Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 22 (MAN)

Irom Iboyaima v. State of Manipur

2021-07-05

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Shri M. Hemchandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Shri N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate appearing for the private respondent in WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 and for all the private respondents in WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 and Shri Lenin Hijam, Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents in both the writ petitions. 2. The above writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts and therefore, the same are being disposed by this common judgment and order. WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 3. The validity and correctness of the letter dated 23-03-2021 of the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur; the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur and the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the private respondent, Shri. O. Jiten Singh, DRCS (Admn), are under challenge in this writ petition. 4.1 Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Co-operative Education Instructor, Manipur State Co-operative Union, Lamphelpat, Imphal (hereinafter referred to as “the Co-operative Union)” on officiating basis vide order dated 02-12-1988 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Co-operative Union with the approval of the Administrator thereof and his service was regularised vide order dated 10-11-1998 of the Chief Executive Officer. After having served for about 12 years, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Assistant Co-operative Education Officer/District Co-operative Education Officer/Vice Principal (CCM) vide order dated 14-09-2010 and was posted as the District Co-operative Education Officer at Senapati, followed by the order dated 02-03-2011 making it regular. 4.2 Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer vide its order dated 07-03-2016 appointed the petitioner as the Principal (CCM) on in-charge basis with the approval of the then Registrar, the Centre for Co-operative Management, Lamphelpat on promotion and posted him there itself. Few months later, the Managing Body, in its meeting held on 22-08-2016 resolved that the petitioner be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer, as the incumbent Chief Executive Officer, Shri W. Komol Singh was unable to discharge his duties due to ill health. It was approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Society vide its letter dated 12-09-2016. Few months later, the Managing Body, in its meeting held on 22-08-2016 resolved that the petitioner be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer, as the incumbent Chief Executive Officer, Shri W. Komol Singh was unable to discharge his duties due to ill health. It was approved by the Registrar, Co-operative Society vide its letter dated 12-09-2016. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Co-operative Union with immediate effect, in super-session of previous orders in this regard, until further orders vide order dated 22-09-2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Co-op), Government of Manipur. As per the bye-laws, the State Government is not the competent authority to appoint the Chief Executive Officer and it is the Managing Body of the Co-operative Union which is competent to do so. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22-09-2016, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition being WP (C) No. 318 of 2019 praying for its modification, which was disposed of with the direction to dispose of his representation dated 01-04-2019 within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order along with a representation to be submitted by him. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 08-02-2021 to the State respondent which was received by it on the same day i.e. 08-02-2021. 4.3 As per the proceeding of the Managing Body adopted in its meeting held on 27-04-2019, the President/Chairman of the Managing Body, Shri L. Tompishak Singh and other Managing Body members took a decision that the present Chief Executive Officer be allowed to continue till his retirement or superannuation and that the Chief Executive Officer be appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules. The Managing Body of the Co-operative Union adopted another resolution by way of circulation on 07-06-2019 for taking appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner and the approval thereof was sought for vide its letter dated 22-06-2019, in respect which the Registrar, Co-operative Society wrote a letter dated 24-06-2019 informing that the petitioner would no longer work as the Chief Executive Officer and that he would be reverted to his substantive post. Some members of the Co-operative Union raised objection to the resolution of the Managing Body adopted in its meeting held on 07-06-2019 and took a decision by way of circulation on 10-07-2019 which was submitted to the State respondents on 12-07-2019. Some members of the Co-operative Union raised objection to the resolution of the Managing Body adopted in its meeting held on 07-06-2019 and took a decision by way of circulation on 10-07-2019 which was submitted to the State respondents on 12-07-2019. 4.4 Being aggrieved by the resolution of the Managing Body adopted by way of circulation on 07-06-2019 in its resolution No. 1 and 2, the letter dated 22-06-2019 of the President of the Co-operative Union and the letter dated 24-06-2019 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 565 of 2019 praying for quashing them. This Court passed an interim order dated 29-07-2019 directing that they should remain suspended till the returnable date which was extended until further order. The petitioner being the senior most and eligible officer for appointment as the Chief Executive Officer, filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 153 of 2021 praying for passing appropriate order directing the respondents to implement the letter dated 12-09-2016 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the proceeding of the Managing Body adopted in its meeting held on 27-04-2019. However, the Managing Body took a decision by way of circulation on 08-02-2021 to the effect that the proceeding dated 27-04-2019 be reaffirmed and that the petitioner be allowed to work as the Chief Executive Officer till his superannuation in public interest. Although notice was issued on 17-02-2021 by this Court, no counter has so far been filed by the respondents. While WP (C) No. 153 of 2021 was pending, the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur issued the order dated 18-02-2021 in a purported compliance with the order dated 02-02-2021 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 318 of 2019 cancelling the order dated 22-09-2016, in super-session of all the previous orders in this regard. 4.5 As the order dated 02-02-2021 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 318 of 2019 was to consider the representation dated 01-04-2019 along with a representation to be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, the petitioner submitted a copy of the representation dated 01-04-2019 along with a copy of the order dated 02-02-2021 passed in WP (C) No. 318 of 2019 and accordingly, the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur issued the order dated 18-02-2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18-02-2021, the petitioner submitted a reminder dated 24-02-2021 praying for appointment of the Chief Executive Officer as per rules and regulations, bye laws of the Co-operative Union without any undue delay as the present petitioner is going to retire on 31-12-2021 on superannuation. 4.6 To the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner and instead of conveying the approval of the aforesaid proceedings of the Managing Body adopted in its meeting held on 08-02-2021 by way of circulation, the letter dated 23-03-2021 was issued by the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur conveying the approval of the Government for appointment of the private respondent, Shri. O. Jiten Singh, DRCS (Admn) on deputation as the Chief Executive Officer, Co-operative Union in addition to his normal duties without any extra remuneration. The letter dated 24-03-2021 was issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Manipur, followed by the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the private respondent submitting his joining report and taking self charge of the Chief Executive Officer. These letters have been challenged by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the said letters dated 23.03.2021 and 24-03-2021 are arbitrary, mala fide and illegal being violative of the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; that it is the Managing Body, Co-operative Union which is competent to appoint the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer as per clause 23(4)(d) of the bye-laws of the Co-operative Union and that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP (C) No. 318 of 2019 and Misc. Case (WP (C) No. 215 of 2020 (Ref: WP (C) No. 318 of 2019) filed by the State Respondents, it has been stated that the State respondents could not be considered to review/rectify/modify the order dated 22-09-2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Co-op), Government of Manipur as the order itself was not sustainable in the eye of law as it had been issued by the authority who has no jurisdiction to issue such order. 5.1 In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised on the ground that as per the recruitment rules, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment as the Chief Executive Officer and that the Managing Body of the Co-operative Union which is the competent authority for appointment of the Chief Executive Officer, is not impleaded as a party respondent herein and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In addition thereto and on merits of the case, it has been stated therein that as the petitioner is holding the substantive post of the District Co-operative Officer on regular basis or its equivalent posts, he is not eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officer. As per the recruitment rules, the post is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Principal (CCM) or its equivalent posts. If the post cannot be filled up by promotion, the post is to be filled-up by direct recruitment. If the post cannot not be filled up either by promotion or by direct recruitment, it is to be filled up on deputation from the Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur till when the post can be filled up either by promotion or by direct recruitment. 5.2 The decision taken by the Managing Body of the Co-operative Union in its meeting held on 22-08-2016 insofar as it relates to the petitioner and was later on approved by the respondent No. 2, had been withdrawn in the meeting of the Managing Body held on 07-06-2019 and it was also decided to remove the petitioner from the post of the Chief Executive Officer. The said decision of the Managing Body taken on 07-06-2019 was also approved by the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 24-06-2019. As the order dated 22-09-2016 was issued by the State Government on a mistaken decision and without any authority, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 02-02-2021 directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the State Government to redress his grievances and to take appropriate steps in terms of the relevant rules. As the order dated 14-09-2020 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer without the approval of the Respondent No. 2, he did issue another order dated 02-03-2021 after obtaining the approval of the Respondent No. 2. As the order dated 14-09-2020 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer without the approval of the Respondent No. 2, he did issue another order dated 02-03-2021 after obtaining the approval of the Respondent No. 2. 5.3 The order dated 18-02-2021 was issued by the Under Secretary (Co-operation) in compliance of the order dated 02-02-2021 passed by the Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 318 of 2019. 5.4 The alleged proceeding dated 08-02-2021 of the Managing Body presided by the Vice-President of the Co-operative Union and the forwarding letter dated 10-02-2021 could not be acted upon inasmuch as all the meetings of the Managing Body are to be presided by the President under the clause 26(i) of the bye-laws and clause 27(i)(a) only gives power to the Vice-President to preside over any meeting in the absence of the President. The President of the Co-operative Union by exercising the powers conferred upon him under the clause 26(iii), circulated a decision to appoint the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation to all the members of the Managing Body to provide their considered opinion on or before 12-03-2021. After obtaining the opinion from ten members of the Managing Body, the said decision was submitted to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for onward submission to the Administrative Department vide letter dated 15-03-2021. The said letter dated 23-03-2021 conveying the approval was issued by the Secretariat: Co-operation Department. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies vide letter dated 24-03-2021 conveyed the approval to the appointment of the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation in addition to his normal duties. By the said letter, it was also directed that the decision to appoint the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer should be placed before the next meeting of the Managing Body. The private respondent submitted his joining report on 24-03-2021 on the basis of the decision taken by the Managing Body to appoint him as the Chief Executive Officer and also on the basis of the two conveyed letters. The said joining report was submitted as per the bye-laws of the Co-operative Union. The State Government as well as the Registrar Co-operative Societies did not issue any order appointing the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer. The said joining report was submitted as per the bye-laws of the Co-operative Union. The State Government as well as the Registrar Co-operative Societies did not issue any order appointing the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer. As the private respondent is a State Government employee, the State Government as well as the Registrar Co-operative Societies had only conveyed the approval for deputation to the Co-operative Union as the Chief Executive Officer. 5.5 As there were allegations of financial irregularities against the Petitioner, a case under the Manipur Public Servant Personal Liabilities Act, 2006 was initiated and vide order dated 09-10-2019, the Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,88,845/- under the Manipur Public Servant Personal Liabilities Act, 2006 to the DDO of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Another order dated 18-10-2019 was issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in partial modification of the order dated 09-10-2019. There is no merit in this case and no case has been made out by the petitioner for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as such, this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as the ends of justice may call for. 6.1 An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2 stating that the petitioner was never appointed on promotion as the Principal (CCM), the Co-operative Union on regular basis. As is evident from the order dated 07-03-2016, the petitioner was allowed to hold the post of the Principal (CCM) on In-charge basis. The impugned letters dated 23-03-2021 and 24-03-2021 being challenged in the writ petition, were issued by the State authority on the basis of the decision taken by the Managing Body and therefore, the Co-operative Union is a necessary party. As per clause 23.1 (k) of the bye-laws of the Co-operative Union, Shri S. Jilla Singh and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh were co-opted as members of the Managing Body. They have legitimate rights to participate in any meeting of the Managing Body and also to give their considered view, when the Managing Body has the power and authority to accept them. The co- opted members, though they have a right to participate in the meeting and to give their opinion, have no right to vote in any meeting of the Managing Body. The co- opted members, though they have a right to participate in the meeting and to give their opinion, have no right to vote in any meeting of the Managing Body. There is no law prohibiting a defaulter to be co-opted as a member of the Managing Body. Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh was co-opted as a member of the Managing Body in the year 2017 before the letter dated 11-12-2018 being written by the Deputy General Manager, IUCB. Though the letter dated 20-12-2018 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer to Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh, no action has been taken up against him till date. 6.2 No decision was taken by the Managing Body to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal (CCM) in its meeting held on 10-06-2016. The contention of the petitioner that he was appointed on promotion to the post of Principal on regular basis vide order dated 31-08-2016 issued by the Chief Executive Officer on the recommendation of the Registrar Co-operative Society, Manipur has been denied as false. The Register Co-operative Society, Manipur is not the recommending authority for appointment of the Principal on promotion. The order dated 22-09-2016 issued by the Secretariat: Co-operation Department appointing the petitioner as the Chief Executive Officer was cancelled by the Secretariat: Co-operative Department vide order dated 18-02-2021. 7.1 In his reply, it has been stated by the petitioner that the Managing Body vide its proceeding dated 10-06-2016 resolved that he be allowed to be appointed on promotion as the Principal (CCM), for which the Registrar, Cooperative Societies was requested to approve it. Vide order dated 31-08-2016 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, he was appointed on promotion as the Principal, CCM on regular basis with the approval of the then Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manipur vide its letter dated 25-06-2016. Thereafter, being eligible as per the relevant recruitment rules for promotion to the post of the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner was appointed on promotion as the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 22-09-2016 issued by the Secretariat: Cooperative Department. The filling up of the post of Chief Executive Officer by deputation, despite having eligible officer for promotion like the petitioner who has been holding the same post since 2016, is arbitrary, mala-fide and is thus bad in law. The filling up of the post of Chief Executive Officer by deputation, despite having eligible officer for promotion like the petitioner who has been holding the same post since 2016, is arbitrary, mala-fide and is thus bad in law. Therefore, the petitioner is an aggrieved person and has locus-standi to file the present writ petition and the question of non-maintainability of the writ petition does not arise. 7.2 As regards the issue relating to the Managing Body not being impleaded as a party, it has been stated that the Managing Body was not a necessary party, as it did not have any concern with the impugned letters dated 23-03-2021 and dated 24-03-2021. Over and above, in the list of eighteen elected members as shown in the letter dated 26-08-2017 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manipur, the names of Shri S. Jilla Singh and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh did not find place thereby showing that they are the non-elected members. 7.3 The appointment of the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer was made purportedly on the basis of an alleged decision taken by the Managing Body of the Co-operative Union which is null and void ab-initio in view of the fact that Shri S. Jilla Singh, who is the Secretary of the Co-operative Union and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh, who is the co-opted member of the Co-operative Union, did not have any voting right nor could they give any opinion in such crucial decision taken by way of circulation. Over and above, anyone cannot be elected/co-opted as member of Managing Body as per the existing Act and bye-laws in view of the letter dated 20-12-2018 issued by the respondent No. 3 himself, while he was holding the post of the Chief Executive Officer, pursuant to the letter dated 11-12-2018 from the Deputy General Manager, 1UCB. Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh, member of the Co-operative Union is one of the defaulters of the IUCB and therefore, such a decision of the Managing Body supported by few members including non-elected members viz. Shri S. Jilla Singh and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh, was bad in law. Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh, member of the Co-operative Union is one of the defaulters of the IUCB and therefore, such a decision of the Managing Body supported by few members including non-elected members viz. Shri S. Jilla Singh and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh, was bad in law. 7.4 Eight elected members of the Co-operative Union submitted a requisition dated 12-02-2021 to convene a special meeting for consideration of “No Confidence Motion” against Shri L. Tompishak Singh, President, Co-operative Union and his removal from the post of President thereof immediately in view of clause 25(4) of the bye-laws. However, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies/respondent No. 2 herein has not taken any appropriate step which compelled them to file a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 317 of 2021 before this Court praying for convening a special meeting for consideration of “No Confidence Motion” against Shri L. Tompishak Singh, President, in the interest of the Union, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present petition. 7.5 The President never circulated the alleged decision to appoint the private respondent as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation to the said eight elected members who submitted the requisition dated 12-02-2021. On a conjoint reading of the requisition letter dated 12-02-2021 with the alleged decision, it can be seen that the opinion was obtained only from ten members of the Managing Body including two non-elected members who have no voting rights/cannot give opinion or otherwise, by circulation of paper as per existing Act, clause bye-law. WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 8.1 While the writ petition being WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 was pending, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners questioning the alleged decision of the Managing Body taken by way of circulation of papers forwarded vide letter dated 15-03-2021 and in addition, the validity and correctness of the letter dated 23-03-2021 issued by the Under Secretary (Cooperation), Government of Manipur; the letter dated 24-03-2021 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Manipur and the letter dated 24-03-2021 submitted by Shri O. Jiten Singh taking self charge, came to be challenged by them. 8.2 The petitioners are all elected members of the Co-operative Union as shown in the letter dated 26-08-2017. 8.2 The petitioners are all elected members of the Co-operative Union as shown in the letter dated 26-08-2017. As per clause 23.5 of the bye-laws of the Union (as amended), the term of the Managing Body is five years from the date of election and the term of the office bearers shall be co-terminus with the term of the Board. However, under the President-ship of Shri L. Tompishak Singh, the respondent No. 4 herein, the Co-operative Union has not been functioning properly in accordance with its bye-laws since the election of Managing Body in the year, 2017 with the result that it has failed to achieve its objectives provided under the bye-laws. In the interest of the Co-operative Union, the petitioners approached the competent authority i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein by way of a requisition dated 12-02-2021 with a prayer for convening a special meeting for consideration of “No Confidence Motion” against him for his removal from the post of President thereof immediately in terms of clause No. 25(4) of the bye-laws of the Co-operative Union on various grounds as mentioned therein. The requisition dated 12-02-2021 was not considered and acted upon by the official respondents in collusion with Shri L. Tompishak Singh, President without any justifiable and conceivable reasons, thereby affecting the petitioners considerably and substantially for the best reasons known to them. He is being allowed to hold the post of the President extraneously without any valid legal implications, despite pendency of the requisition letter dated 12-02-2021. The act and conduct of the authority in allowing Shri L. Tompishak Singh to hold the post of the President by ignoring/overlooking the pending requisition dated 12-02-2021, is against the relevant Acts/rules & bye laws of the Co-operative Union and is thus, bad in law. 8.3 Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the authority, the petitioners approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 317 of 2021 praying for a direction to the State respondents for convening a special meeting for consideration of “No Confidence Motion” against Shri L. Tompishak Singh, President for his removal from it. This Court vide its order dated 26-03-2021 disposed of WP (C) No. 317 of 2021 directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur to consider the said requisition and take appropriate action as quickly as possible in accordance with law. This Court vide its order dated 26-03-2021 disposed of WP (C) No. 317 of 2021 directing the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur to consider the said requisition and take appropriate action as quickly as possible in accordance with law. However, the said order dated 26-03-2021 was not complied with and therefore, the petitioners again approached this Court by way of a Contempt Case for wilful and deliberate disobedience of this Court’s order dated 26-03-2021 passed in WP (C) No. 317 of 2021. The said Contempt Case is still pending before this Court for disposal. 8.4 To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, it came to their knowledge that the alleged decision taken by way of circulation of paper, was forwarded vide letter dated 15-03-2021 of the office of the Co-operative Union as regards the appointment of Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation without following the procedure established by law and against the relevant Act/rules and bye laws of the Co-operative Union, which is arbitrary, mala-fide and illegal. The alleged decision is being challenged by the petitioners on the inter-alia grounds that the President never circulated it to them who had submitted the requisition letter dated 12-02-2021; that the considered opinions are to be given by the members pursuant to the circular on or before 12.03.2021; that the decision was supported only by eight elected members of the Managing Body; that the Co-operative Union being a registered body, is bound to function as a democratic institution and conduct its affairs based on democratic principles; that the decision was taken arbitrarily, despite the existence of the proceedings of the Managing Body adopted in its meeting held on 08-02-2021 by circulation and it was forwarded vide letter dated 10-02-2021 of the office of the Chief Executive Officer by which the appointment of the petitioner as the Chief Executive Officer was reaffirmed by invoking clause 27(i)(a) of the bye-laws; that the letter dated 23-03-2021 was issued by the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur conveying the approval of the Government for deputation of Shri O. Jitten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer, followed the letter dated 24-03-2021 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Manipur and that the letter dated 24-03-2021 submitted by Shri O. Jiten Singh on the basis of the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur, has no sanctity of law and cannot stand in the eyes of law. 9.1 In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 12, an objection has been raised as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Co-operative Union which is a necessary party, has not been impleaded as a party respondent therein. As the necessary party has not been impleaded as party respondent, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In addition thereto, it has been stated that the alleged decision taken probably on 15-03-2021 by way of circulation, was circulated by the President and after obtaining the opinion from ten members, it was submitted to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for onward submission to the Administrative Department. As the quorum was eight members only, the State Government conveyed its approval and pursuant thereto, the Registrar of Societies conveyed its approval to the appointment of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer. As the quorum was eight members only, the State Government conveyed its approval and pursuant thereto, the Registrar of Societies conveyed its approval to the appointment of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer. In spite of the papers being circulated to all the members of the Managing Body, only ten members gave their opinion, while some of the remaining members failed to do so. Some members could not be informed about the decision, as they were not found at their houses. It has further been stated that the alleged resolution of the Managing Body adopted on 08-02-2021 and the forwarding letter dated 10-02-2021 could not be acted upon, as the meeting was not presided by the President. As per the bye-laws, Shri Jila Singh and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh are the co-opted members who have legitimate right to participate in the meeting of the Managing Body and give their considered view which is accepted by the authority. Although Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh having been declared defaulter by the IUCB, no action has been taken against him. So far as the State respondents are concerned, no counter has been filed and during the course of the proceedings before this Court, it has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the counter filed by the State respondents in the connected writ petition will be adopted by them. 9.2 The petitioners have filed a reply thereto stating that since the petitioners have no grievance against the Co-operative Union, it is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and on the contrary, the petitioners have made all the signatories of the alleged minority decision of the Managing Body, as party respondents. The decision is a minority decision because nine members have refused to give their consent. Two co-opted members have no right to vote in the meeting, even though they have given their opinion. The Co-operative Union being a registered body, is bound to function as a democratic institution and conduct its affairs based on democratic principles. Pursuant to the order dated 02-02-2021 passed by this Court, the Managing Body held a meeting on 08-02-2021 with Shri L. Tolpishak Singh in the chair and resolved that the petitioner be allowed to be the Chief Executive Officer till his retirement or superannuation. Pursuant to the order dated 02-02-2021 passed by this Court, the Managing Body held a meeting on 08-02-2021 with Shri L. Tolpishak Singh in the chair and resolved that the petitioner be allowed to be the Chief Executive Officer till his retirement or superannuation. The petitioner is retiring from service by December, 2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. 10. The subject matter in issue relates to the appointment of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer of the Co-operative Union and the main issue can be divided into parts-one, the issue relating to the validity and correctness of the alleged decision of the Managing Body probably taken on 15-03-2021 by way of circulation and two, the issue relating to the validity and correctness of the letters dated 23-03-2021 of the Deputy Secretary (Co-operation); the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur and the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh taking self charge of post of the Chief Executive Officer. Admittedly, the Co-operative Union is body registered under the provisions of the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act, 1976 and is governed by its own bye-laws. As per clause 13 of the bye-laws, the supreme authority shall vest in general body which shall consist of duly authorised representatives from each of the affiliated co-operative societies. Clause 14 provides that its annual general meeting shall be held within two months of closing the co-operative year. Clause 15 provides for holding of a special general meeting in case of necessity. The quorum of a general meeting as provided in clause 18 shall be one third of the total number of existing members as such on the date of the notice of the meeting or fifty whichever is less. As provided in clause 21 of the bye-laws, the business of the Co-operative Union shall be carried on and managed by the Managing Body. Clause 23 provides for the manner in which the Managing Body shall be constituted. The power and duties to be exercised by the Managing Body are enumerated in clause 24 of the bye-laws, of which sub-clause (d) confers power upon it to appoint salaries or non-salaries officers and staff for proper conduct of business on such terms as to pay and remuneration, security etc. The power and duties to be exercised by the Managing Body are enumerated in clause 24 of the bye-laws, of which sub-clause (d) confers power upon it to appoint salaries or non-salaries officers and staff for proper conduct of business on such terms as to pay and remuneration, security etc. and enter into contracts on behalf of the Union as they may deem fit and to define their duties. Clause 25 provides for the quorum of the Managing Body meeting, while clause 26 provides for the powers and duties of the office bearers and in particular, the President thereof. Clause 25 and 26 of the bye-laws read as under: “25. QUORUM OF MANAGING BODY MEETING: (1) The Managing Body shall meet as often as necessary and at least once in every three months. (2) Eight members shall form the quorum. (3) Every resolution of the meeting shall be decided by majority of votes and in case of the, chairman shall have a second or casting vote. (4) Any five of the members of the Managing Body may be requisition a special meeting of the Managing Body. (5) Any member who fails to attend four consecutive meeting of the Managing Body shall be liable to be removed by the Managing Body but may be re-instated for the unexpired portion of the term of the Managing Body if it considers the reasons given by the member concerned are satisfactory. 26. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE BEARERS: The President shall have the following powers and functions: (i) The President shall be the spokesperson of the policy of the State Union and shall have overall control and supervision of the administration overall programme of the State Union. He shall preside over the meeting of the Managing Body, Managing Body, Executive Committee of any other Committee constituted under his Chairmanship. (ii) He will approve and sanction expenditure on any item as approved in the budget upto Rs.5000 at a time except staff pay and such other expenditure as approved and sanctioned by the Managing Body and the Executive Committee as the case may be. (ii) He will approve and sanction expenditure on any item as approved in the budget upto Rs.5000 at a time except staff pay and such other expenditure as approved and sanctioned by the Managing Body and the Executive Committee as the case may be. (iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws it shall be competent for the President to empower the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer/Executive Committee to ascertain the opinion of the Managing Body or Executive Committee on any matter he might consider it urgent or expedient by circulation of papers to the members on receipt of such information, the President may decide the question as per opinion of the majority of the members. The decision taken shall be placed before the next meeting of the Managing Body for information. (iv) The President shall sign the proceedings or all the meeting presided by him. (v) In the event of equality of votes on a resolution of the President shall have the additional casting vote in the meeting. (vi) To advise the Chief Executive Officer to convene the meeting of the Managing Body and the Executive Committee and other Sub-Committee of which he is the President. In case of failure, the President himself may call the meeting. (vii) The President may delegate any of this powers and functions to one of the Vice-President or to the Chief Executive Officer. (viii) To grant leave to the Chief Executive Officer and sanction TA/DA of the Chief Executive Officer and members of the Managing Body/Executive Committee/ Sub-Committee. He will also countersign his Ta/DA. (ix) The President shall be competent to take decision as are urgent and emergent, nature affecting the policy of the Union on behalf of the Managing Body/Executive Committee and other Committees. The matter will be placed before the next meeting convened for rectification.” Clause 25(2) provides that eight members shall form the quorum. The word “quorum” is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled for holding a meeting and it has nothing to do with the decision of a resolution. It is plain and simple and it requires no interpretation at all. Clause 25 (3) provides that every resolution of the meeting shall be decided by majority of votes and in case of tie, the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote. It is plain and simple and it requires no interpretation at all. Clause 25 (3) provides that every resolution of the meeting shall be decided by majority of votes and in case of tie, the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote. It may be noted that the total number of the members of the Managing Body is eighteen and therefore, the expression “majority of votes” mentioned therein, would mean at least ten members. But in the present case and at the relevant time, the total number of members of the Managing Body was seventeen only, as one of them had been disqualified. The expression “majority of votes” in respect of the total of number seventeen members, would mean at least nine members. The expression “majority of votes” and the word “quorum” are two different things and are used in clause 25 of the bye-laws for two different purposes. The general rule as provided in the bye-laws, is that every resolution of the meeting shall be decided by majority of votes. But clause 26(iii) appears to have carved out an exception to it as is evident from the word “notwithstanding” used therein. Clause 26(iii) provides that it shall be competent for the President to ascertain the opinion of the Managing Body or the Executive Committee through the Secretary or the Chief Executive Officer on any matter he might consider it urgent or expedient by circulation of papers to the members. On receipt of such information, the President may decide the question as per opinion of the majority of the members. The use of the expression “as per opinion of the majority of the members” is significant indicating that the President may take a decision, only when the opinion has been given by a majority of the members of the Managing Body. Moreover, the decision of the President shall be taken only after the papers being circulated to all the members of the Managing Committee and their opinion being obtained in the sheet of the decision. The word “circulation” does not mean the information to be given over the phone. What it means, is that the papers shall be circulated to all the members so that they can express their opinion thereon. 11.1 Before going into the merits of the case, this Court proposes to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the counsels appearing for the respondents. What it means, is that the papers shall be circulated to all the members so that they can express their opinion thereon. 11.1 Before going into the merits of the case, this Court proposes to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the counsels appearing for the respondents. According to them, the instant writ petitions are not maintainable for the reasons that the petitioner in WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 is not eligible for appointment to the post of the Chief Executive Officer of the Co-operative Union and therefore, he has no locus-standi to file it; that the Managing Body of the Co-operative Union which is the appointing authority of the Chief Executive Officer, is not made a party in the writ petition and that the Co-operative Union is not impleaded as a party respondent therein. Combating these submissions, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 that the petitioner is the senior most officer working in the Co-operative Union. Although he was initially appointed as the Co-operative Education Instructor in the year, 1988 on in-charge basis, he was regularised in the year, 1998. He was promoted to the post of the District Co-operative Education Officer in the year, 2010. Thereafter, he was appointed as the Principal on in-charge basis and even though his appointment as the Principal was approved, no formal order was issued for his appointment on regular basis. On 22-09-2016, he was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer and had been working in that capacity for some years and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was/is not eligible for appointment as the Chief Executive Officer. 11.2 The Co-operative Union made the Recruitment Rules called the Manipur State Co-operative Union, Manipur (Chief Executive Officer) Recruitment Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Recruitment Rules, 2010” ) which provides for the methods of recruitment for the post of the Chief Executive Officer. The method of recruitment is by promotion. If the post is not filled up by promotion, it shall be filled up by direct recruitment. However, if both the methods are not workable for recruitment, the post can be filled up on deputation from the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur until the post is filled by direct or promotion recruitment. If the post is not filled up by promotion, it shall be filled up by direct recruitment. However, if both the methods are not workable for recruitment, the post can be filled up on deputation from the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur until the post is filled by direct or promotion recruitment. In case of recruitment by promotion, it shall be done so from amongst the Co-operative Education Officer or the Publicity Officer or the Principal (CCM) with a minimum experience of five years in their respective post. In other words, only an officer holding the post of the Co-operative Education Officer or the Publicity Officer or the Principal, is eligible for consideration for appointment on promotion as the Chief Executive Officer. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedly, at the relevant time, holding the post of the Principal on in-charge basis but not on regular basis. It means that he had not yet been appointed as the Principal (CCM) on regular basis and in other words, he had not yet been borne in the cadre of the Principal and that it cannot be said that he was eligible for appointment as the Chief Executive Officer as per the recruitment rules, 2010. Therefore, he can be held to have no locus-standi to file the writ petition being WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 which could have been disposed of accordingly but since it is being clubbed and heard together with WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 wherein the validity and correctness of the said letters is also being questioned and challenged, there is no point of dismissing it as not maintainable and it will have no meaning at all. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Managing Body has not been impleaded as party respondent, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct to the extent that since none of the letters impugned therein has been issued by the Managing Body, it need not be made a party respondent while questioning the validity and correctness of the said letters. 11.3 So far as the maintainability of the WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 is concerned, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that since the Co-operative Union has not been impleaded as party respondent, it is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that as the alleged decision was not supported by a majority of the members of the Managing Body, it could not be said to be the decision of the Managing Body. Since it was a decision of the President and few members only, they had been impleaded as party respondents which itself is sufficient. It has further been submitted by him that it was not necessary for the Co-operative Union to be impleaded as party respondent. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it becomes necessary for this Court to look into the alleged decision carefully. From the perusal of the alleged decision, it is seen that the resolution/decision was drafted and prepared for circulation in the name of the Co-operative Union and it was signed by the President. In other words, the name of the Co-operative Union is written on top of it. It is a different issue, if it has not been done in accordance with the bye-laws. It has also been stated therein that the resolution was circulated under the provisions of clause 26(iii) of the bye-laws which confer power upon the President to obtain the opinion of the members of the Managing Body. So far as the validity and correctness of the alleged decision is concerned, it has been dealt with separately in one of the paragraphs below. As regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Co-operative Union was not impleaded as a party respondent, the contention of the respondents appear to have some merit and the Co-operative Union being a necessary party, ought to have been made a party respondent but it had not been done so in the writ petition. However, the only allegation made against the Co-operative Union was the general one to the effect that it being a registered body, is bound to function as a democratic institution and conduct its affairs based on democratic principles. However, the only allegation made against the Co-operative Union was the general one to the effect that it being a registered body, is bound to function as a democratic institution and conduct its affairs based on democratic principles. The main allegation is against the President by stating that he did not circulate the papers to all the members of the Managing Body and in particular, the petitioners which is contrary to the provisions of the clause 26(iii) of the bye-laws. 12.1 As regards the first main issue, it has been submitted by Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 that the resolution alleged to have been decided on 15-03-2021 by way of circulation, was not a valid one and that it ought not to have been acted upon by the State Government. It has further been submitted by him that as per clause 25(3) of the bye-laws, every resolution of the meeting of the Managing Body shall be decided by the majority of votes and in case of tie, the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote. At the relevant time, the total number of the members of the Managing Body was seventeen elected members only and therefore, the resolution alleged to have been decided on 15-03-2021, cannot be said to have been decided by a majority of the elected members of the Managing Body because only eight elected member had expressed their opinion in favour of the resolution. According to him, the other two members who participated in deciding the resolution, are co-opted members and as per the amended clause 23(1) (k) of the bye-laws, they have no right to vote and shall be excluded for the purpose of counting the total number of members of the Managing Body. One of the members who participated in deciding the resolution, Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh is not only a co-opted member but also a defaulter because of which his participation itself was illegal. Since a majority of the members of the Managing Body did not express their opinion in favour of the resolution, it cannot be said to have been the resolution of the Managing body, leave alone the decision. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. Since a majority of the members of the Managing Body did not express their opinion in favour of the resolution, it cannot be said to have been the resolution of the Managing body, leave alone the decision. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. Advocate General that as provided in clause 25(2) of the bye-laws, the quorum of the meeting was eight members only. Since the resolution was supported and decided by ten members, there was nothing wrong with it. Alternatively, it has been submitted by him that even if one member happens to be a co-opted member, the resolution was supported by nine members who are in majority. There is no provision in the bye-laws which prohibits or prevents a co-opted member from participating in deciding the resolution merely because he has been declared a defaulter by the IUCB. The submissions of Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the private respondents are similar to that of Shri Lenin Hijam, Addl. Advocate General and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 12.2 On perusal of the resolution dated nil alleged to have been decided by the President by way of circulation as is evident from the letter dated 15-03-2021 of the President of the Co-operative Union, it is alleged to have been decided by the President by following the provisions of clause 26(iii) of the bye-laws after obtaining opinion of the members of the Managing Body. Ten members of the Managing Body appear to have given their opinion in favour of the decision. Clause 25(3) makes it very clear that a resolution of the meeting of the Managing Body shall be decided by a majority of the votes. As has been observed hereinabove, notwithstanding the clause 25(3), clause 26(iii) provides an exception which empowers the President to ascertain through the Secretary or the Chief Executive Officer or the Executive Committee, the opinion of the Managing Body or Executive Member on any matter by circulation of papers. On receipt of such information, the President may decide the question as per majority of the members. On receipt of such information, the President may decide the question as per majority of the members. In the present case, three corollary issues have arisen for consideration by this Court-one, whether the papers have been duly circulated to all the members of the Managing Body; two, whether the majority of elected members of the Managing Body have expressed their opinion in favour of the decision and three, whether the President has decided it on the basis of the opinion of the majority of the members. The contention of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 is that the papers have not been duly circulated to them at all. In this regard, relying upon the report dated nil allegedly submitted on 12-03-2021 by the staff of the Co-operative Union filed in WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 along with the counter affidavit, it has been submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate that the staff of the Co-operative Union visited the residence of the members as mentioned therein for circulation of papers. On perusal of the said report, it appears that in respect of some of the members and in particular, the petitioners therein, the report states that the staff went to their houses but as they were not available at their homes, they were informed over the phone and they did not give any opinion. It is thus clearly seen that some of the members were not given proper opportunity to give their opinion either in favour of or against the decision. The relevant papers were not circulated to them nor did they see the papers at all for their perusal and consideration except they being informed over the phone about it. If that be so, they had no opportunity to sign in the decision sheet as has been done in respect of the eight members who did sign in the decision sheet. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents in WP (C) No. 420 of 2021, it has been stated that some of the members could not even be informed about the decision, as they were not found at their home. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents in WP (C) No. 420 of 2021, it has been stated that some of the members could not even be informed about the decision, as they were not found at their home. The manner in which the papers are alleged to have been circulated to all the members of the Managing Body, cannot be said to a proper circulation of papers in terms of the clause 26(iii) of the bye-laws for obtaining the opinion of the members. As regards the second corollary issue, the contention of the petitioners is that the resolution cannot be said to have been decided by a majority of the members. Out of the ten members who gave their opinion in favour of the decision, only eight are elected member and the remaining two are co-opted members who have no right to vote. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents made an attempt to contend that the decision was supported by nine members. But in fact, the decision was supported by eight elected members only. From the perusal of the letter dated 26-08-2017 addressed to the Principal Secretary (Co-op) Government of Manipur by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur showing the list of eighteen elected members, it is seen that the names of Shri S. Jilla Singh and Shri Sh. Hemanta Singh who had given their opinion in favour of the decision, are not found therein, which clearly demonstrates that both of them are not the elected members. The contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners appears to be correct to that extent. If that be so, it can be safely held that the alleged resolution probably adopted on 15-03-2021 was not decided by a majority of the members of the Managing Body or it was not supported by a majority of members with the result that the alleged resolution was bad as being decided contrary to the bye-laws. In other words, the majority of the members did not express their opinion in favour of the decision. The third corollary issue is as to whether the President had decided the resolution as per the opinion of the majority of the members. The answer appears to be in the negative for the reason that the President took its decision without application of mind, as if it had been supported by the majority of the members. The third corollary issue is as to whether the President had decided the resolution as per the opinion of the majority of the members. The answer appears to be in the negative for the reason that the President took its decision without application of mind, as if it had been supported by the majority of the members. In fact, the President appears to have proceeded on the footing that the resolution was supported and decided by a majority which is totally incorrect. It is nowhere stated in the alleged decision that the President had taken the decision after obtaining the opinion of the majority of the members of the Managing Body. As per clause 26(iii), it is the President who may take a decision as per the opinion of the majority of the members. The decision can be taken by the President only after the opinion of the majority of the member being obtained and not otherwise. In the present case, the President knew very well that the opinion was expressed by eight members only in favour of the resolution/decision. Since the decision was not supported by the majority of the elected members of the Managing Body, the President ought not to have decided and sent it to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for forwarding the same to the State Government for grant of approval. The correct procedure as prescribed in clause 26(iii) has not been properly followed by the President while taking the alleged decision. In other words, the alleged decision taken by the President is totally contrary to the provisions of clause 26(iii) of the bye-laws and therefore, it cannot be acted upon. 13.1 The second main issue relates to the validity and correctness of the letter dated 23-03-2021 of the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur; the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur and the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh. In fact, since the first issue having been decided holding that the resolution probably decided on 15-03-202, is bad in law, there is no need of going into the validity and correctness of the said letters. The stand taken by the State respondents as well as that of the private respondents, is that the said letters have been issued on the basis of the resolution probably decided on 15-03-2021 by the President. The stand taken by the State respondents as well as that of the private respondents, is that the said letters have been issued on the basis of the resolution probably decided on 15-03-2021 by the President. On perusal of the said letters, it is seen that the letter dated 23-03-2021 is written by the Deputy Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur conveying the approval of the State Government for deputation of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer. This letter appears to have been issued with reference to the letter dated 18-03-2021 requesting for grant of approval to the alleged decision of the Managing Body. As has been observed hereinabove, the alleged resolution probably adopted on 15-03-2021 by the President, cannot be said to have been decided in accordance with the bye-laws, as it was not signed by a majority of the members of the Managing Body as mandated by clause 25(3) of the bye-laws. The State Government appears to have not looked into it properly and applied its mind in this regard while issuing the letter dated 23-03-2021. Had the State Government applied its mind, it could have found the said resolution to be not in proper order and could have returned it to the President or the Managing Body for reconsideration and fresh decision in accordance with the bye-laws. The State Government has, in fact, failed to do that. The second letter dated 24-03-2021 written by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur talks about conveying approval to the appointment of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation. While issuing the said letter dated 24-03-2021, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies appears to have proceeded on the footing that the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh has been appointed as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation. It is a misconception on the part of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. No formal appointment order had ever been issued by the Managing Body appointing the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer. Only the alleged decision of the Managing Body was sent to the State Government for approval and after the approval being granted by the State Government, a formal order appointing the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer ought to have been issued by the Managing Body. Only the alleged decision of the Managing Body was sent to the State Government for approval and after the approval being granted by the State Government, a formal order appointing the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer ought to have been issued by the Managing Body. The issuance of the letter dated 24-03-2021 by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies granting approval to the appointment of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer without any formal appointment order being issued by the Managing Body, is absolutely improper; unreasonable and illegal. Similar is the case with the letter dated 24-03-2021 issued by the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh submitting a joining report and taking self charge as the Chief Executive Officer which is also illegal for the reason that he has not been appointed by the Managing Body as the Chief Executive Officer. It was only an alleged decision taken by the President and few members for his appointment as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation which was approved by the State Government. But no formal order was issued by the Managing Body appointing him as the Chief Executive Officer and in the absence of such an appointment order, the question of his joining as the Chief Executive Officer did not arise at all. 13.2 As per the recruitment rules, 2010, the method of recruitment for the post of the Chief Executive Officer is by promotion. If the post cannot be filled up by promotion, it shall be filled up by way of direct recruitment. However, if both the methods are not workable for recruitment, it may be done on deputation from the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Manipur until the post is filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment. In the alleged decision probably taken on 15-03-2021 by the President, it has been stated that as the officers of the Co-operative Union were not eligible for promotion to the post of the Chief Executive Officer, the resolution had been decided to appoint the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh on deputation as the Chief Executive Officer. It is not clear as to whether the Managing Body had done any exercise towards the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer by way of direct recruitment. It is not clear as to whether the Managing Body had done any exercise towards the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer by way of direct recruitment. The alleged decision probably taken on 15-03-2021 by the President, is silent on this aspect and no material has been placed on record to show that such an exercise has been done by the Managing Body. Without making an attempt towards the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer by way of direct recruitment, the Managing Body cannot proceed directly to the method of recruitment on deputation. Therefore, the process of appointment of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh as the Chief Executive Officer on deputation is contrary to the recruitment rules, 2010 as well as the bye-laws and hence, it is bad in law. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the said letters, impugned herein, are liable to be quashed and set aside. 14 In support of their contentions, the learned counsels appearing for the parties have cited and relied upon some of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After having perused the same, this Court is of the view that there can be no dispute as to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said cases but since the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases, they are not being referred to herein. 15. One aspect which needs to be considered by this Court at this juncture, is the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that although the petitioner in WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 had been working as the Chief Executive Officer for some years, he was not paid his salaries. Admittedly, he was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 22-09-2016 issued by the State Government which is not competent to do so. It appears that the said order dated 22-09-2016 was not challenged by anyone but it was cancelled vide order dated 18-02-2021 issued by the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur in a purported compliance with this Court’s order dated 02-02-2021. It appears that the said order dated 22-09-2016 was not challenged by anyone but it was cancelled vide order dated 18-02-2021 issued by the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur in a purported compliance with this Court’s order dated 02-02-2021. It has been contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is nowhere directed in this Court’s order dated 02-02-2021 that the order dated 22-09-2016 be considered for cancellation, if required. Since the order dated 18-02-2021 has not been challenged by the petitioner in WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 before the appropriate forum, this Court deems it appropriate not to make any observation thereon. But he is entitled to his salary for the service rendered by him, if the issuance of the alleged illegal or improper order of his appointment cannot be attributed to him. The State Government shall take into account this aspect while considering the computation of his salary for the service rendered by him either as the Principal or the Chief Executive Officer as well as the fact that he is retiring in December, 2021. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition being WP (C) No. 334 of 2021 is allowed, while the writ petition being WP (C) No. 420 of 2021 is allowed in part to the extent mentioned hereinabove and consequently, the letter dated 23-03-2021 of the Under Secretary (Co-operation), Government of Manipur; the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur and the letter dated 24-03-2021 of the private respondent, Shri O. Jiten Singh are quashed and set aside. However, it is open to the Managing Body of the Co-operative Union to initiate a process afresh for the recruitment of the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws and the relevant recruitment rules. There shall be no order as to costs.