Per Masoodi, J.;— 1. Secretary, Baramulla Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Baramulla (the Bank "for short")- respondent No. 5 in the Letters Patent Appeals on hand, in the year 2002, by separate orders, made as many as 158 appointments in the Bank. The beneficiaries were appointed on different posts and on different terms. While some of the beneficiaries were appointed on consolidated basis and were to get monthly remuneration ranging from Rs. 1500-2500, a few of them were placed in regular grade of Rs. 4500-7500. The engagement order in respect of some of the candidates recorded that the order was being made pursuant to decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank, whereas in case of good number of appointees no reference was made to the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank. 2. Be that as it may, the matter of alleged large scale illegal appointments in the Bank did not escape the public attention for long. Once the matter surfaced and attracted public attention, the records of the Bank were examined and the inspection report prepared. The inspection report pointed out that 158 candidates were appointed by Secretary of the Bank in the year 2002 on consolidated wages of Rs. 1500-2500 per month without approval of the Board of Directors and without following the procedure to be adhered to while making the appointments against the available vacancies in the Bank. It also transpired that appointments were made against non existing posts. The inspection report suggested the Bank to consider terminating the service of the appointees of 2002. 3. The Chief General Manager of the Bank accordingly asked the Secretary to take steps in terms of recommendations made in the Inspection Report. However, Secretary in his response to the communication received from Chief General Manager made an attempt to justify the appointments. The Board of Directors failed to notice alleged irregularities made by its Secretary and avoided to act on the suggestions made by the Chief General Manager. 4. Against the backdrop of the Inspection Report and failure of the Board of Directors to prevent and thereafter set right the malpractices, the Registrar Cooperatives felt constrained to supersede the Board of Directors of the Bank. 4. Against the backdrop of the Inspection Report and failure of the Board of Directors to prevent and thereafter set right the malpractices, the Registrar Cooperatives felt constrained to supersede the Board of Directors of the Bank. He accordingly vide order No. BK-79/2756-63 Dated 01.02.2003 superseded the Board of Directors of the Bank and appointed Board of Administrators comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla, Deputy Registrar Cooperative, Baramulla and General Manager NABARD, Srinagar. The Board of Administrators on assuming the charge looked in the matter and disengaged service of the appointees of 2002, including the appellants before the Court. 5. The ousted/disengagement employees filed as many as 24 writ petitions to question the orders of disengagement. The main plank of their case was that the disengagement orders had been issued without notice, and in violation of principle of natural justice. It was pleaded that the petitioners were engaged/appointed in accordance with rules, after they responded to the advertisement notice; that the Registrar Cooperative superseded the Board of Directors on political considerations and that the disengagement orders were tainted with malafides. 6. The writ petitions were contested by the respondents on the grounds that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the Bank did not fall within definition of State within the meaning of Article, 12 Constitution of India, that the engagements/appointments were made by the Secretary of the Bank who in terms of the Cooperative Societies, Act, 1989 and byelaws of the Bank, lacked authority to make appointments having his role and the Act and byelaws restricted to convey the decision taken by the Board of Directors. The respondents insisted that the Bank had no authority to fill posts except with the approval of NABARD and the State Government and that no such approval or sanction was granted. 7. The writ Court on perusal of the pleadings and the available record held, impunged disengagement orders invalid and illegal. The writ Court was of the opinion that as the appointments in question were illegal, the respondents were no under an obligation to issue show cause notice to the petitioners. The writ petition were accordingly dismissed. 8. The petitioners in SWP Nos. 206/2003, 622/2003, 264/2003 and 556/2003, question the writ court order in four separate Letters Patent Appeals registered LPA Nos. 254/2005, 255/2005, 260/2005 and 35/2006. The appeal because identical grounds urged, are taken up together. 9. The writ petition were accordingly dismissed. 8. The petitioners in SWP Nos. 206/2003, 622/2003, 264/2003 and 556/2003, question the writ court order in four separate Letters Patent Appeals registered LPA Nos. 254/2005, 255/2005, 260/2005 and 35/2006. The appeal because identical grounds urged, are taken up together. 9. The writ Court judgment dated 20.09.2005 is questioned on the grounds that the writ Court has relied upon the record that was not part of the pleadings and that too without affording the petitioners an opportunity to have access to such record. The Inspection Report relied upon by the writ Court and forming part of such record, according to the appellants while suggesting that the steps be taken by the Bank to disengage the appointees also made an observation that the Bank may take steps to get approval of NABARD and the State Government to creation of additional staff because of dearth of staff in the Bank. The writ Court is said to have erroneously relied on the communication addressed by Chief General Manager of the Bank to its Secretary in wake of Inspection Report, to justify the supersession of Board of Directors of the Bank. It is insisted that the supersession of the Board of Directors and appointment of Board of Administrators was void abintio in as much as the communication was addressed some time after the decision regarding supersession of Board of Directors was taken by the Registrar Cooperative. It is pleaded that as the appointment of Board of Administrators was illegal, any action taken by the Board including before they were disengaged so that they would have an opportunity to project their stand as against the proposed action. 10. We have gone through memorandum of appeals, the writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. Rule of Law is core concept and basic feature of our Constitution. The equality before law and equal protection of laws are an integral part of the concept of rule of law. The equality before law, equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment are different facets of rule of law. 11. Rule of Law is core concept and basic feature of our Constitution. The equality before law and equal protection of laws are an integral part of the concept of rule of law. The equality before law, equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment are different facets of rule of law. Article 16 Constitution of India mandates that there should be non arbitrariness in making the appointments to any office under the State; that all opportunities of employment or appointment should be notified and thrown upon to all eligible candidates as the employment or appointment under the State are a public largesse and cannot be selectively distributed. 12. Secretary of the Bank and all superior authorities including Board of Directors, who watched the disengagement of the appellants was also no nest in law. Disputing Observation as regards non existence of vacancies, it is pleaded that 51 posts were sanctioned in terms of Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Bank with NABARD and as many as 87 were available at the time the appellants and others were disengaged. The appellants also dispute that Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Rules notified vide SRO 233 of 1998 were applicable to the Bank. The Rules according to the appellants have been wrongly applied to the appellants' case. The reported case relied upon by the writ Court to hold that SRO 233 was applicable to the Bank, according to appellant does not support the conclusion drawn in view of the clear rule position. The irregularity, if any, committed in the appointments made by the Secretary of the Bank according to the appellants was curable and corrective measures could be taken by the Board of Directors. The contrary review taken by the Writ Court it is pleaded was not sustainable. The appellants reiterate that they were entitled to be served a notice Secretary filling up non existing posts in the Bank on the block, as mute spectators violated the very fundamental components of rule of law and the spirit of Article 14 and 16 which is only an extension thereof. Least that was expected of the Board of Directors and other superior officers of the Bank, like Chief General Manager, was to stop the Secretary from making the backdoor appointments, reminding him that he had no role in recruitment of Staff of the Bank. Least that was expected of the Board of Directors and other superior officers of the Bank, like Chief General Manager, was to stop the Secretary from making the backdoor appointments, reminding him that he had no role in recruitment of Staff of the Bank. They would not have remained uncovered unless they themselves were beneficiaries of nefarious drama. Not only were the vacancies against which appointments were made non existing but such appointments were made on different terms and conditions at the whim and caprice of the Secretary of the Bank. He exercised complete freedom in fixing different emoluments varying from Rs. 1500 to 12500 per month and even placed a few of his appointees in a regular grade. It is not difficult to guess that what must have weighed with the Secretary of the Bank, while deciding whether a candidate was to be paid Rs. 1500 or 2500 per month or placed in a regular grade. The procedure to be followed in the matters of recruitment was also ignored with impunity. The writ Court, thereof, was right in observing that the appointments were made against non existing vacancies and without following the procedure Laid down in Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Rules. 13. The case set up by the appellants that the Rules were not applicable to the Bank, is devoid of any substance. The "Cooperative Bank" in terms of Section 2 (e) means a Cooperative Society which undertakes banking business. Every Cooperative Bank, therefore, is a Cooperative Society within the meaning of Cooperative Societies Act, 1989. The Government is empowered under the Act to frame rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. The rules so made may provide for the qualification/remuneration allowance, recruitment and other conditions of service of officers and other employees of a Cooperative Society. 14. The rules made in exercise of power, therefore, are equally applicable to a Banking Cooperative Society like Baramulla Central Cooperative Bank. Even if it is assumed for a while, that the Rules are not applicable to the Bank, still the Secretary of the Bank lacked authority in terms of byelaws of the Bank to make the appointments in the Bank moreso, when neither fundamental principles for making such appointments were followed nor were the vacancies to be filled up available in the Bank. The writ Court was right that having regard to the mode and manner in which the appointments were made, the beneficiaries of the illegal appointments were not entitled to be provided an opportunity to show cause against their disengagement. The writ Court in this regard has rightly placed reliance on 2004 Volume (VII) SCC 112 page 73, AIR 1974 SC 238 , AIR 1996 SC 2219 , 2000 SLJ 199 and AIR 2001 SC 201 . 15. The plea that the Board of Directors of the Bank was superseded by the Registrar Cooperative Societies for reasons other than those available under Section 30 of J&K Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 and any action taken by the Board of Administrators was void abinito, is without any substance, and better to be ignored. In the first place, the appellants in absence of challenge to the order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies superseding the Board of Director's have no locus to question the order. Secondly, the members of superseded Board of Directors may to have a cause or grievance against the order, whereby the Board has been superseded by the Registrar Cooperative Societies. Once the members of the superseded Board are not aggrieved of the said order the appellants have no locus to voice their grievances against the order superseding the Board. In case the plea raised by the appellants is accepted, the Court cannot ask the Board not ready to be reinstalled and having no grievance against the order of supersession, to take control of the Bank. Thirdly, the plea is not also sustainable on merits. The Registrar under Section 30 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1989 is competent to order of the supersession of the Board where satisfied that the Board is making negligence in pursuant to the rules or byelaws made thereunder or as on any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or the Board have failed to comply with any direction issued to it by the Government or Registrar. The Board in the present case failed in its duty to restrain its Secretary of the Society from making appointments that were palpably illegal against non existing posts and without following the procedure prescribed under rules. The Board in the present case failed in its duty to restrain its Secretary of the Society from making appointments that were palpably illegal against non existing posts and without following the procedure prescribed under rules. The objection, if any, against the order superseding the Board on the ground that the Board was not given an opportunity to file its objections or projected his stand can be only taken by the Board and not the present appellants. 16. For the reasons discussed, we are of the considered opinion that the writ Court Judgment is based on proper appreciation of facts and law and does not admit of any interference. We accordingly dismiss the appeals.