ORDER : 1. Petitioner, an employee of District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 18.9.2012 (Annexure P-19) passed by the State Government rejecting challenge of petitioner as also appeal to so-called amendment dated 13.8.2010 in the Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1982') by which Rule 5 (3) (a) stood deleted. Petitioner has also challenged the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure P-17); the letter dated 13.8.2010, so-called amendment, in the Rules of 1982 and letter dated 4.2.2011 (Annexure P-15) by which respondent No.4 intimated the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, that promotion of respondent No.5 is as per service rules. 2. This writ petition is initially filed challenging order dated 4.2.2010, however, during pendency of writ petition, by way of amendments incorporated on different dates, above reliefs were sought for. 3. Pleadings in writ petition are that on 29.12.1982 petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier` in the District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Raipur. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant, thereafter to the post of Branch Manager and lastly, vide order dated 16.10.2001 he was promoted to the post of Industrial Development Officer (Class-I) and since then he is working on that post. Service of petitioner is governed by the Rules of 1982, which are framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under Section 55 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act of 1960’). The Rules of 1982 was amended and Rule 5 was substituted by Rule 5 (3) (a) (b) & (c), it came into force w.e.f. 4.7.2005. As per Rule 5 (3) (a), such employees who are appointed for special technical work or service in the Bank, will not be appointed or absorbed other than the work relating to their substantial post. Respondent No.5 was appointed on technical post and therefore, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Manager, which is a non-technical post. However, based on letter dated 13.8.2010 written by the Additional Registrar to respondent No.4 intimating that Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 has been deleted, respondent No.5 was considered and promoted, which is per-se wrong. However, based on letter dated 13.8.2010 written by the Additional Registrar to respondent No.4 intimating that Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 has been deleted, respondent No.5 was considered and promoted, which is per-se wrong. There is no proper order after due proceedings by the Competent Authority, as provided under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 for making amendment. The Additional Registrar is not having jurisdiction to amend the Rules of 1982. 4. Pleadings of respondents No.3 to 5 are to the effect that respondent No.5 was not getting any promotion since long, therefore, authorities took decision to amend Rule 5 (3) of the Rules of 1982 and to grant benefit to technical employees of the bank of further promotion to avoid stagnation. Proper procedure was followed, note sheets were recorded and thereafter amendment was made on 13.8.2010. After amendment, name of respondent No.5 was considered for promotion along with petitioner and respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 being senior and more meritorious to petitioner, was considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Manager, which is strictly as per rules. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would argue that service of petitioner as also respondent No.5 is governed by the Rules of 1982 framed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960. The Rules of 1982 being framed in exercise of powers conferred upon the Registrar under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960, it is statutory rules. Earlier, in the year 2005 the Rule Making Authority found necessary to amend Rule 5 of the Rules of 1982 in order to avoid confusion with regard to promotion of non-technical and technical employees of the Bank on Class-I posts. By virtue of amendment in Rule 5 (3), Rule 5 (3) (a) was inserted which clearly mentions that technical employees will not be absorbed or appointed on the work other than their substantial post. Prior to 2010 respondent No.5 was holding post of Assistant Engineer, which is a technical post, whereas post of Assistant Manager is non-technical post and therefore, in view of provision of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982, respondent No.5 was not eligible to be considered for promotion on the said post. Prior to 2010 respondent No.5 was holding post of Assistant Engineer, which is a technical post, whereas post of Assistant Manager is non-technical post and therefore, in view of provision of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982, respondent No.5 was not eligible to be considered for promotion on the said post. In order to give undue advantage to respondent No.5, the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, without there being amendment in the Rules of 1982 as per procedure prescribed, wrote letter to the respondent No.4 stating that Rule 5 (3) (a) is deleted. Letter dated 13.8.2010 cannot be treated as an order of amendment because amendment in the rules can be effected only in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960. Respondent No.4 only on the basis of letter dated 13.8.2010 initiated proceedings for promotion, included name of respondent No.5 in the zone of consideration and also promoted him, which is contrary to law and not sustainable. 6. She would further argue that amendment is a legislative function and any rule cannot be amended by way of letter written by an executive. She also pointed that letter dated 13.8.2010 bears “ordered by Registrar”, but the order passed by the Registrar for amendment in the Rules of 1982 has not been placed on record nor available with the bank/department. She also contended that amendment is challenged by petitioner, which was rejected against which an appeal was preferred and the adjudicating authority also failed to consider the fact that there was no proper procedure of amendment and no order for deleting provision under Rule 5 (3) (a) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petition of petitioner be allowed and relief as claimed in writ petition be granted. In support of her contentions she placed reliance on the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.726/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh & ors Vs. Dr. (Smt.) Kiran Agrawal) and the order dated 29.4.2019 in WP(Art.227) No.431/2013 (Managing Director & anr Vs. State of CG & ors). 7. In support of her contentions she placed reliance on the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.726/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh & ors Vs. Dr. (Smt.) Kiran Agrawal) and the order dated 29.4.2019 in WP(Art.227) No.431/2013 (Managing Director & anr Vs. State of CG & ors). 7. She next contended that objection initially raised by respondents with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of filing appeal against the order of promotion of respondent No.5, may not come in the way for deciding claim of petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after about 11 years from the date of filing of present writ petition. She submitted that writ petition was filed in the year 2011, it came up for hearing in the year 2023 and therefore, writ petition may be considered on merits. In support of her contention she placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors, reported in (2003) 12 SCC 91 & Krishan Lal vs. Food Corporation of India & ors, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 786 . 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that service of petitioner as also respondent No.5 is governed by the Rules of 1982. Considering stagnation in service career of respondent No.5, as reported, proceedings were drawn for amending the Rules of 1982. The Additional Registrar, who is competent to amend the Rules of 1982, had issued an order of amendment on 13.8.2010 and the effect of amendment is that all the employees of bank can be considered for promotion based on their seniority in the gradation list. From the order dated 13.8.2010 it is clearly reflecting that said action is ordered by the Registrar and in support thereof, he relied upon the order sheets filed by respective parties and available in record. It is contention of the State Counsel that proper procedure is followed for amendment and after deletion of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 by amendment, respondent No.5 following due procedure of holding meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was given promotion. Writ petition being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is contention of the State Counsel that proper procedure is followed for amendment and after deletion of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 by amendment, respondent No.5 following due procedure of holding meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was given promotion. Writ petition being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 would submit that Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982, which was brought in by way of amendment in the Rules of 1982, mentions that technical employees of bank will not be appointed or absorbed for the work other than the post which they are holding substantially. Aforesaid provision stood deleted on 13.8.2010 by way of amendment and therefore, respondents No.3 & 4 have initiated proceedings for promotion based on amended provision after 13.8.2010, considered name of petitioner and respondent No.5 and finding respondent No.5 more suitable and senior in gradation list, he was given promotion. The proceedings initiated for promotion based on amended Rules of 1982 cannot be said to be contrary to the law. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 adopting submissions of learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3 & 4, added that petitioner got more than one promotion in his service career, whereas respondent No.5 has not been given single promotion as there was no promotional avenues for the employees like respondent No.5, Based on representation of respondent No.5, proceedings were initiated in which Rules of 1982 was recommended to be amended and accordingly, Rule 5 (3) (a) stood deleted by way of amendment dated 13.8.2010. The Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is having jurisdiction and authority to amend the Rules of 1982. In support of his contention, he referred to Rule 2 (12) of the Rules of 1982 and submitted that the word ‘Registrar’ includes ‘Additional Registrar’ and ‘Joint Registrar’ and hence, Additional Registrar is also competent to amend the rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960. She submitted that the Rules of 1982 provides that Class-1 officer to be an employee of bank and indisputably respondent No.5 is also an employee of the bank. She submitted that the Rules of 1982 provides that Class-1 officer to be an employee of bank and indisputably respondent No.5 is also an employee of the bank. It is her contention that Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 was amended on 13.8.2010, merely because the provisions under which amendment was brought in, is not mentioned, the entire amendment will not become illegal and at best, it can only be said to be irregular. Procedure is followed and drawn in the note sheet. She referred to the note sheet placed in record from 10.2.2010 onwards. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & ors vs. Krishan Lal Arneja, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 453. 11. She also submitted that the Rule 3 of the Rules of 1982 talks of employees of the bank and respondent No.5 is an employee of bank, he was considered for promotion along with petitioner based on amendment dated 13.8.2010 and as criteria for promotion on the post of Assistant Manager was ‘merit-cumseniority’, respondent No.5 being more meritorious to petitioner was recommended and granted promotion. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 13. Petitioner has initially filed this writ petition aggrieved by letter dated 4.2.2011 written by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 justifying promotion of respondent No.5 by stating it to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1982. Subsequently, by way of amendment, other reliefs were also sought. Major amendments were brought in the year 2013-14. Thus, it is apparent that writ petition challenging promotion of respondent No.5 is pending consideration before this Court for the more than twelve years. 14. Other aspect of the case is that challenge to promotion of respondent No.5 is mainly on the ground that without there being any amendment in the Rules of 1982, only on the basis of letter dated 13.8.2010 respondent No.4 presuming that Rules of 1982 have been amended, drawn proceedings for promotion. Letter dated 13.8.2010 was put to challenge in an appeal on the ground that it is not an amendment. Said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the Minister In-charge, which is also challenged in this writ petition. Against the order of the State Government writ petition only will lie. Letter dated 13.8.2010 was put to challenge in an appeal on the ground that it is not an amendment. Said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the Minister In-charge, which is also challenged in this writ petition. Against the order of the State Government writ petition only will lie. Hence, I am not inclined to accept objection of learned counsel for respondents that writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternate remedy to petitioner against the order of promotion of respondent No.5. For this view I am fortified from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Ganga Retreat & Tower Ltd. (supra) and Krishan Lal (supra). 15. Next question for consideration of this Court is whether letter dated 13.8.2010,which is treated as amendment in the Rules of 1982, can be considered to be valid amendment as per procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1982. 16. Indisputably, the Rules of 1982 have been framed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960. Relevant portion of Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 is extracted below for ready reference:- "55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies.-(1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf." 17. As the Rules of 1982 have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960, it is having statutory effect and cannot be considered to be any bye-laws of a society. The Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Sevaram Totaram Pargir vs. Board of Revenue, reported in 1983 MPLJ 645 , held that the rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 19690 are statutory in nature and they cannot be equated with bye laws. The Full Bench observed thus:- “3…. In exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act, rules have been framed relating to terms of the employment and working conditions of employees of the co-operative Central Bank of Madhya Pradesh. The Full Bench observed thus:- “3…. In exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act, rules have been framed relating to terms of the employment and working conditions of employees of the co-operative Central Bank of Madhya Pradesh. It is well settled that where a statute authorizes either government or any other authority to frame rules and the rules are so framed, the rules would have the force of statute. They will be deemed to have been incorporated as part of the statute. The rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Act would, therefore, be statutory.....” 18. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Hemant Kumar Ganga Prasad Gupta vs. President, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & ors, reported in 1983 MPLJ 461 has observed thus:- ‘9 …… The power to make rules and issue orders under Section 55 conferred on the Registrar is in the nature of a legislative power which is delegated to him by the Act.......” 19. In case of Bikal Bihari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1986 MPLJ 347 , the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed thus:- "Section 55 (1) of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act is in two parts. First part permits the Registrar to frame Rules from time to time 2 1983 M.P.L.J. 461 3 1986 M.P.L.J. 347 governing the terns and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies. The second part requires the society or class of societies to which the rules are applicable, to comply with the Order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf. The first part is really the rule making authority conferred upon the Registrar whereas the second part is the Order making authority of the Registrar. Rule making function is legislative in nature. As far as the order making power is concerned such power is generally used to describe the exercise of executive power or to take judicial or quasi-judicial decisions. These two powers are separate and for distinct purposes." 20. In the above decisions, the principle of law which is emerging is that rule making function of the Registrar under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 is legislative in character. 21. Now reverting back to facts of present case. Perusal of socalled amendment dated 13.8.2010 would show that it is the letter written by the Additional Registrar to respondent No.4. 21. Now reverting back to facts of present case. Perusal of socalled amendment dated 13.8.2010 would show that it is the letter written by the Additional Registrar to respondent No.4. As for considering dispute involved in this writ petition, contents of letter dated 13.8.2010 are relevant and therefore, relevant portion of the same is quoted below for ready reference:- ^^dk;kZy; iath;d lgdkjh laLFkk,a] NRrhlxढ+ dzekad@lk[k@10 3672 jk;iqj] fnukad 13 vxLr 2010 izfr] eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk lgdkjh dsUnzh; cSad e;kZfnr] leLr ¼NRrhlxढ+½A fo"k; %& rduhdh lsok;qDrksa gsrq lsok fu;eksa esa la'kks/ku ckcr~ A ftyk lgdkjh dsUnzh; cSadksa esa dk;Zjr rduhdh deZpkfj;ksa dks dbZ o”kksZa dh lsokvksa ds i'pkr Hkh ik=rk gksrs gq, Hkh inksUufr dk ykHk ugha fey ik jgk gSA bl ckcr~ bl dk;kZy; dk /;ku vkd`”V fd;k x;k gS fd ml ij xaHkhjrk ls fopkj fd;k tkdj ftyk lgdkjh dsUnzh; cSad ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, izpfyr lsok fu;e dh dafMdk dzekad 5¼3½¼v½ dks foyksfir fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj cSad esa dk;Zjr rduhdh deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh ml in ,oa osrueku ls ofj”B in ,oa osrueku esa fu;ekuqlkj inksUufr dh ik=rk gksxhA vr% fu;ekuqlkj mfpr dk;Zokgh djsaA ¼iath;d }kjk vknsf'kr½^^ vij iath;d lgdkjh laLFkk,a] NRrhlxढ+Þ 22. Perusal of the above quoted letter would show that it is not an order but a letter of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to the respondent No.4. It also mentions subject. This letter mentions that Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 is deleted and at the end of letter at left side it is mentioned “ordered by Registrar”. From the contents of letter it is clear that it is not an order of amendment but only a letter based on some order stated to have been passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and respondents No.3 & 4 and others have treated it to be amendment in the Rules of 1982. None of the respondents has placed on record the order, if any, passed by the Registrar amending the Rules of 1982 in exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960. 23. The jurisdiction of Rule Making is a legislative function and therefore, it is the Registrar who has to pass order amending any rule in exercise of power conferred under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 and the letter dated 13.8.2010 also mentions about the order passed by the Registrar. 24. 23. The jurisdiction of Rule Making is a legislative function and therefore, it is the Registrar who has to pass order amending any rule in exercise of power conferred under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 and the letter dated 13.8.2010 also mentions about the order passed by the Registrar. 24. In view of above, submission of learned counsel for respondent No.5 that as per definition of ‘Registrar’ provided in Section 2 (12) of the Act of 1960, the Additional Registrar is also authorized to make amendment in the Rules of 1982 and it is Additional Registrar who had made amendment on 13.8.2010, is not sustainable. Letter dated 13.8.2010 would show that on 13.8.2010 the Additional Registrar has not issued any order making any amendment in the Rules of 1982, in fact, he has only given intimation/information that some amendment is made as ordered by the Registrar. In absence of any order of the Registrar, this Court is constrained to take a view that there was no order of amendment passed by any of the authorities for amending the Rules of 1982 in exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960, in particular amending Rule 5 (3) (a), as mentioned in letter dated 13.8.2010. 25. The proceedings/note sheets, which are heavily relied upon by learned counsel for respondents to submit that the proceedings were drawn, are not disputed. The proceedings only talk of consideration that there is necessity and requirement to amend the Rules of 1982 for the reasons mentioned therein, but the question arise is, whether pursuant to proceedings drawn, any order of amendment has been issued by the competent authority following due procedure prescribed. For amending the rules, the requirement is that there should be an order by competent authority exercising powers vested upon it under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960. No such order/document is placed before this Court to show that at any point of time the competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 has passed an order for amending provisions under Rule 5 (3) and deleting Rule 5 (3) (a). 26. Rule 5 (3) (a) is brought in by way of amendment vide order dated 4.7.2005. 26. Rule 5 (3) (a) is brought in by way of amendment vide order dated 4.7.2005. The order of amendment as also amended provision is extracted below for ready reference:- ^^,sls lsok;qDr fdlh fo'ks”k rdfudh dk;Z ;k lsok ds laca?k es fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS] mUgs ewy in ds dk;Z ls fHkUu dk;Z okys inksa ij fu;qDr ;k lafofy;u ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA^^ 27. If any rule has been brought in by the authority vested with power under the statute, then for deletion of said provision from the rules similar procedure is required to be adopted which in the case at hand is missing. In fact, in the eyes of law, there was no amendment order by the competent authority and placed before this Court and therefore, on the date of convening of DPC for promotion of petitioner and respondent No.5, the provisions of Rule 5 (3) (a) was very much existing in the Rules of 1982 which specifically debars employees holding technical post for their appointment or absorption on the post other than their substantial post. Respondent No.5 was holding technical post of Assistant Engineer and promotion was to be made on the post of Assistant Manager of bank, which is purely a managerial post of bank, and therefore, in view of specific provision under Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982, respondent No.5 was not eligible for his consideration, promotion on the post of Assistant Manager, which is Class-1 post of the bank. 28. Perusal of the order passed by the State Government dated 18.9.2012 would show that the appellate authority considered deletion of Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982 on 13.8.2010 based on demand of Sub-Engineers and Assistant Engineers, but there was no discussion or consideration of the appellate authority or any observation that on or before 13.8.2010 any order is passed, more so, in the order it is mentioned that demand was considered and non-applicant therein i.e. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide official circular dated 13.8.2010 deleted Rule 5 (3) (a) of the Rules of 1982. The appellate authority failed to consider that the Rules of 1982 being framed in exercise of power under Section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960 are statutory rules and any amendment in the Rules cannot be made by way of a circular/letter unless and until there is proper order exercising powers vested with the authority under the Act of 1960. The State Government while considering challenge to letter dated 13.8.2010 failed to take note of fact that in letter dated 13.8.2010 itself it is mentioned that the letter is issued pursuant to the order of the Registrar, whereas no order of amending Rule 5 (3) (a) is issued by the Registrar. Therefore, the order passed by the State Government in appeal preferred by petitioner challenging letter dated 13.8.2010 ‘so-called amendment’ is not sustainable. 29. For the foregoing discussions, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.9.2012 (Annexure P-19) passed by the State Government; proceedings of DPC dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure P-16); order of promotion of respondent No.5 dated 30.12.2010 (Annexure P-17) and letter dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed. Respondent No.3 and 4 are directed to convene review Department Promotion Committee based on the Rules of 1982 prevailing on the date of DPC i.e. 20.12.2010, expeditiously, if in the review DPC petitioner is found fit for promotion then he shall be granted 'notional promotion' from the date when respondent No.5 was granted promotion, fixing his seniority and pay accordingly. However, petitioner will not be entitle for any monetary benefit.