Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 101 (ALL)

SAIF ALI KHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-01-08

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition has been filed by 9 persons claiming that they have been validly appointed in the Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Badaun, after following the prescribed Rules and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Administrator rescinding the resolution dated 17.7.2009 under the Resolution dated 12.12.2009 is invalid. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Rathore contends that the impugned order could not have been passed inasmuch as the bank had been favoured with the acceptance of the proposal for opening a Branch at Ujhani under the orders of the Reserve Bank of India dated 6.5.2009 which was followed by an order dated 15.10.2009 granting licence under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is urged that appointments were to be made for the purpose of engaging staff at the Head office where there was a shortage and also for the extension Branch at Ujhani for which the licence had been granted by the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that the selections were held after a due advertisement and were completed followed by letters of appointment dated 16.10.2009; copies whereof are appended as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. 3. An amendment application and a supplementary-affidavit have been filed and along with the supplementary-affidavit, the resolution dated 17.7.2009 has also been brought on record. It has been contended that action was taken under Section 35 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act in relation to certain charges and after suspending the Committee, the Administrator was appointed under the order dated 10.12.2009. The said order dated 10.12.2009, copy whereof has been appended along with the writ petition, was subjected to challenge by the Committee in Writ Petition No. 68993 of 2009 and the operation of the order dated 10.12.2009 was stayed on 18.12.2009, a copy of the stay order is Annexure-SA-3 to the supplementary-affidavit. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the effect of the said stay order is that the order passed by the Administrator on 12.12.2009 stands diluted and is a nullity. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the selections of the petitioners were in accordance with the Regulations where the Committee is empowered to make appointments. A copy of the Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Badaun (Service) Regulations, 2002 has been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Apart from this, it has been submitted that the selections of the petitioners were in accordance with the Regulations where the Committee is empowered to make appointments. A copy of the Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Badaun (Service) Regulations, 2002 has been appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Placing reliance on the said Regulation, it is submitted that the selections have been held in accordance with law and, therefore, there was no occasion for rescinding the resolution dated 17.7.2009. 4. Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, urged that the petition is totally misplaced inasmuch the Committee had no right or authority to make the appointments in the manner in which it has been done and blood relations and near relatives have been appointed by the Committee in a manner which is against the Regulation itself. He submits that the advertisement and the subsequent selection proceedings are all without authority and the selections are malafide. He further submits that the stay of the order dated 10.12.2009 does not in any way annul the action of the Administrator dated 12.12.2009 for which there was full justification keeping in view the background of the case and the facts as are on the record. He submits that the impugned order, therefore, does not deserve any interference and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the question that arises is as to whether the selections that were held and the appointment letters issued to the petitioners were justified in law or not. For this, it would be appropriate to refer to the letter dated 6.5.2009, wherein the Reserve Bank of India has intimated its decision to allow the allotment of a Branch to the Bank at Ujhani district Badaun. The aforesaid letter indicates that the proposal of the Bank to set up a Branch at Ujhani has been accepted and clause IV of the conditions of the said letter provides that without a valid licence, the opening of the Branch would be in violation of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, which may invite a penalty. Thus, the aforesaid letter clearly indicates that the Branch can be opened only after a license is granted. The grant of licence, therefore, is a sine-qua-non. Thus, the aforesaid letter clearly indicates that the Branch can be opened only after a license is granted. The grant of licence, therefore, is a sine-qua-non. It is undisputed that the licence was granted on 15.10.2009 under which the Reserve Bank allowed the opening of a Branch at Ujhani to the Bank. The recital contained in the said letter, therefore, is clear enough to establish that it was under the said licence that the Petitioner - Committee was granted authority to open the Branch Office. 6. The Committee, therefore, proceeded to make selections before the licence was granted and the permission to install the office was issued. In my opinion, there cannot be any appointment of the staff so long as the establishment itself does not come into existence. In the instant case, the petitioner-Committee has proceeded to hold selections even prior to the grant of licence on 15.10.2009. The entire selection proceedings were concluded even before the Branch was born under the licensing order of the Reserve Bank of India on 15.10.2009. It is peculiar that the letters of appointments have been issued on the very next day on 16.10.2009. It is, therefore, established that the process adopted by the Committee to hold selections prior to the grant of licence was patently without authority of law. 7. The submission, which has been made, is that the selections have been made both for the Head Office and for the Branch Office. From the resolution dated 17.7.2009, it is evident that the process of selection was undertaken with a view to engage employees keeping in view the opening of the new extension Branch at Ujhani. Further, the petitioners have been unable to demonstrate that they had been selected for the Head Office only and not for Ujhani. In such circumstances and in view of the resolution dated 17.7.2009, it is apparent that the selections were hurriedly made to accommodate the petitioners some of whom are closely related to the Members and Office Bearers of the Committee. 8. The argument that the interim order dated 18.12.2009 nullifies the effect of the order of the Administrator dated 12.12.2009 is misconceived. The law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3 SCC 1 (paragraph No. 10). 8. The argument that the interim order dated 18.12.2009 nullifies the effect of the order of the Administrator dated 12.12.2009 is misconceived. The law in this regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras, (1992) 3 SCC 1 (paragraph No. 10). The stay of operation of the order dated 10.12.2009 was brought about on 18.12.2009 and, therefore, the stay order would operate thereafter and was not operative prior to that. The order of the Administrator is dated 12.12.2009 on which date there was no interim order. Accordingly, the aforesaid argument is also to be rejected. 9. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage. 10. In the event the Committee succeeds against the orders that are under challenge relating to suspension of the Committee and the inquiry made by the Registrar, then the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances. ————