federation. So also, the appointment of 8th respondent is on the basis of Government order dated 21. 12. 1999 which order has been issued by the 5th respondent vide his order dated 22. 12. 1999 at Annexure-D, appointing and posting him as Industrial promotion Officer and 9th respondent was also posted as Manager (Project) pursuant to Government order dated 17. 7. 2000 and 20. 7. 2000 on deputation from the GTTC to the Federation. 12. 1999 which order has been issued by the 5th respondent vide his order dated 22. 12. 1999 at Annexure-D, appointing and posting him as Industrial promotion Officer and 9th respondent was also posted as Manager (Project) pursuant to Government order dated 17. 7. 2000 and 20. 7. 2000 on deputation from the GTTC to the Federation. The said Government Orders and the posting orders referred to at Annexures C,d and E are once again without authority of law for the reason that either the second respondent represented by the Secretary of the Industries and Commerce Department or 5th respondent and 10th respondents have the authority either under the provisions of the KCS Act or under the Rules or under the orders of the Government approving cadre strength vide Annexure-F to L to appointment them in the above respective posts of the Federation on Deputation from the second respondent Department. Therefore, their appointments are not in accordance with law. Further, as could be seen from the orders passed by the first respondent vide Annexures F to L, the approved cadre strength of the Federation in exercise of its power under Rule-17 of the Rules do not contain the posts of industrial promotion Officers and the Manager (Project) in the Federation and therefore, their appointment orders passed by the Government 2nd respondent herein on deputation and posting them in the Federation vide orders at Annexures C,d and E are not in conformity with Rule-17 of the Rules and the Registered bye-laws of the Federation and also not in accordance with the cadre strength of the Federation. Therefore, the said orders passed by the Government and the posting orders issued by the 5th and 10th respondents are all without Authority of law and therefore, some are void abinitio in law hence, the same are liable to be quashed only in so far as respondents 7 to 9 are concerned. ( 23 ) ACCORDINGLY, the transfer orders passed by the State Government represented by the second respondent, consequent upon the same the posting orders issued by the 5th and 10th respondents respectively in respect of respondents No. 7 to 9 are illegal for want of legal authority for them to pass such orders and post them to the posts referred to supra in the Federation which are non existant and therefore, same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this court passes the following order: ( 24 ) THE Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule issued and made absolute. Impugned order at Annexure-B dated 15. 7. 1998 is quashed only in so far as 6th respondent is concerned. Further, Government Order dated 3. 8. 1998 vide Annexure-C posting order issued in respect of 7th respondent, order dated 22. 12. 1999 posting 8th respondent as per Government Order dated 21. 12. 1999 vide Annexure-D and Order dated 20. 7. 2000 deputing 9th respondent to the Federation pursuant to Govt. order dated 20. 7. 2002 and 17. 7. 2000 vide Annexure E issued by the 10th respondent respectively are also quashed. Direction is issued to the respondent Government to fill-up the post of Managing Director from the Cadre of Asst. Director of Industries and Commerce on deputation strictly in conformity with provisions of Sec. 29-G of the Act of 1959 and Rules. --- *** --- .