Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Registrar,Coop.Societies,Jaipur vs Amar Singh & Anr on 9 October, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 725 / 2017
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Inder Singh S/o Shri Bhairu Singh Rajput, aged about 57
years, resident of village Bera Tehsil Bali Distt Pali.
2. The Jalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalore, through its
Managing Director.
----Respondents
Connected with
(2) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 746 / 2017
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dilip Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Mangilal Brahmin, Aged 52 years,
resident of Village Guda Balotang Tehsil Ahor, Dist. Jalore.
2. The Jalore Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalore, through its
Managing Director.
----Respondents
(3) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 850 / 2017
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhaira Ram S/o Shri Ramchand Bishnoi, Aged 58 years,
resident of Karda Tehsil Raniwara, Dist. Jalore.
2. The Jalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalore, through its
Managing Director.
----Respondents
(4) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 895 / 2017
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
(2 of 4)
[SAW-725/2017]
1. Chain Singh S/o Shri Babu Singh RAjput, Aged 56 years,
resident of village Chandan Post Bhanwarani, Tehsil Jalore.
2. The Jalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalore, through its
Managing Director.
----Respondents
(5) D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 896 / 2017
The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Amar Singh S/o Shri Chandan Singh, Aged about 52 years,
by caste Rajput, resident of 40 Mahesh Pura, Jalore.
2. The Jalore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalore, through its
Managing Director.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sunil Joshi.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order 09/10/2017 Civil Misc. Applications No.355/17, 365/17, 431/17, 464/17 and 465/17:
1. For the reasons stated in the applications delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
Special Appeals (Writ) No.725/17, 746/17, 850/17, 895/17 and 896/17:
1. Eight writ petitions have been decided by the learned Single Judge vide common order dated 17.10.2016. The writ petitioners, impleaded as respondents in the appeals, while working as (3 of 4) [SAW-725/2017] Managers under different Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies were appointed as Loan Supervisors by way of promotion. Their salaries were fixed as Loan Supervisors, which were less than their last drawn salary when they were working as Managers. The respondents claimed for upgradation of their basic pay by fixing the same at par with their last drawn salary as Managers and relied upon Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951. The Cooperative Banks treated respondents' appointment as 'by direct recruitment'. Examining the entire record, learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the respondents were appointed by way of promotion and not by way of direct recruitment. The Cooperative Society had challenged the impugned decision by way of D.B. Special Appeals (Writ) No.433/2017, 461/2017, 462/2017, 464/2017, 465/2017, 466/2017, 467/2017 and 468/2017. Dismissing said writ appeals vide order dated 18.07.2017 the Division Bench held as under:
"We have examined the nature of the appointments in question. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, recruitment was made by the Bank as per order dated 09.03.2005 prescribing the mode of appointment to the post of Loan Supervisor inter alia. Clause (1) of the order dated 09.03.2005 prescribed that the educational qualification for direct recruitment as well as for promotion shall be as per Schedule A to C appended with the order. Clause (2) of the order referred above pertains to minimum and maximum age limit for appointment to different posts in different cadres of the appellant Bank. Suffice to mention that a higher maximum age limit is prescribed for the working staff with an additional relaxation of 5 years. Clause (3) of the order provides procedure for direct recruitment as well as for promotion. The order aforesaid also provides a mode to maintain seniority of the persons appointed by way of direct recruitment and by way of promotion. An important aspect of the matter is that clause (3) and (4) of the order aforesaid prescribes the constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee and the procedure that is to be followed by (4 of 4) [SAW-725/2017] the Departmental Promotion Committee while considering case of a person for promotion. It is not in dispute that the appointments in question were made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the order dated 09.03.2005. The appellant in their reply to the writ petition quite specifically stated that the Registrar has laid down the service conditions under the order dated 09.03.2005 and that was adhered while making the appointments. It is also not in dispute that the respondent-petitioners were already working as Manager with different Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies and they were eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Loan Supervisor by way of promotion as per the order dated 09.03.2005.
It is also pertinent to notice that the orders of appointment issued in favour of the respondent- petitioners nowhere refers about the procedure that was to be adhered while making appointments through direct recruitment. No advertisement, which is necessary requirement to initiate the process of appointment through open market, too has been brought to our knowledge.
In this factual background, we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench rightly arrived at the conclusion that the appointments were given to the respondent-petitioners by way of promotion as per the procedure given under the order dated 09.03.2005. The appeals, as such, are having no merit. Hence, dismissed."
2. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Government of Rajasthan who was also a respondent in the writ petitions as also was respondent No.2 in the writ appeals filed by the Cooperative Banks has challenged the impugned decision.
3. We have gone through the decision of the Division Bench dated 18.07.2017, and concur with the same.
4. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.
Mohit Tak