Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
A.P. State Co-Op. Credit Societies ... vs Commissioner For Co-Operation And ... on 13 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD165, 2000(6)ALT494
ORDER
1. In this writ petition this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the General Manager of a Co-operative Central Bank Limited is empowered to transfer the paid Secretaries working in the Societies affiliated to the Bank, more so in the light of unreported judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No.15845 of 1992 dated 12-2-1993 rendered by Sri Y. Bhaskara Rao, J., (as he then was), Writ Petition No.9637 of 1995 dated 27-10-1996 rendered by Sri C. V.N. Sastri, J. (as he then was) and in Writ Petition No.2638 of 1996 dated 3-12-1996 rendered by Sri D.H. Nasir, J., (as he then was).
2. The A.P. State Co-operative Credit Societies Secretaries and Employees Union, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, represented by its President, filed this writ petition espousing the cause of paid Secretaries affected by the transfer orders passed by the 3rd respondent-General Manager.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.
4. The relief sought for in this writ petition is sought to be contested by the learned Counsel for the respondents-Bank on various grounds including the preliminary objection with regard to focus standi of the petitioner-Union in filing the present writ petition without making the affected paid Secretaries as party petitioners to this writ petition.
5. With regard to the preliminary issues raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents, on previous day of hearing, I permitted the Counsel for the petitioners to implead the Secretaries who were transferred by the 3rd respondent-General Manager as party petitioners. Accordingly, they were impleaded as party petitioners.
6. Now an objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents that as no Vakalat has been filed on their behalf, learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot represent them before this Court. At the same time, the learned Counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the Secretaries who were transferred are not members of the petitioner-Union and that they are not interested in opposing the transfers. Be that as it may, to satisfy the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents, I directed the Counsel for the petitioners to file Vakalat of the persons who were impleaded as petitioners under the orders of this Court.
7. In Chairman Railway Board and others v. Chandrima Das (Mrs), and others, the Supreme Court while dealing with the locus standi of an advocate in filing a writ petition seeking compensation from an instrumentality of the State to a victim of rape committed by its employees, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"In the context of public interest litigation, however, the Court in its judgments has given the widest amplitude and meaning to the concept of locus standi. In People's Union for Democrative Rights v. Union of India, , it was laid down that public interest litigation could be initiated not only by filing formal petitions in the High Court but even by sending letters and telegrams so as to provide easy access to Court. (See also Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, and State of H.P. v. A Parent of a student of Medical College, on the right to approach the Court in the realms of public interest litigation). In Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa, , the Court held that the restricted meaning of aggrieved person and the narrow outlook of a specific injury has yielded in favour of a broad and wide construction in the wake of public interest litigation. The Court further observed that public-spirited citizens having faith in the rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing causes of public nature. They cannot be ignored or overlooked on a technical or conservative yardstick of the rule of locus standi or the absence of personal loss or injury. There has, thus, been spectacular expansion of the concept of locus standi. The concept is much wider and it has taken in its stride anyone who is not a mere "busybody".
8. In Malik Brothers v. Narendra Dadhich and others, the Supreme Court white dealing with an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore, wherein the auction conducted by the Indore Development Authority and the award of the competent arbitrator were set-aside on a petition filed by a tax payer of the Indore Municipality as Public Interest Litigation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, observed as under:
"Before embarking upon an enquiry into the legality of the impugned judgment of the High Court, it is necessary to bear in mind that a public interest litigation is usually entertained by a Court for the purpose of redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social rights and vindicating public interest. The real purpose of entertaining such application is the vindication of the rule of law, effective access to justice to the economically weaker class and meaningful realisation of the fundamental rights. The directions and commands issued by the Courts of law in a public interest litigation are for the betterment of the society at large and not for benefiting any individual".
9. From these decisions it is evident that the concept of locus standi was not only given the widest amplitude and meaning, but made it clear and also declared that the purpose of entertaining such application is to redress public injury, enforcing public duty, vindicating public interest and protecting social rights of economically weaker classes.
10. The Paid Secretaries who are fighting for their existence without proper time scales of pay for decades cannot be expected to approach the highest Court by spending huge monies. Further the General Manager resorted to transfer the Secretaries without any authority of law and such an action is nothing but an arbitrary action. Hence, I hold that the petitioner-Union is having locus standi to espouse the cause of its members following the above decisions of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the contention that the petitioner-Union has no locus standi to file the writ petition is rejected.
11. Before considering the other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition, the facutal background of this case has to be looked into.
12. I am of the view that none of the learned Judges of this Court who delivered orders in the above writ petitions referred above, have taken note of the factual background before passing the orders. I feel that the ratio decidendi in those orders was not in accordance with law or what the Statute wants to achieve by abolishing common cadre of paid Secretaries. In fact, their Lordships, in the above orders cited supra, have missed the crucial point i.e., the General Manager of a Bank is neither the appointing authority nor disciplinary authority, either before abolition of common cadre or thereafter. Under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') a Co-operative Central Bank only acts as lending agency to the primary agricultural credit societies and they will exercise the limited control on the financial transactions of the society. Except that, the Banks have no control in the administrative affairs of the society. It is only under Rule 72(5) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') which was introduced by way of amendment to the rules in G.O. Ms. No.704 (Co-op IV), dated 4-12-1987 a limited power to the extent of taking disciplinary action was conferred on the General Manager more so after the Registrar of Co-operatives takes a decision for initiation of disciplinary proceedings but not otherwise. Except this limited power, the General Manager of a Bank cannot exercise any other powers more so with regard to the service conditions of the employees of the society either before or after the abolition of the common Cadre of paid Secretaries.
13. For the first time by way of an amendment to the Act, Section 116-A was introduced by Amending Act 10 of 1970. Under said Section 116-A, if the Registrar of the Co-operative Society in the interest of the co-operative movement", considers that the creation of a common cadre of employees for any class of societies is necessary, he may, constitute an appointment committee or authorize one or more federal societies to which such class of societies are affiliated, to exercise the power of appointment, transfer and disciplinary action in respect of such categories of employees of that class of societies as may be specified by him and make such regulations as may be necessary for carrying out the said purpose. Where such appointment committee is constituted or federal society is authorized by the Registrar, the affiliated societies shall not have powers to deal with such categories of employees except to the extent the regulation may permit.
14. In exercise of the powers conferred on him under this Section, the Registrar of the Co-operative societies in Roc No.32054/ 74-CHB, dated 29-4-1978, constituted common cadres for the Chief Executives functioning in the societies and they were designated as paid Secretaries. He also constituted an appointment committee consisting of the Chief Executives (Principal Officer) of the Co-operative Central Bank i.e., General Manager/Managing Director/ Secretary as Ex.Officio-Chairman and Convenor, (ii) Divisional Co-operative Officer having jurisdiction over the Cooperative Central bank, two representatives of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies to be nominated by the District Co-operative Officer and one representative of each of commercial Bank/Bank to be nominated by District Co-operative Central Banks in whose area Primary Agricultural Credit Societies have been admitted as members.
15. The appointment committee shall have the power to prescribe the procedure for appointment to the post of the paid Secretary in Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The Committee shall arrange for recruitment of persons to the posts of paid Secretaries through the Employment Exchange or by promoting the clerks working in the affiliated Primary Agricultural Credit Societies who possess the required qualifications and training, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies duly observing the Rules of Reservation.
16. Under sub-para of this regulation the Chairman of the Appointment Committee shall have powers of appointment of the paid Secretaries form the list of candidates recruited by the committee in accordance with the procedure laid down, for their transfer from one Society to another and exercise disciplinary control over them.
17. Regulation 3(5) deals with the service conditions i.e., qualifications, method of recruitment, probation, superannuation, securities, service record etc. Regulation 3(5) (viii) deals with the Disciplinary Action. The Chairman of the Appointment Committee shall be competent to initiate disciplinary action and impose punishments including discharge from service. From this it is seen that the General Manager of the Bank is acting as a Ex-Officio Chairman and convenor of the Committee by virtue of his nomination and in his capacity as Ex-Officio Chairman and convenor. Hence, any power exercised by the General Manager in relation to the Paid Secretaries shall be in accordance with Common Cadre regulations and de hors Common Cadre regulations he has no control whatsoever as General Manager in his capacity.
18. Several amendments were made to these Common Cadre regulations by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in Roc.No.46728/82-C2(B), dated 6-5-1982 including the reconstitution of the appointment committee as hereunder:
(1) President of the Co-operative Central Bank - Chairman (2) District Co-operative Officer - Member (3) Three Presidents of the P.A.C.S. to be nominated by the District Co-operative Officer - Members (three) (4) General Manager of the Cooperative Central Bank - Member Secretary Regulation 3(2) is substituted hereunder:
"Appointment :--The General Manager of the Co-operative Central Bank and Member-Secretary shall issue orders of Appointment of the Paid Secretaries to Primary Agricultural Credit Societies in the Cadre, as decided by the Appointment Committee keeping in view the rules prescribed for such recruitment and instructions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in this behalf from time to time.
Transfers :--The General Manager/ Member-Secretary of the Appointment Committee shall have powers of transfer of the paid Secretaries from one society to other, in respect of those who completed three years in one society and shall place it before the Chairman.
Any cases of transfer within three years in the exigencies of Cadre administration shall be made by the General Managers in consultation with the Chairman and shall be placed before the next meeting of the Appointment Committee.
Disciplinary action :--The General Managers shall have powers to suspend, censure and withholding of increment of paid Secretaries with appellate powers to the Chairman.
The Chairman shall have power to remove from service the paid Secretaries and the appellate powers shall vest with the Appointment Committee.
Regulation 3(5Xviii) governing "Disciplinary Action" shall be modified to the extent indicated above.
19. From the above it is seen that the composition of the Appointment Committee was changed and the President of the Co-operative Bank was nominated as Chairman, the District Co-operative Officer and three Presidents of the Primary Agricultural Credit Societies nominated by the District Co-operative officer (other than Directors of the Co-operative Central Bank) in consultation with the President of the Bank as members and the General Manager of the Bank to act as a Member Secretary of the Appointment Committee. It is also stated therein "the above reconstituted Appointment Committees shall exercise powers of appointment, transfer and disciplinary action as per the Regulations framed for that purpose and modified to the extent specified therein".
20. In the last it was observed that wherever the word "Chairman" occurs it shall be read as "Member-Secretary". After the amendment came into force the General Manager as Member-Secretary has to give effect to the decisions of the Appointment Committee. In that capacity he was given the power to transfer subject to ratification by the Chairman in case where the transfer was affected after completion of three years and in other cases the Appointment Committee. As far as the disciplinary action is concerned, power to suspend, censure and withholding of increment of paid Secretaries were alone conferred on the Member/Secretary with appellate powers to the Chairman.
21. While things stood thus, the Government constituted a committee of three Secretaries to study the co-operative credit structure and make recommendations for effective co-operative credit structure headed by Sri U.B. Raghavendra Rao. This committee in its report, apart from other suggestions, recommended to the government for abolition of common cadres for the paid Secretaries and they have to be made permanent employees of the society. The Government accepted the report and several amendments were made to the Act by amendment Act 21 of 1988 which came into force from 22-4-1985. A new section, Section 116-AA was introduced for abolition of Centralised services for certain categories of employees. It is not in disputes that common cadre for the paid Secretaries was abolished under this section with effect from on and from the commencement of the amending Act and on such abolition the Registrar was empowered to make rules and allot the employees included in the cadre to such primary Agricultural Credit Societies as he may deems fit. Proviso to this section reads as follows:
"Provided that until they are allotted as aforesaid they shall continue in the posts in which they are working at the commencement of the said Act."
22. Thereafter rules were amended by issuance of G.O. Ms. No.454 (Co-op. IV) dated 13-9-1985 introducing Rule 72 providing guidelines for allotment of decaderised Secretaries to the Societies to various societies, but somehow though common cadre was abolished about 15 years back till now the allotment of Secretaries on permanent basis could not be completed by the authorities concerned. It is the reflection on the efficiency and devotion to the duties on the part of the superior officials.
23. Learned Counsel for the respondents-Bank strenuously contended that because of the judicial intervention the process of allotment would not be completed. It is not his case that the High Court has interfered with the transfer for the sake of interfering with the administration without pointing out the illegalities and irregularities committed by the authorities concerned in making allotments. In fact the issue of allotment of these Secretaries is in this Court in one form or the other and every time the actions of the authorities were interdicted for not following the procedure and guidelines for allotting the Secretaries to various societies as required under Rule 72 of the Rules, stated above.
24. Pending allotment of the decaderised Secretaries to various societies on permanent basis the authorities found difficult in taking disciplinary action against the erring Secretaries and an analogous situation has arisen. To come out of the difficult situation the Government amended Rule 72 of the Rules by G.O. Ms. No.704 (Co-op IV) dated 4-12-1987 and introduced sub-rule (5) which is extracted hereunder :
"(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (4), until the allotments of the Secretaries is made to the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies as per the guidelines laid down in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Secretaries for the purpose of disciplinary control, shall be governed by the Common Cadre Regulations existing prior to the abolition of the common Cadre of Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies and the General Managers of the Co-
operative Central Banks on a decision by the Registrar shall initiate action against the said Secretaries for lapses committed by them in the societies they are working after the decaderisation."
25. The underlined portions of the rule makes it abundantly clear that limited power to the extent of taking disciplinary action against the erring Secretaries with the approval of the Registrar pending allotment of the Secretaries to the societies on permanent basis was conferred on the General Manager but not all the powers envisaged by him as Member-Secretary of the appointment committee under common cadre Regulations. Hence, it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination the power to transfer a secretary was conferred on him.
26. Be that as it may, even introduction of Rule 72(5) after abolition of the common cadres, without making permanent allotments, some General Managers started transferring the Secretaries from one place to other, while some Presidents of the Societies started surrendering the Secretaries to the General Managers stating that they did not require their services and in fact the Presidents of the Societies as well as the General Managers of the Banks started playing with the lives of the paid Secretaries. In these circumstances, the fist respondent issued a circular in Roc.No.73089/92-PSES/K2, dated 31-12-1993. This circular is crystal clear. This circular says about the illegal acts that are being committed by the General Managers as well as the Presidents of the Societies. It would be expedient here to extract the same:
"It has came to the notice of the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies that transfers of Secretaries are being ordered by the General Manager /District Co-operative Officers in certain District with or without placing the matter before the District Level Committee. In certain other cases the Presidents of societies are surrendering the allotted Secretaries either to the Department or to the District Co-operative Central Bank with or without supporting Board resolution. In some cases exemption proposals from basic qualifications and age limit are being recommended without examining the merits of the case and the existing instructions on the subject. Lot of inconvenience is experienced by the Revisionary Authorities and the Government Pleader due to this irregular exercise of powers by the respective authorities. The issues have been examined and the following instructions are issued on the above issues for strict compliance by the District Co-operative Officers and General Managers in the State.
1. Following the decaderisation in 1985 and incorporation of Section 116-AA in APCS Act of 1964, the Secretaries of the erstwhile common cadre also become the life time employees of the respective societies. Hence, it goes without further elucidation that the employees of a society are not transferable at all during their entire service in the society except in cases of inter change of Secretaries in the special bye-laws.
The transfers now being ordered by the General Managers under Rule 72(5) are also not regular even in the districts where decaderisation is not completed as on date. The application of common cadre regulations referred thereto for the purpose of disciplinary control does not confer powers to transfer under erstwhile Regulation No.3 of common cadre regulations. Under the disciplinary action held in Regulation 3 of common cadre regulations, the General Managers are vested with powers only to (a) suspend (b) censure (c) withholding of increments of Secretaries with appellate powers to the Chairman. Hence, the General Managers can exercise the powers mentioned above under a, b and cfor purpose of disciplinary control where decoderisation process is not yet completed but nor competent to order transfer from one place to another. The employees in all the districts will be governed by the Special bye-laws relating to service 'conditions communicated vide reference (cited supra) excepting for disciplinary control in districts where decoder isation is not completed when Rule 72(5) is attracted.
Under the revised special bye-laws relating to the service conditions communicated through this office Cir. Memo No.73089/92-PACS, dated 8-10-1993 no provision for transfer is incorporated excepting inter change within the Districts with mutual consent in respect of Secretaries and placement of spouses in neighbouring societies. This does not confer any powers of general transfer either in the District Level Committee or in the General Manager/DCO's. Further the District Level Committee can consider inter change and placement of spouses only in respect of societies which have adopted the revised social bye-laws and not in other cases."
27. The special bye-laws framed by the 1st respondent governing the service conditions of the employees of the societies were adopted by all the societies in the State. Under these bye-laws, the Chief Executive of the Society is designated as Secretary who is no other than the Paid Secretary, under the common cadre regulations that were in force prior to decaderisation.
28. Under Rule 2(b) of the special bye laws decaclerised Secretary on his allotment to a particular society shall become the employee of the society from the date of his joining the duty in pursuance of the said allotment. Under Rule 2(c) of the special bye laws the' previous service rendered by the Secretary in the common cadre before his allotment shall be counted for all purposes. Under bye-law 3, appointments to the further vacancies in the post of Secretary in the society shall be made by the Managing Committee from out of the panel of three names recommended by the District Level Committee constituted therein. Special bye law 12 deals with disciplinary control over the employees of the society including the Secretary. I am not specially adverting to that provisions as that situation has not arisen in this case.
29. From this it is seen that after abolition of the Common Cadre Regulations and until allotment of the Secretaries is made to the Societies on permanent basis they were governed by the Common Code Regulations only for the purpose of disciplinary control but not for other purposes, which were in force prior to the abolition of the Common Cadre of Secretaries. It is pertinent to mention here that by putting a rider by stating that he shall initiate disciplinary proceedings only after the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies takes a decision to initiate proceedings against the paid Secretaries for the lapses committed by them in the societies where they are working after decaderisation, the powers of the General Manager were curtailed.
30. Inspite of the statutory provisions and the circular referred to supra, General Manager of the 3rd respondent Bank transferred the paid Secretaries from time to time, more so emboldened by the judgments referred to, supra.
31. The principle contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that under proviso to Section 116-AA of the Act the word used is the "post" but not the "place" which found favour with the Judges of this Court in the earlier orders referred supra. To my mind, with great respect, the learned Judges did neither look into the background under what circumstances Section 116-AA came into force and the purport of Rule 72(5) introduced in the 1987 or the circular issued by the first respondent-Registrar of the Co-operative Societies dated 31-12-1993 explaining the legal position.
32. Though Sri D.H. Nasir, J., (as he then was) in his judgment having referred to the circular dated 31-12-1993 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, jumped to the conclusion without analysing the factual background and circumstances of the situation by following the judgments of olher Judges. All the learned Judges have taken the view that "post" means "designation" but not the place of post. I feel that the interpretation placed by the learned Judges of this Court in hyper technical and the same is not correct for the simple reasons that the Secretary is a Secretary either before the abolition of the common cadre or thereafter. A look at the Common Cadre Regulations makes it abundantly clear that the Chief Executive Officer of the Society is designated as the Secretary. Under special bye laws framed by the Registrar in the year 1992 that were adopted by the all the societies in the State, the position of the Secretary continued as such and the question of changing designation after their allotment to any other society on permanent basis does not arise. When an employee is called Secretary before and after the abolition of the Common Cadre Regulations if the interpretation placed by the learned Judges is accepted the proviso will lose its purpose and it becomes redundant. On the other hand a combined reading of the Common Cadre Regulations, Section 116-AA of the Act along with its proviso makes its clear that the paid Secretaries functioning under the Common Cadre Regulations will continue in the same societies where they are working on the date of abolition of the common cadre till their allotment on permanent basis takes place. The learned Counsel for the respondent fairly admitted that the transfer cannot be termed as a disciplinary action and it is only on administrative action taken by an authority competent to exercise that power. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I have to see whether the General Manager is the competent to effect transfers of the Secretaries.
33. As observed supra, in the capacity of the General Manager of a financing bank he cannot touch any of the employees of the society. It is only under the Common Cadre Regulations Member Secretary of the Appointment Committee the General Manager is exercising the power of transfer. When the Common Cadre Regulations were not in force, the General Manager cannot exercise the power of transfer as the Common Cadre to paid Secretaries was abolished on 22-4-1985. Even according to the learned Counsel for the respondents Rule 72(5) of the Rules won't cloth the General Manager to exercise the power of transfer. Only the power of exercising disciplinary control prior to abolition of the Common Cadre Regulations is to be allowed to be exercised only when the Registrar takes a decision that it is a fit case to initiate disciplinary action for the lapses committed by the erring Secretaries but not otherwise. Hence, it cannot be said that the General Manager can exercise the power of transfer as he is not the appointing disciplinary authority for the paid Secretaries.
34. Learned Counsel for the respondents nextly contended that as long as new rules are not framed, rules under the repealed statute continue to be in force under Section 132 of the Act. This situation will arise when the legislation is silent on this aspect or the legislation makes a provision that the rules or regulations framed under the repealed provisions will be in force or ifit can be inferred from any of the provisions that the regulations framed under the repealed provision continue to be in force. In this case such a contingency will not arise. On the other hand, a reading of the Section 116-AA of the Act makes it very clear that when the common cadres are abolished the question of applying Common Cadre Regulations for the decaderised Secretaries does not arise. Having realised the difficulties in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the erring paid Secretaries the Government amended Rule 72 of the Rules and incorporated sub-rule (5) for a limited purpose of conferring the power of taking disciplinary action that too only aller a decision is taken by the first respondent-Registrar of the Co-operative Societies but not otherwise. If the contention of the Counsel is to be accepled there is no need to amend Rule 72 and incorporate sub-rule (5) conferring a limited power of disciplinary control under the Common Cadre Regulations on the General Manager. In fact the circular dated 31-12-1993 made it abundantly clear that the power conferred under Rule 72(5) of the Rules to take disciplinary action does not confer powers of transfer on the General Manager. When it is the case of the respondents themselves that the order of transfer cannot be termed as a disciplinary action it is beyond anybody's comprehension how the power of transfer can be exercised by the 3rd respondent-General Manager of the bank. It should be kept in mind that Rule 72(5) is a transitory provision empowering the General Manager to initiate disciplinary action against the erring Secretaries in the interregnum period between the date of abolition of Common Cadres and the date of permanent allotment of the Secretaries to a particular society on permanent basis. When once the provision of allotment is over the special bye laws already adopted by the societies have to be made applicable even to the decaderised Secretaries, and for taking disciplinary action against the decaderised Secretary under bye laws the District Level Committee was constituted. Hence, it cannot be said that the power of transfer is vested in the General Manager, as he is not the appointing authority and also on the ground that Common Cadre Regulations can no longer be applied to the decaderised Secretaries except to the limited extent of exercising the disciplinary control under Rule 72(5) of the Rules, but not otherwise.
35. Lastly the learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the circular issued by the first respondent dated 31-12-1993 cannot be construed as a circular issued by the first respondent in exercise of the general of superintendence vested in him under Section 4(2) of the Act. However, a reading of Section 4(2) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is empowered to make such directions from time to time either in the interests of the co-operative movement or in the interest of the public or in order to prevent the affairs of the society from being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members or depositors or creditors thereon and the society shall comply with such directions. The word "public interest" occurring in Section 4(2) of the Act is wide enough to hold that the Registrar is empowered to give directions which are of general importance in the interests of the co-operative movement. When the General Managers of the District Central Co-operative Banks as well as the Presidents are acting at their whims and fancies taking advantage of non-completion of the allotment of Secretaries to the societies on permanent basis, there is no other way except to contain these officials by making legal position clear to them. In that direction the circular was given by the first respondent and there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the direction cannot be treated as a direction given by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers of general superintendence vested in him under Section 4(2) of the Act. .
36. For all these reasons, I hold that the ratio decidendi laid down in those cases is not a correct proposition of law. Therefore, I have not chosen to refer the matter to the Division Bench and decided the matter myself taking a different view from the other learned Judges.
37. In the light of the foregoing discussion I hold that the 3rd respondent-General Manager, pending finalisation of the allotment of the Secretaries on permanent basis, has no power to transfer the decaderised Secretaries as he is not an appointing authority and that the Common Cadre Regulations ceased to be in force after introduction of Section 116-AA of the amendment Act 21 of 1985. Accordingly the transfer orders given by the 3rd respondent-General Manager on 19-12-1999 are set aside and if any orders were passed during the pendency of the writ petition transferring the Secretaries from one society to other they are set at naught and the 3rd respondent is directed that all the Secretaries shall be restored back to the place they are working.
38. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.